Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Tell John Edwards: "Crony-In, Crony Out" Led to 43-Term White Male Monopoly of the Presidency and Vice Presidency


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Today, I received a mass e-mail from Joe Trippi, John Edwards' senior adviser, about the resignation of Alberto Gonzalez:

( . . . ) as pleased as we are to see Gonzales go, the fight is far from over. ( . . . ) John Edwards knows America deserves better than crony out, crony in—and if Bush tries to replace one crony with another, John will lead the fight against their nomination just like he led the calls for Gonzales to resign more than five months ago.

We need your support in this fight—just like we needed your support in the fight against Gonzales. Support the campaign that is saying "no" to crony out, crony in—make a donation today.

John knows that this ongoing debacle is only one example of how Washington is rigged for well-connected D.C. insiders and against everyone else.

We need big change to fix the way Washington D.C. works ( . . . )

What could be a more gross example of "crony-in-crony out" than an unbroken string of 43 consecutive white male presidencies AND vice presidencies? Isn't this America's most infamous case of historical cronyism? Wouldn't adding one more white male president to an already all-white-male club be just another example of cronyism at its worst? Is there anything so great about John Edwards that he deserves to be the 44th consecutive white man in the job? Let' face it! If he were Black or Latino or female with such a mediocre record and no real history of political accomplishments, then he'd wouldn't even be running.

John Edwards' observations are so obvious that they are hard to disagree with. 'Bush is bad, Gonzalez is bad, Bush will name a bad replacement.' The ability to state the obvious about national problems is not indication that a candidate has viable solutions or even a real determination to confront those problems. Maybe he just wants to get elected. And then he would be our problem.

John Edwards has a habit of insisting that America's worst problems are a good reason
to send money to John Edwards, and to support his campaign, and he has set up a string of anti-poverty corporations whose greatest accomplishment is keeping Edwards campaign members on staff between elections and paying for Edwards' national and international travel and administrative costs. Here's what SourceWatch.Org says about Edwards "Dodging campaign finance laws:"
Edwards, who reported in 2007 "that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution ... to keep alive his public profile [after his 2004 defeat as the Democratic vice presidential candidate] without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff..., creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty.

The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show," Leslie Wayne reported June 22, 2007, in the New York Times.[12]

Because "Edwards said the organization’s purpose was 'making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,' its federal filings say it financed 'retreats and seminars' with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations," Wayne wrote.

"The money paid Mr. Edwards's expenses while he walked picket lines and met with Wall Street executives. He gave speeches, hired consultants, attacked the Bush administration and developed an online following. He led minimum-wage initiatives in five states, went frequently to Iowa, and appeared on television programs. He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia, and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, at 10 Downing Street," Wayne wrote.

"In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, [Edwards] created a leadership political action committee and a 527 'soft money' organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts.

"From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile," Wayne wrote. SourceWatch.O
See also, What Edwards Doesn't Get About Poverty, w/Francis L. Holland cited in the American Prospect.

Edwards claims that he wants to be president to help the poor - women and Black people who aren't as rich as he is. He says he wants to end "crony-out, crony in." But, let's face it: Although there is cronyism among white men in the Democratic Party and among white men in the Republican Party, the greatest system of cronyism is the one that promotes white men above all others, regardless of party. That's why we've had 43 consecutive white male presidencies and vice presidencies.

So, let's end "crony-out, crony in" in 2008. Let's end the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency!

Sunday, August 26, 2007

New Analysis Shows Markos Moulitsas Had 1-2 Years CIA Employment AFTER Starting DailyKos

A fresh analysis of the timeline of the life of Markos C.A. Moultisas Zúñiga (MAMZ), based on testimony he gave in his speech at the Commonwealth Club on June 2, 2006, proves that MAMZ must have been at the CIA for AT LEAST one year, and maybe TWO YEARS. Wiki: Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga

This means that after MAMZ completed the standard six-month CIA interviewing period, he must have accepted to be trained by the CIA WITH PAY in the months that followed.

This is NOT what MAMZ has told the public, and it appears that he must clearly have lied about the nature and duration of his involvement with the CIA.
In his June 2, 2006 speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, MAMZ said that he began “interviewing” at the CIA in 2001.


During the Commonwealth Club speech, MAMZ ALSO said that his time at the CIA ended when he began working for Howard Dean. However, upon reviewing the historical record, it was only on 18 months later, on June 9, 2003 that MAMZ “officially” announced at DailyKos that his consulting firm, (Jerome) Armstrong/Zúñiga, had won a consulting contract with Howard Dean’s presidential campaign.

On that day, MAMZ said at DailyKos, “I've been on the road a lot the past few months. Some of it was for my day job as a web developer. But the bulk of it was for my new political consulting firm (alongside my partner).
I spent this weekend in Burlington, VT, where we officially accepted work on behalf of presidential candidate Howard Dean” DailyKos Archives


So, count the months: Even if MAMZ began his time at the CIA on December 31, 2001, he would have to have still been there 17 months later if he turned down permanent employment at the CIA when he began to work for Howard Dean. Wiki: Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga

This analysis of the timeline is based on MAMZ’s own words. This proves that, based on MAMZ own recollection of events, he MUST have worked at the CIA for at least 18 months, including a full year AFTER he started DailyKos.

Since MAMZ started DailyKos May 22, 2002, the inescapable conclusion of this analysis of the timeline is that MAMZ was employed and training at the CIA for at least 17 to 18 months during the very same period when he was leading an ostensibly leftist anti-war blog.

It does seem to present a very serious conflict of interest and breach of the public trust to lead an anti-war blog at the same time that one is secretly working for a Government agency whose job is to investigate, infiltrate and disrupt anti-war activities.

Because the proof comes from a careful analysis of MAMZ’s own words, this is no longer in the realm of “conspiracy theories.” It is an infiltration in-fact of the anti-war movement and the Democratic Party by an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Because of censorship issues at MyLeftWing (in that we have been ordered by the owner, Maryscott OConnor, not to investigate the MAMZ/CIA facts any further at that blog, and some of us have been banned for insisting on doing so) Peeder of MyLeftWing has started a new blog – “Political Fleshfeast” – specifically for the purpose of continuing the investigation and analysis of CIA infiltration the Establishment blogosphere, blog apartheid, and other issues whose investigation leads to bannings at the Establishment blogs.

At this new blog, the blogger who first broke the story at MyLeftWing of MAMZ’s CIA involvement, Stupiddy, has been re-analyzing the biographical information provided by Markos C.A. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ).

To make this story easier for the reading public to follow, I have prepared a MS Word-based chronological timeline table of Markos C.A. Moulitsas’ life, that makes the graphic and visual case that MAMZ was probably on the CIA payroll for as long as two years, based on his own statements.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Clinton v. Obama

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Here's Earl Ofari Hutchinson, posting at Black America Web, on the electoral contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for the presidency:

The recent news that Hillary Clinton had appreciably widened the gap over her fierce arch rival Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nod wasn’t surprising. ( . . . ) Clinton knows what Obama is slowly discovering and that’s that elections are won not in early popularity polls, but in tough, gritty work in the state party caucuses, recruiting crack field organizers, and dedicated volunteers. Voters elect presidents that they feel will do three things: Bring stability, strength, and experience to the top spot.

