Jack & Jill Politics

Pat Buchanan will be my guest on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com Wed. June 18 at 5 PM New York time.


Go to my blog, www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the link to the show to talk or listen to Buchanan.

Lordy Anonymous, I didn't endorse it. I'd not seen anything similar, but maybe that's because I'm not New Agey myself. The Kool-aid drinkers don't diminish Obama or the majority of his supporters. The really interesting bit (I thought) was that it was written, in spite of himself, by one of the San Francisco Chronicle's regular columnists, the highly jaded (until now anyway)& funny curmudgeon Mark Morford. He warned you not to read it! Repeatedly. Too "gooey".


And actually, I really don't care why any particular individual supports Obama. A vote's a vote.



(I had to delete & repost this because I got the Examiner & the Chronicle mixed up - excuse me)

diana,


GMAFB.



A joke that reinforces the koolaid drinking 'Obamabot' hero worship, 'messiah', cult of personality.



By all means 'drink up' if it makes you feel better.



Absolute new age drivel.

Mark Morford (San Francisco Gate)on Obama the Lightworker


http://www.sfgate.com/

cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06

/notes060608.DTL

Jelana,


You don't have to go listen to the calls.



That's exactly the thing though. They didn't tell us this would be what it was. They said it was a "National LGBT Conference Call" and this, from the invitation email, is how they described what it was in the email they sent inviting participation yesterday 6/05:



On this call, we will give a status report of our campaign as a whole, discuss LGBT policy, provide suggestions for how you can be involved and answer questions and hear your concerns.



That is what the Obama campaign actually said in the invitation email I got yesterday.



That was not good information to help make an informed decision about whether I should or should not "go listen to the call."



For sure if they had said it was about letting Hillary supporters mourn, I would have stayed away and assumed they were doimg what they needed to do, without question. They could have said this various nice ways, including calling it a unity event with an emphasis on welcoming Clinton's LGBT supporters into the fold. Or something like that.



That is not what they did.



I actually suspect that maybe they had an initial approach planned that fit that description better, and it got hijacked by the Human Rights Campaign possibly in cahoots with Clinton.



Whatever the case, I appreciate good basic information about what something is, so I can know when to stay away.



Because I think you're probably right, it's probably best to let them do what they're doing and just stay away from it under these kinds of circumstances if need be. I know I'm not going to participate in any more "national conference calls" from this campaign.

Sasha turns 7 this weekend...she's