In the USA Today poll that proclaimed that Clinton gaps Obama, voters gave her top marks on experience and strength (They gave Obama short shrift on both.). That’s another way of saying that they don’t want someone in the White House that will stumble and bumble on policy issues. ( . . . )

Hillary gave a vivid glimpse of her experience in the now defining debate in which Obama flatly said he’d meet with Hugo Chavez, and the Iranian and North Korean leaders. There was nothing inherently wrong with that, and good foreign policy is made and leadership shown as much by talking to enemies as friends. It’s just that Obama was far off in his timing in making that declaration and badly misjudged the public perception that it left. A seasoned presidential candidate or experienced public official who has had long experience in dealing with foreign policy matters and is recognized as such by the voters might have gotten away with that. But Obama is not that candidate or official. ( . . . ) More at Black America Web (BAW)

I agree with Earl Ofari Hutchinston's analysis. Barack's an excellent man and a great politician but, with Clinton in the race, he's not the best candidate for president.

Nonetheless, as the graphic above hints quite "subtly," I DO believe that Barack Obama will make an excellent vice president. I do NOT believe the ticket should be "balanced" to appeal to those who hate Black people. Those people are not going to vote for the Democratic ticket no matter whom our candidates are, because they vote against the POLITICAL PROGRAM of the Democratic Party, which includes the needs of Blacks more than the program of the Republicans does.

Because white color-aroused voters know that Blacks are voting for Democrats, white color-aroused voters are going to vote for Republicans regardless of who is on the Democratic ticket.

Likewise, knowing that Klan supporters and Nazis will support the Republicans, Blacks are going to vote for the Democrats regardless of who runs on the Republican ticket.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Elizabeth Edwards: "It's Hard Being a White Dude," By Slant Truth

Posted on 7 August, 2007 by Thin Black Duke
Filed Under U.S. Presidential Election 2008 |

Ha! This cracks me up. In an article about how the growing web video and social networks will influence the upcoming Presidential election, Elizabeth Edwards shows that she may be paying too much attention to the MRAs and the “woe is us white people” crowds.

“In some ways, it’s the way we have to go,” Edwards says. “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars. Now it’s nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all.”

Damn. Did you just read what I just read? Elizabeth Edwards just played the “what about teh menz” and the “what about teh white folks” card in a single hand. And she did so in reference to a medium that is supposed to help democratize political participation in the U.S.. Does she really expect anyone to believe that her husband is at a political disadvantage because he is a white male?

Yeah, I suspect she (and her husband) does. Nice strategy there. Play up to the anti-affirmative action crowd. It’s obvious that the history of the U.S. Presidency shows blatant discrimination toward white males, so let’s play up how good the women and the Black men have it.

Oh wait. Maybe’s she’s been spending too much time at DailyKos. Those damn Special Interests Groups are always getting in the way of Teh Revolution, according to Kos and the majority of his followers. So yeah, let’s find ways to bypass those bothersome Black folks and women and get down to what really matters: maintaining the status quo and keeping the Presidency in the hands of wealthy white men.

Or not.

Let me make this clear. This is not an endorsement of any potential Presidential candidate. This is me calling bullshit on the wife of a potential Presidential candidate blatantly using existing prejudices against Blacks and women for her husband’s political gain.

Thanks to Francis L. Holland for the heads up.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Black Celebs Become Major Political Players

The Politics of Black Entertainers

Magic Johnson and Oprah Winfrey

Magic Johnson and Oprah Winfrey

Hat Tip to: npr.org

Los Angeles Times: Black Celebs Become Major Political Players -- "Hollywood's biggest and richest fundraisers of this election cycle are being hosted by some of the entertainment industry's most respected and influential African Americans, a potent symbol of how much has changed in recent years." More HERE

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

We Can't Make John Edwards "Comfortable"

This essay comes from Dave J. at
Wandering the Ether blog.

It is not often that I am sucked into discussing my views on specific politicians, much less their flavor of the week dramas, but having read dozens of blogs over the last few days pointing out Elizabeth and John Edwards' overt bigotry, I can't help but weigh in with my ninety-nine cents worth of overly opinionated ramblings.

Somewhere amidst the recent buzz surrounding Elizabeth Edwards' comment: "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press," people have forgotten who John Edwards really is. If one spends much time investigating Edwards career, it becomes clear that he has done little to dispel the notion that he is a bigot. In his memoir “No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner,” Democratic Party strategist Robert Shrum recalls asking Edwards what his stance was on gay rights, to which Edwards replied: 'I don't feel comfortable around those people.' "Those" people? Excuse me? Isn't inclusiveness a basic principle of the Democratic party? Think back to the '04 election, and you might recall that it was Kerry-Edwards who took the first pot shot at Dick Cheney regarding his daughter being a lesbian. Do you see a pattern emerging?

"We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman." You know what scares me the most about that statement? It was a slip. An attitude meant to be kept secret, uttered only within the hallowed halls of the uber privileged. It causes me to wonder, what else does that imply? What other social attitudes are the Edwards' and their supporters keeping hidden? Where there is one "-ism," there are always more that follow. Is it even possible to be exclusively biased towards one specific group? Or is one bias simply indicative of many others?

I suppose Edwards could try and explain away his true motives by hiding behind his faith, as he did recently during the Democratic YouTube debates, where he was again put on the spot regarding gay marriage, this time by a Southern Baptist Minister, where he again confirmed his opposition, citing his faith as preventing him from advocating gay rights. Does it get anymore ironic then that? Edwards, trying to explain to a Baptist Minister the Christian stance on gay rights?

In my opinion, to express any sort of public disdain for a specific group of people is mentally, and socially regressive. To be fair, saying that you feel "uncomfortable" around a certain group of people is appropriate in select circumstances. For example, I would feel uncomfortable spending a whole lot of time around confirmed murderers. This is because I would worry they might try to murder me. See the logic? Is John Edwards too sexy for his own good? Does he worry that spending time around gay folks might cause them to be overcome with desire to make hot and steamy love to him? Seriously. Please explain this to me because I'd really like to understand why anyone would feel "uncomfortable" around someone else, based solely on their sexual preference.

To change the focus slightly; there has also been speculation amongst bloggers that if Barack or Hillary wins the Democratic ticket, rather than team up with each other, the winner would find it necessary to include Edwards as the VP in an attempt to gather red state votes. If this does happen, what then? Who will you vote for? The more we find out about John Edwards, the more it complicates the decision, for me at least. I'm not sure if I could bring myself to vote for any ticket that included Edwards.

Dave J., Wandering the Ether

Hillary Drop-Kicks Conservative Black Blogger over Health Care

This comes from Field Negro:
I have never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton. But honestly, if she is the Democratic nominee for President she will have my vote. Why? Because there is no way in hell that I would give my vote to one of those snow white looking seven dwarfs on the republican side. None!

But back to my point. It seems that Hillary laid a royal smack down on a conservative brother at the National Association of Black Journalist convention in Las Vegas. Apparently my man was trying to be cute, and approached one of the smartest people in American politics without his guns loaded.

According to Philadelphia Daily News columnist, Elmer Smith, a conservative black blogger by the name of Kiara Ashanti had "lined Hillary Rodham Clinton up in his gun sights" from the get go. "I can't wait" he told Smith in a Q&A session at the convention last week. He wanted to expose Clinton's "liberal proposals on health reform as a step toward what she believes is an all too socialistic agenda." According to Smith, this conservative blogger" wanted to raise his own visibility as much as he wanted to bring Clinton down a peg."

So let's see how it played out shall we:

After this genius asked Lady Hillary if she advocated socialist medicine, this was her response: "I've never advocated socialized medicine and I hope all journalist hear that" She said in a sharpened tone. "Do you consider Medicare socialized medicine?" she shot back at the genius. "In a way", said the little wimp. According to Smith's account, his answer was "lame." Then lady Hillary told the little republican wanna be house Negro to see her aides about the substance of her health-care proposals "if he was interested in being educated instead of being rhetorical."
Read the rest at The Field Negro

Ouch!

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Join Barack Obama in Brooklyn on August 22nd.

Dear Francis,

Join Barack Obama in Brooklyn
on August 22nd.


Supporters, community members, and friends are coming together at the New York Marriott at the Brooklyn Bridge to support Barack Obama and our movement for change.

Purchase tickets here:

https://donate.barackobama.com/brooklyn4barack

Here are the details:

Barack Obama in Brooklyn
New York Marriott at the Brooklyn Bridge
333 Adams Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Friends - $25
Students - $15 with a valid student ID

Purchase your tickets online and join Barack Obama for this special event:

https://donate.barackobama.com/brooklyn4barack

Hope to see you there!

Obama for America

Saturday, August 11, 2007

POLITICAL LUV HANGOVER: HOW I'M MANAGING MY OBAMA FEVER

This article cross-filched from the
"Why Are Black Women Angry?" blog.

POLITICAL LUV HANGOVER:

HOW I'M MANAGING MY OBAMA FEVER

When I began feverishly blogging about 6 months ago, some of my first posts dealt with the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois). Obviously, I was smitten with him then as a candidate for President. However, now, I am really drinking the Obama Kool-Aid!

I know that there are those who might be quick to say the main reason I'm so "ga-ga" over Senator Obama is because he is Black. I'm not going to lie - for me - that's just mere icing on the cake. But let's be clear; if he were white, with his type of credentials and energy, I can honestly say I would also be supportive of his candidacy.


Why does the Black part serve as the icing on my political cake? Because have you seen the drama that is about to unfold with Flavor of Love and the upcoming Comedy Central Roast of Flava Flav - featured on CNNMoney.com mind you ?

YUK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are in desperate need of the balancing factor a Barack Obama brings to the American cultural mainstream.

As a Black man and as an African American, Senator Obama reminds the rest of the world that all Black folks do not have to act like buffoons to get attention. He and his wife Michelle and the rest of their family are the embodiment of the class and cultural balance that exists within the African American community. Let's face it - Black or white - everybody can't go to Harvard Law School to get a law degree and serve as editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review.

If it were left up to a predominantly white male organized and controlled media - they'd have the rest of the world thinking all Black folks acted like Flava Flav and the infamous "New York."

Recently, Senator Obama was on the cover of Vibe Magazine. Before now, I bought Vibe Magazine two times. The first time was in the 80's when Spike Lee was the guest editor interviewing Rev. Al Sharpton with Sharpton cussin' like a sailor (this was the beginning of my starting to see pastors as just plane ol' human beings). The second time, Janet Jackson was on the cover (I've always been a big Janet Jackson fan. Besides we're the same age - I need something to aspire to.) Then, I had to get the one with my "political honey" on the cover.

I really enjoyed the interview. His grace, charm, intellect, wisdom and humility are undeniable. Now, thanks to the level-headedness of his wife, not for one moment do I think this man is perfect. However, I can only admire him more due to the amount of respect, deference and love he obviously has for his wife. Plus, he's not afraid to admit that he needs her. In the words of the famed rap female group of the 80's, Salt n' Peppa: What a man, what a man, what a man, what a mighty good man!

There are two items about the Vibe article that stood out for me. The first was how Obama stood by his comments concerning how some rappers and rap music were "degrading their sisters." On top of that, he stood by what he said despite the criticism:

I stand by exactly what I said, which was that the degrading comments about women that Imus said is language that we hear not just on the radio, not just in music. We ourselves perpetuate this, and we all have to take responsibility for that.

Gotta love that - a man being a man!

The second item that stuck out for me was Rev. Sharpton's comments concerning Obama having a weakness as being a candidate without a cause: "I want to see a strong stand on issues that concern people," Sharpton said.

All I can say to that is Obama must be doing something right because if he wasn't, the likes of Al Sharpton wouldn't have a dog on thing to say about him.

Well...and that's that. I join the millions of other potential female voters who have a crush on Obama. Although I do have a confession...Obama is not my first. About 20 years ago, I felt the same way about General Colin Powell.

Oh well, my daughter has Chris Brown, I have Obama. I say let me have my political crush moment.

The Blogosphere Reacts to the News of MAMZ's CIA-Training(?)/Application/Work(?)/"Contract Work" (?)

Friday, August 10, 2007

My Vote for President, by Eddie G. Griffin (BASG)

Cross-posted from the
Eddie G. Griffin (BASG) Blog

In looking forward, into the future, there is no crystal ball certainty of anything. Our forward planning is designed around contingencies and “What If” scenarios.

What if John Edwards wins? What is the contingency plan and how would we rate that contingency in terms of probabilities, and how much time and resources are require to make or defeat such candidacy? And, what if a Republican wins back the Whitehouse, I ask again: What are the contingencies?

All former students of BP Marxism would understand dialectical analysis. This is a scientific approach, and not always accurate. But it is a methodology, nonetheless, that causes us to factor in other elements- the “hidden factors”.

Sometimes when a fact become so self-evident, we will still deny its existence and factor it out as a fact of life. We delude ourselves, which later leads to serious miscalculations.

We specialize in searching out miscalculations by self-delusion that leads to strategic and tactical errors. For example: A million cartoon characters do not equal one child of God. [Don’t even go there.]

I am amazed at how people can sound so much like a duck: Quack! Quack! Am I hearing voices? Good Lord, am I going crazy- people sounding like ducks?

My eye is on the Whitehouse. That is my last line of defense. I care about who might be the next President of the United States. Once, I didn’t care, and I didn’t even care to vote. Most black people could less about voting. Fact of life, let’s face it. And, white voters are nearly as apathetic.

These are two factors excluded by self-denial. In the meantime, I keep my eye on the prize of the White House. The next man or woman that goes into that office will have endured the fire and be proved true as a national leader.

So, don’t try to twist my arm one way or the other for Candidate X or Candidate Y. I must study all the factors and assess where the balance of power lie. Every contest is a tug-of-war for voters. This time I want the right to be a voter, not a party member. Maybe one day my vote will be the swing vote, the difference maker, that elects a president.



Clinton Highlights Connection to Billy Graham, Woos Religious Voters

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog and
MyLeftWing.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Pew Study shows Democrat candidate can only win
if candidate is perceived as religious.

Why did Hillary Clinton just give an interview to Time Magazine in which she touts a longstanding family relationship with Billy Graham? The present diary explains why this interview and the publication of these facts are essential to electing a Democratic president in 2008. I hope that by explaining the purpose of her discussing this with Time Magazine, I can help the Left to understand that Hillary is doing what's necessary to win the White House for the Democrats. Somebody's got to do it.

Any candidate who is not wooing religious voters is a candidate who does not have a general election strategy.

Time Magazine is reporting that Hillary Clinton sought the counsel of televangelist Christian Rev. Billy Graham during the most difficult days of her marriage.

[I]n a new interview, Hillary Clinton reports that the evangelist fulfilled a pastoral role during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and helped the First Lady endure the ordeal. At that time, Clinton says, Graham was "incredibly supportive to me personally. And he was very strong in saying, 'I really understand what you're doing and I support you.' He was just very personally there for me."Time
She added: "The entire world was judging my decisions and my actions and there weren't very many people who, frankly, were understanding, and he was. He said, 'You know, forgiveness is the hardest thing that we're called upon to do. And we all face it at some point in our lives and I'm just really proud of you for taking it on."

Hillary Clinton's relationship with Graham goes back nearly as far as the current President's. A lifelong Methodist, Clinton had seen Graham on television growing up in Chicago. But she did not hear him preach in person until 1971, when she attended the Northern California crusade at the invitation of her then boyfriend, Bill Clinton, who had first heard Graham preach in Little Rock in 1959. "I wanted her to see Billy," he said. Time

This all will infuriate many on the Left who are either atheists and agnostics and/or who have, at the very least, a deep Constitutionally-based aversion to encounters between church and state, as well as those who may be religious themselves but just hate and distrust conservative and right wing religious people. Many of us who feel this way will take Hillary's discussions of Billy Graham, and her acknowledgment of a long-standing friendship with him, to be just one more example of conservatism or perfidy on Hillary's part.

Of course, Hillary Clinton knows this, but Hillary Clinton does nothing by accident. She understands better than any other Democratic candidate (perhaps with the exception of Barack Obama) that the religious (and anti-religious) feelings of American voters are going to be pivotal in the 2008 election race. While no one constituency can make a president in isolation, the loss of one constituency - like religious voters - would doom the Democrats to failure.

In a study called "The 2004 Political Landscape: Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized," the Pew Research Center for people and the press highlights the increasing importance of religion in American elections:

America remains an intensely religious nation and, if anything, the trend since the late 1980s has been toward stronger religious belief. Eight-in-ten Americans (81%) say that prayer is an important part of their daily lives, and just as many believe there will be a Judgment Day when people will be called before God to answer for their sins. Even more people (87%) agree with the statement "I never doubt the existence of God."


Clearly, views on these three statements are highly related, and when these three questions are combined into a single indicator of religious intensity, fully 71% agree with all three statements, while just 7% disagree with all three. Both of these figures are slightly higher than was the case 16 years ago, when 68% agreed with all three statements, and 5% disagreed with them all. With more people at each end of the spectrum, somewhat fewer Americans express mixed views about their religious beliefs today (22%) than was the case in the late 1980s (27%).

While attitudes toward prayer and faith have remained very stable over that period, the number expressing strong agreement has increased slightly over the past decade-and-a-half. Today, 51% completely agree that prayer is important in their lives, up from 41% in 1987. And the percentage who completely agree that they never doubt God's existence has risen from 60% to 69% over the same period. Pew Research Center

This has political consequences and compels any candidate who wants to seek AND WIN the presidency to conduct her campaign accordingly.
Religion, Ideology Increasingly Connected

Over the past 15 years, religion and religious faith also have become more strongly aligned with partisan and ideological identification. Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to express strong personal religious attitudes in 1987 and 1988; the same percentage in both parties affirmed the importance of prayer, belief in Judgment Day and strong belief in God (71% in each). But over the past 15 years, Republicans have become increasingly united in these beliefs, opening up a seven-point gap between the parties (78% vs. 71% of Democrats).

This growing divide is even more evident in looking at the relationship between political ideology and religious faith. While there has always been a correlation between conservatism and religiosity, the relationship has grown notably stronger in the past 15 years.

Religious commitment has increased substantially among self-identified conservatives (81% agree with all three statements on faith and belief, compared with 73% in 1987-88). Liberals, on the other hand, have become somewhat less religiously oriented. Just over half of self-identified liberals (54%) agree with all three religious statements, down from 59% fifteen years ago.

This religious/political alignment can also be seen within religious denominations. In 1987 and 1988, white evangelical Protestants were split fairly evenly along partisan lines (34% Republicans, 31% Democrats). Today, there is a nearly two-to-one Republican advantage among white evangelicals (43%-22%). The partisanship of non-evangelical white Protestants and black Protestants, by comparison, has been relatively stable.

In addition, white Catholics, once strongly Democratic, are now much more politically divided. In the late 1980s, a significantly greater percentage of white Catholics identified themselves as Democrats than Republicans (41% vs. 24%). Today, partisan identification among white Catholics is divided almost evenly (31% Democrat, 29% Republican).

And again, this shift is driven predominantly by more highly religious Catholics. Among white Catholics who attend Mass regularly an 18-point Democratic identification advantage in the late 1980s (42% Democrat, 24% Republican) has turned into a dead-heat today (30% Democrat, 32% Republican). (See table on page 4.) Pew Research Center

So, independent researchers are telling us that religious voters' perceptions of the Democrats, combined with these voters' religious feelings, are a significant challenge for the Democratic Party. And yet, we know from past experience that election-eve conversions to church-going do not convince voters that Democrats "get" religion.

So, rather than merely show up at a few churches in the weeks losing up to a (losing) presidential contest in 2008, Hillary Clinton is proactively publicizing a convincing and factual narrative about her religious life that posits her as a long-time believing in relying on the power of God and religious leaders in moments of personal crisis, just like the religious voters choices may decide the 2008 presidential election in Hillary Clinton's favor.

Meanwhile, those who fear this portends conservative Clinton social policies need only remember that it was the Clintons who proposed allowing gays to serve openly in the military in 1993, and they were criticized for seeming to make the fulfillment this campaign promise their first order of business after taking the White House.

The only two Democratic presidents of the last thirty years were Bill Clinton (constantly seen deeply appreciating church services in the decades before he was elected) and Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian. With the country becoming more religious and not less, it is unlikely that a Democrat perceived as anti-religious or a-religious can win the presidency in 2008.

And so Democrats who are appalled when our candidates speak about religion on the campaign trail are Democrats who will either have to hold their noses and accept the religious patter, or vote against the religious patter in the primaries and then watch on television as the Mormon is given the oath of office in January of 2009.

Author's Note (1): I had originally filed this diary under the "Religion/Spirituality" category, but then I realized that this article, as presented, really has little at all to do with the substance of religion and spirituality vs alternatives, and everything to do with "Election 2008" demographics and our strategy for assembling an electoral majority. If that sounds cynical and offends anyone, I urge them to consider the practical consequences of NOT having such a strategy.

Author's Note (2) Some readers have been perceiving this essay as a criticism of Hillary Clinton. The opposite is true. This essay in support of Clinton's strategy for winning religious voters in 2008, particularly in the general election. As I've said repeatedly above, although many of us don't like Billy Graham, and with good reason, still the strategy of touting her connection to him is essential to winning religious voters in the general election campaign of 2008. Since I want the Democratic candidate to win the election, I want her to do RIGHT NOW what is necessary to win the religious voters. Clinton obviously believes this is necessary and I believe she is right and I support her.

Time Article Highlights Hillary's Personal Reliance on Billy Graham

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog and the
Democratic Afrosphere Blog.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Time Magazine is reporting that Hillary Clinton sought the counsel of televangelist Christian Rev. Billy Graham during the most difficult days of her marriage.
[I]n a new interview, Hillary Clinton reports that the evangelist fulfilled a pastoral role during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and helped the First Lady endure the ordeal. At that time, Clinton says, Graham was "incredibly supportive to me personally. And he was very strong in saying, 'I really understand what you're doing and I support you.' He was just very personally there for me."

She added: "The entire world was judging my decisions and my actions and there weren't very many people who, frankly, were understanding, and he was. He said, 'You know, forgiveness is the hardest thing that we're called upon to do. And we all face it at some point in our lives and I'm just really proud of you for taking it on."

Hillary Clinton's relationship with Graham goes back nearly as far as the current President's. A lifelong Methodist, Clinton had seen Graham on television growing up in Chicago. But she did not hear him preach in person until 1971, when she attended the Northern California crusade at the invitation of her then boyfriend, Bill Clinton, who had first heard Graham preach in Little Rock in 1959. "I wanted her to see Billy," he said. Time
This all will infuriate many on the Left who are either atheists and agnostics and/or who have, at the very least, a deep Constitutionally-based aversion to encounters between church and state, as well as those who may be religious themselves but just hate and distrust conservative and right wing religious people. Many of us who feel this way will take Hillary's discussions of Billy Graham, and her acknowledgment of a long-standing friendship with him, to be just one more example of conservatism or perfidy on Hillary's part.

Of course, Hillary Clinton knows this, but Hillary Clinton does nothing by accident. She understands better than any other Democratic candidate (perhaps with the exception of Barack Obama) that the religious (and anti-religious) feelings of American voters are going to be pivotal in the 2008 election race. While no one constituency can make a president in isolation, the loss of one constituency - like religious voters - would doom the Democrats to failure.

In a study called "The 2004 Political Landscape: Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized," the Pew Research Center for people and the press highlights the increasing importance of religion in American elections:
America remains an intensely religious nation and, if anything, the trend since the late 1980s has been toward stronger religious belief. Eight-in-ten Americans (81%) say that prayer is an important part of their daily lives, and just as many believe there will be a Judgment Day when people will be called before God to answer for their sins. Even more people (87%) agree with the statement "I never doubt the existence of God."

Clearly, views on these three statements are highly related, and when these three questions are combined into a single indicator of religious intensity, fully 71% agree with all three statements, while just 7% disagree with all three. Both of these figures are slightly higher than was the case 16 years ago, when 68% agreed with all three statements, and 5% disagreed with them all. With more people at each end of the spectrum, somewhat fewer Americans express mixed views about their religious beliefs today (22%) than was the case in the late 1980s (27%).

While attitudes toward prayer and faith have remained very stable over that period, the number expressing strong agreement has increased slightly over the past decade-and-a-half. Today, 51% completely agree that prayer is important in their lives, up from 41% in 1987. And the percentage who completely agree that they never doubt God's existence has risen from 60% to 69% over the same period. Pew Research Center
This has political consequences and compels any candidate who wants to seek AND WIN the presidency to conduct her campaign accordingly.
Religion, Ideology Increasingly Connected

Over the past 15 years, religion and religious faith also have become more strongly aligned with partisan and ideological identification. Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to express strong personal religious attitudes in 1987 and 1988; the same percentage in both parties affirmed the importance of prayer, belief in Judgment Day and strong belief in God (71% in each). But over the past 15 years, Republicans have become increasingly united in these beliefs, opening up a seven-point gap between the parties (78% vs. 71% of Democrats).

This growing divide is even more evident in looking at the relationship between political ideology and religious faith. While there has always been a correlation between conservatism and religiosity, the relationship has grown notably stronger in the past 15 years.

Religious commitment has increased substantially among self-identified conservatives (81% agree with all three statements on faith and belief, compared with 73% in 1987-88). Liberals, on the other hand, have become somewhat less religiously oriented. Just over half of self-identified liberals (54%) agree with all three religious statements, down from 59% fifteen years ago.

This religious/political alignment can also be seen within religious denominations. In 1987 and 1988, white evangelical Protestants were split fairly evenly along partisan lines (34% Republicans, 31% Democrats). Today, there is a nearly two-to-one Republican advantage among white evangelicals (43%-22%). The partisanship of non-evangelical white Protestants and black Protestants, by comparison, has been relatively stable.

In addition, white Catholics, once strongly Democratic, are now much more politically divided. In the late 1980s, a significantly greater percentage of white Catholics identified themselves as Democrats than Republicans (41% vs. 24%). Today, partisan identification among white Catholics is divided almost evenly (31% Democrat, 29% Republican).

And again, this shift is driven predominantly by more highly religious Catholics. Among white Catholics who attend Mass regularly an 18-point Democratic identification advantage in the late 1980s (42% Democrat, 24% Republican) has turned into a dead-heat today (30% Democrat, 32% Republican). (See table on page 4.) Pew Research Center
So, independent researchers are telling us that religious voters' perceptions of the Democrats, combined with these voters' religious feelings, are a significant challenge for the Democratic Party. And yet, we know from past experience that election-eve conversions to church-going do not convince voters that Democrats "get" religion.

So, rather than merely show up at a few churches in the weeks losing up to a (losing) presidential contest in 2008, Hillary Clinton is proactively publicizing a convincing and factual narrative about her religious life that posits her as a long-time believing in relying on the power of God and religious leaders in moments of personal crisis, just like the religious voters choices may decide the 2008 presidential election in Hillary Clinton's favor.

Meanwhile, those who fear this portends conservative Clinton social policies need only remember that it was the Clintons who proposed allowing gays to serve openly in the military in 1993, and they were criticized for seeming to make the fulfillment this campaign promise their first order of business after taking the White House.

The only two Democratic presidents of the last thirty years were Bill Clinton (constantly seen deeply appreciating church services in the decades before he was elected) and Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian. With the country becoming more religious and not less, it is unlikely that a Democrat perceived as anti-religious or a-religious can win the presidency in 2008.

And so Democrats who are appalled when our candidates speak about religion on the campaign trail are Democrats who will either have to hold their noses and accept the religious patter, or vote against the religious patter in the primaries and then watch on television as the Mormon is given the oath of office in January of 2009.

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Electronic Village Explains the Genesis of the AfroSpear

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Evolution of the AfroSpear

The AfroSpear continues to evolve from its origin a few short months ago when FreeSlave and others ruminated on 'What to do in the Afrosphere'.


There is a blogosphere out there with a kazillion bloggers. The blogosphere is not very diverse according to the Washington Post. Some white bloggers and some Black bloggers. The Black bloggers make up something that is commonly referred to as the "Blackosphere".

Within the "Blackosphere" are many Black bloggers posting information on any number of subjects. Those concerned African Diaspora bloggers who discuss problems that affect people of African descent, create solutions and action plans to solve those problems, and enact the plans using Internet resources evolved into a more intimate group known as the "Afrosphere". This group is organizing with itself as an Afrosphere Bloggers Association.

And deep within the soul of the "Afrosphere" is the vanguard of bloggers of African descent known as "The AfroSpear". The AfroSpear works to carve a path for our people into this 21st century. In effect, the AfroSpear is the realization of an online think tank for Black progressives to discuss, muse, and ruminate issues that affect our communities. The AfroSpear is not a monolithic entity ... but rather a virtual force that encourages lively debate, discourse, and an occasional disagreement as we hone a thought or platform on a particular issue.

Francis Holland created a diagram that shows this evolution in a more visual manner.

The roster of AfroSpear bloggers is powerful in terms of quality and growing daily. It is a group of brothers and sisters achieving positive and actionable results on a wide range of issues. As PlezWorld noted,

'...the real power and effectiveness of such an AfroSpear will be borne out of its ability to affect change in our way of life and in a broader sense, that of America. Let's see if our collective foray into the great abyss of the blogosphere will be a call to those who need our votes or to those who seek our approval.'
I am proud to be a member of the blogosphere, Blackosphere, Afrosphere and AfroSpear! I encourage you to check out the AfroSpear Blogroll over on the left-hand side of my blog. Visit some of these brothers and sisters and support their efforts to 'make a difference' for our peeps. If you are a blogger ... then I invite you to participate in the AfroSpear blog carnival on education.

In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts about the evolution of The AfroSpear. Well villagers ... what say u?

Fighting Blog Apartheid in the Whitosphere

RE: Blog Apartheid:

This letter is about the ongoing fight between Black and white progressive bloggers over the issue of blog apartheid at whitosphere blogs.

I love to write and I love to share my thoughts with others. But, I'm sick and tired of the constant grumblings about banning me at the whitosphere MyLeftWing blog, for criticizing the blog apartheid practiced at DailyKos. For example, in response to my essay of yesterday, Gottlieb said in comments:

"My interpretation of MSOC's remarks was she has tried to gently guide the 'editorial' direction of this board, and part of that direction is not to become known as a 'kos bashing' site. Simple. What's not so simple is where to draw the editorial line between 'free speech' and 'bashing'. Assuming, the journalism is sound.If the journalism isn't sound and you're making wild accusations on the slimmest of evidence, then you should be banned forthwith."

Our of sheer self-defense, we Blacks have learned over the years to know just what whites say and how they behave when a lynch mob is forming.

Let's see: If I "cross the line" into "bashing" America's foremost blog apartheid site, which was "bashed" in the Washington Post this week about this very issue, then I should be banned?!

That's like saying, "It's alright to blog about Apartheid, but you MAY NOT bash P.W. Botha." And don't be a Nelson Mandela "shill" either! I's like saying, "Write about the Klan, but don't 'bash' the Klan!"

This is what happens to white people's minds under the influence of color-aroused emotions, ideation and behavior.

And if we're not careful, they make US responsible for making sense out of all of this crap.

Blacks subjected to these mental games are at risk for color- aroused emotional, ideational and behavioral disorder, unless we stick together and refuse to play along.

There are constant suggestions that "if this and that were to happen" then that would constitute a valid reason to ban Francis L. Holland, and this discussion is, in and of itself, a kind of constant oppression that warns ALL Black that we MUST NOT aggressively argue for our own liberation in the context of the whitosphere. At whitosphere blogs, we're "always outnumbered and always out-gunned."

But, maybe if we stick up for each other through the AfroSpear Black bloggers movement when this grumbling begins, then we can impress upon white bloggers that, in addition to the handful of whites demanding Black bloggers' expulsion and our heads on a platter, there are at least five dozen Black blogger opinion-makers, with significant Democratic-leaning voter audiences, and these Black bloggers are organized, angry and tired of the bullshit!

This is the e-mail address of Maryscott O'Connor, the owner of the MyLeftWing whitosphere blog who has publicly threatened to ban me for "bashing" the blog apartheid practiced at DailyKos. Please write her a e-mail and tell her that bashing apartheid is precisely what we should be doing at progressive blogs.

myleftwing@gmail.com

"Mary,

Is it true that Francis Holland may get banned from your site MyLeftWing?

If so, why?

Regards,
javascript:void(0)
Publish Post
Adrianne George
Black Women in Europe
Blog"

Francis

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

The YearlyKos = The White Citizens YearlyKouncil.


The White Citizens YearlyKouncil.

Yes, I said it. Come on folks, stop beating around the bush. Stop sugar coating it. Let's stop playing Games. Let's stop intellectualizing white blogger racism. Let's call it the way it is, The Democratic Presidential candidates just went before the Yearlykos a 21st century White Citizens YearlyKouncil. An exclusive club of middle aged whites guys, who sit around playing the "liberal card" with all but a few black and Latinos who attended the YearlyKos event.

I recently blogged about the YearlyKos event as a guess blogger on Rude Pundit. In my post I talked about how Hillary and Obama would be at the Lilly white, YearlyKos forum. Little did I know that the Washington Post would view the Yearly Kos Bloggers' Convention, a Sea of Middle-Aged White Males. But I go a little further. I see them like the members of the United States Senate, as a group of white men who could care less about issues impacting the poor, working class, and African American communities across America. The White Citizens YearlyKouncils agenda is the self preservation of you know what, white male bloggers.


STOP

OK, thats what I was thinking a moment ago, but let's be real. I could have blogged about that, but I didn't. Act like you didn't even read what I just wrote.


The reality is, The DalyKos, YearlyKos, WhiteKos, really didn’t outreach to the African American blogger community to get Black Bloggers to participate. The AfroSphere/AfroSpear group to my knowledge was not outreached to or contacted, Black bloggers were not really encouraged to attend, so therefore it is what it is. As it turned out to be, a white group talking to each other about issues important to them. White folks. White Citizens (with a few black folks for good measure).

But hey, that is a snap shot of my opinion today, my opinion could change tomorrow. Here are other opinions on the same topic.

Mirror on America, Jack and Jill Politics are blogging about the subject, as is Francis L. Holland , a blogger who blogs regularly about The Truth About Kos (DailyKos) in a recent post he notes, The Hot Air Blog calls YearlyKos, "whiter than an NHL game at the North Pole during a snowstorm." Hot Air points our attention to a Washington Post article of August 6, by Jose Antonio Vargas, that calls YearlyKos 2007 "a Sea of Middle-Aged White Males."

Maybe Francis L. Holand knows more than he is sharing when he writes about Markos Moulitsas and the annual meeting of the whitosphere sponsored by DailyKos.

What do you think? Am I wrong?

PS, It may not be a White Citizens Council, but it sure look like one - Infact, it mirrored, guess what - The Republican Party. Think About It!


Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Elizabeth Edwards Resents Success of Women, Blacks


Elizabeth Edwards says of her husband John, "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars."

Here's a message to John Edwards: Even if you were Black, you wouldn't be Barack Obama. Even if you were a woman, you still would be no match for Hillary Clinton!

I didn't know that being a woman or being Black were automatic tickets to press attention and campaign contributions. I thought it took being a compelling candidate with a great message and a great organization. But Elizabeth Edwards is saying that only gender and color are winning for Clinton and Obama the attention and donations they have received.

Why have we gone 43 consecutive presidential white male presidential terms without any Black or women taking advantage of The Edwards Insight?

With the best candidates being the woman and the Black man this time around, the tables are turned in the presidential race, and that's making Elizabeth Edwards envious, angry, bitter and resentful.

If Hillary and Obama had known that being a woman and being Black were such a cash cow, they probably would have run for president years ago, long before we went 43 consecutive terms without a single woman or Black person in the Oval Office. But this fact of politics has been kept such a secret that only Elizabeth Edwards believes that it's true.

White Male Supremacy Is No Solution to the Problems Facing America


Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog
and MyLeftWing

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Today, with an essay entitled "Do We Really Hate Hillary Clinton This Much?," Arthur Gilroy at MyLeftWing says, "I am getting a little tired of having to be a Clinton apologist on these leftiness blogs."

I'm an advocate for liberalism/progressivism in electoral politics (since leftism doesn't seem to have much traction among the voters), and I'm an advocate for national health care, and for ending the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency. I want peace, prosperity, respect and equality.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

I believe the most potent way to pursue all of these goals and values is to elect Hillary Clinton president and Barack Obama vice president. This woman is a fighter who's defeated the right wing at every turn in her political life. I don't think she holds a grudge, but there are a lot of Republicans who haven't been held responsible yet for their actions of the past.

I think Hillary Clinton will be the president most able by character and experience to hold these Republicans responsible, as part of the political process of setting the stage for implementation of the frustrated progressive goals of the past and present, like national health care.

Have you noticed that even the CIA-left, represented by Markos Moulitsas, has softened its tone in its anti-Clinton rhetoric? MAMZ is getting on board, because he realizes that Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee and he wants a seat at the table instead of eight years of political exile.

Arthur Gilroy says:

Ms. Clinton may be the most accomplished professional politician in America today. On the evidence of her continued...and apparently continuing...success. She means to get elected, by whatever means necessary. You can consider this sheer egotism; you can consider it the efforts of a closet reactionary, or...you can also consider it Lincoln and FDR- influenced practical politics. Arthur
Now that's part of why I support Hillary Clinton. She's determined to win and everything she says and does as a candidate is consistent with and finely targeted toward that goal. And she's going to fight tooth and nail to make sure that it happens.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Can we really say that our past presidential candidates have achieved this level of consistency in their message and single-minded determination to bring home the reigns for the Democrats? Has any candidate of the last ten years been as consistently on-message and undistracted as Hillary Clinton has been?

Let's talk about Barack Obama for a minute: Barack Obama is a genius and everybody knows it. You don't get to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review, US senator from one of the most populous mid-west states, and the only Black senator in the US Congress by being a slacker. Barack Obama has shown a lot of people that he is one tremendous man, destined for greatness. His record from his eight years in the Illinois state senate shows that his priorities and success rate are just what America's progressive need.

Great Discussion of Obama's Illinois Days in the New York Times

However, winning the White House and implementing a progressive agenda is not something that any of us can do alone. When the insurance companies realize that national health care is right around the corner, they're going to fight tooth and nail to assure that health care remains a cash-cow for the rich instead of a public service delivered for the whole nation. We're going to need all hands on deck to win this fight.

Barack Obama has receive campaign contributions from about 33,000 Americans. OpenSecrets.Org Hillary Clinton has received campaign contributions from 21,000 Americans, or 66% of the number of Barack Obama. But, together this white woman and this Black man have received campaign contributions from $54,000 Americans (assuming incorrectly that no one is contributing to both), even before the first vote has been cast. OpenSecrets.Org

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

(We all want to be fair to John Edwards, but we also have to face political and economic realities. If John Edwards has been trying as hard as Clinton and Obama, then whatever he is doing is not working. John Edwards has received contributions from only 13,000 Americans, so he brings very little to the table financially and numerically in terms of taking back the White House for the Democrats.) OpenSecrets.Org

Although both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have received record contributions from 53,000 Americans, neither of them has raised as much money or voter support alone as both of them could together!

We all need to support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Because, if Hillary cannot become president simply because she is a woman, then all American women's prospects are dimmed simply because of an immutable group of physical characteristics with which they were born - characteristics that have no negative bearing on their value as leaders, but characteristics and perspectives that we desperately need if we are to regain the equilibrium of this terribly unbalanced nation in which many of us live.

I've said it before and I'll say it ten thousand times over the next 18 months: Whites male Democratic tickets lost five out of the last seven times, and 43 successive white male administrations - presidencies and vice presidencies - got us into the mess that we're in now.

Whatever is wrong in Washington developed at a time when at least 84% of the US Senate was composed of white men, and when ALL of the presidents and vice presidents were white men. Electing another white male president today is like bringing a flame thrower to put out a fire. Steadfastly insisting upon white male leadership, in and of itself, cannot be the solution to our problems. Look how much better a country - more democratic and just - South Africa became when Nelson Mandela took over the reigns from P.W. Botha! South Africa became a much better and stronger nation without white male supremacy, white male minority rule, and apartheid.

White men are the minority in America, with women and Blacks and Latinos forming a super majority. There is no inherently valid reason why white men alone should hold the reigns of power while everyone else looks on in horror at white male leaders' incompetence and malevolence. (And isn't this precisely what has happened over the last six years?)

This isn't an argument against white male leaders per se, because many white male leaders have done yeoman service for their country. Were it not for Bill Clinton, for example, America would not have had a Democratic president since Jimmy Carter left office in 1980, twenty seven years ago.

So, let's not bash white men. But let's recognize, once and for all, that a government led exclusively by white men has not been the solution to the problems facing America.

Monday, August 6, 2007

Giuliani's Daughter Supporting Barack Obama for President

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

According to YahooNews, "The daughter of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani has signaled she's backing Democrat Barack Obama for president."
According to her Facebook profile, Giuliani's 17-year-old daughter, Caroline, belonged to Democrat Barack Obama's Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." She left the group Monday morning after the online magazine Slate sent an inquiry.

Her profile can be viewed by Facebook users who have access to New York City's Trinity School or Harvard University networks. Caroline, who is Giuliani's daughter with his second wife, Donna Hanover, recently graduated from Trinity and will attend Harvard in the fall.

It's not news that Rudy and his two children, Caroline and her 21-year-old brother Andrew, have a rocky relationship. Caroline and Andrew are the children of Donna Hanover, Rudy's second wife. In March, Andrew, who is a junior at Duke, told the New York Times that he and his father had been estranged for some time, and he has spoken candidly about his objections to Giuliani's marriage to Judith Nathan. And after the wedding, the Times reported, Giuliani also stopped attending Caroline's high-school events. Though he went to her high-school graduation, he left without speaking to her and did not join in the post-graduation family celebration, according to the New York Daily News. YahooNews

It's common knowledge that the Giuliani's son and daughter have been estranged from him since he announced at a news conference that he was marrying his mistress, and then sued his wife to force her to let his mistress visit Gracie Mansion, where the family lived while Giuliani was mayor of New York.

The Slate online magazine says:

It's not news that Rudy and his two children, Caroline and her 21-year-old brother Andrew, have a rocky relationship. Caroline and Andrew are the children of Donna Hanover, Rudy's second wife. In March, Andrew, who is a junior at Duke, told the New York Times that he and his father had been estranged for some time, and he has spoken candidly about his objections to Giuliani's marriage to Judith Nathan. And after the wedding, the Times reported, Giuliani also stopped attending Caroline's high-school events. Though he went to her high-school graduation, he left without speaking to her and did not join in the post-graduation family celebration, according to the New York Daily News. Slate
The news that Ms. Giuliani is supporting Obama is believed to be a good sign for Obama and Democrats, if only because it is so terribly embarrassing for Giuliani and Republicans.

Sunday, August 5, 2007

Are blacks prepared to elect Obama?

AAPP says: This could be the question of the 21st Century. Here is a great article by Eugene Robinson. Do you know the answer to the question? Check it out.

Are blacks prepared to elect Obama?
By Eugene Robinson


Are white Americans really, truly prepared to elect an African-American president?

Seriously, is a nation with such a long and shameful history of brutal slavery, Jim Crow segregation and persistent racism actually going to put a black man in the White House?

One of Barack Obama's principal tasks in the coming months may be convincing African-American voters that this whole phenomenon -- a black candidate with a well-financed campaign, proven crossover appeal and a real chance to win -- isn't just another cruel illusion.

I hear from African-Americans who are excited about Obama's candidacy but who suspect that somehow, when push comes to shove, "they" won't let him win. It's unclear who "they" might be -- white voters, the "power structure," the alignment of the stars -- and it's unclear how "they" are going to thwart Obama's ambition. The point is that, somehow, he'll be denied. More HERE

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Clinton Winning Among Anti-War Voters


Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog
and MyLeftWing

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

On the first day of the YearlyKos conference and in spite of conversing with Clinton-hater Markos Moultisas, the New York Times reports that, objectively, Hillary Clinton seems to be winning over her anti-war critics. The Times says:

The degree to which Mrs. Clinton has actually defused the issue will get a test on Saturday when she appears with fellow Democrats in a debate in Chicago before an audience of liberal bloggers, one of the most intensely antiwar constituencies in the party and one that has been particularly skeptical of - and often hostile toward - Mrs. Clinton.

But there is already evidence that she has made progress in reducing the intensity of the opposition to her among some of her most fervent antiwar opponents and in building support among the broader universe of Democrats who oppose the war.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in July 2006 found that among Democrats who said the invasion of Iraq had been a mistake, 56 percent said they had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton's performance. A year later, that figure had risen to 69 percent. Her standing during that period among all Democrats has also shown improvement. On the campaign trail, antiwar protests at her appearances are less frequent and less loud. New York Times

Clinton has said, and it stands to reason based on what we know of past Clinton Administrations, that,
"If we in Congress don't end this war before January of 2009, as president I will." New York Times

The New York Times reported today the observations of one of Clinton's chief surrogates on foreign policy matters, Madeleine K. Albright, that the public is accepting that Clinton will use her political strength and experience to end the Iraq War:

Madeleine K. Albright, the former secretary of State, who is advising Mrs. Clinton on Iraq and other foreign policy issues, said, "Through the spring she became increasingly frustrated with the fact that the administration didn't seem to listen."

"You begin to kind of say, 'O.K., now what? We need an answer,' " Ms. Albright said. "She was feeling a necessity to send a stronger and stronger message." New York Times

There's still some disagreement on the Left whether Clinton will end the war in Iraq and how quickly. Personally, if I did not rely on what I know of Bill Clinton's foreign policy, then I would be equally skeptical of Hillary Clinton's intentions now.

However, I am convinced that just as Bush's foreign policy was presaged by the hiring of the old Nixon team members like Cheney, Hillary's foreign policy is presaged by her chief foreign policy aides, like Albright and the big dog himself, Bill Clinton.

No one can point to a single long-running war or bloody conflict during the first Clinton Adminstration that would presage and extended conflict during a second Clinton Administration. Quite to the contrary, the Northern Ireland civil war was resolved peacefully with leadership from Bill Clinton; the Bosnian Civil War was resolved peacefully with virtually no US casualties during negotiations that culminated in the Dayton (Ohio) Peace Accords under Bill Clinton's leadership; and the military strikes that followed attacks on the US military were measured and targeted, with limited loss of life, particularly compared to the current Administration.

When Clinton intervened unsuccessfully in Somalia, he knew when to cut America's losses and get the hell out:

Once President Clinton was inaugurated he stated his desire to scale down the U.S. presence in Somalia, and to let the U.N. forces take over. In March 1993 the U.N. officially took over the operation, naming this mission UNOSOM - II. The objective of this mission was to promote "nation building" within Somalia. One main target was to disarm the Somali people. UNOSOM - II stressed restoring law and order, improving the infrastructure, and assisting the people with setting up a representative government.

President Clinton supported the U.N. mandate and ordered the number of U.S. troops in Somalia reduced, to be replaced by U.N. troops. By June 1993, only 1200 U.S. troops remained in Somalia, but on June 5, 1993 24 Pakistani soldiers were ambushed and killed during the inspection of a Somali arms weapons storage site. The U.N. responded with an emergency resolution to apprehend those responsible. While it was not specifically stated, Aidid and his followers were believed to be responsible. On June 19, 1993 Admiral Howe ordered Aidid's arrest and offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to this. He also requested a counterterrorist rescue force after the massacre of the Pakistani troops.

From June 12 through June 16 U.S. and U.N. troops attacked targets in Mogadishu related to Aidid. On July 12 U.S. Cobra helicopters attacked a house in Mogadishu where clan leaders were meeting. They destroyed several buildings and many Somalis were killed. When four Western journalists went to investigate the scene they were beaten to death by a mob of Somalis. On August 8 four U.S. military police were killed when a land mine was remote-detonated by Somalis. Two weeks later, six more U.S. soldiers were wounded. It was at this point that Task Force Ranger was deployed to Somalia.

On August 29 Task Force Ranger flew into Mogadishu. They were led by General William Garrison and consisted of 440 elite troops from Delta Force. Their mission was to capture Aidid. But, at the same time, in September 1993 the Clinton Administration began a secret plan to negotiate with Aidid. U.S. military commanders within Somalia were not apprised of this. U.S. Defense Secretary Les Aspin denied a request for armored reinforcements made by General Montgomery.

On October 3, 1993 Task Force Ranger raided the Olympic Hotel in Mogadishu to search for Aidid. This led to a seventeen-hour battle in which eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed and eighty-four were wounded. Bodies of dead American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, shown on international news reports. Hundreds of Somalis also died, although the official number has never been released. This was the longest, most bloody battle for U.S troops since the Vietnam War. On October 7 President Clinton responded by withdrawing U.S. troops from Somalia. The hunt for Aidid was abandoned, although U.S. representatives were sent to resume negotiations with clan leaders. Nova Online

Because Clinton was able to acknowledge when he was fighting a battle that could not be won, loss of life was immeasurably less on both sides.

Some people point to Clinton's failure to intervene in the Rwandan civil war as a mark of "shame" for his Administration, saying:

the most powerful man on earth - who not only refused to intervene to save 800,000 people from being hacked to death, but declined to even convene his Cabinet to discuss the crisis. WorldNetDaily.Com
When you compare that performance to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, you begin to see what a gift Bill Clinton was to America foreign policy. Whereas Clinton failed to intervene in an ongoing civil war and let others hack others to death, Bush intervened in a country that was relatively peaceful so that US soldiers could hack others to death. See the difference? Clinton, at worse, was guilty of failing to intervene when intervention arguably would have failed and also led to more loss of life on both sides. Bush took a situation of relative peace and turned it into a all-out war that has killed hundreds of thousands, dislocated even more, and all for no purpose that any reasonable person would endorse.

I trust that the Clintons, once elected, will perform more or less as they did last time, seeking opportunities to quell conflicts through negotiation and passing on opportunities to create needless shooting wars.

People with less experience might try to accomplish the same thing, but there is no guarantee that they will succeed. In fact, precisely because of their inexperience they would be under tremendous pressure to use force in ongoing wars or be perceived as week. And lacking the ability to immediately engage in intense negotiations based on past experience, they could be rushed into reckless actions by others who don't value peace as much as the Clintons do.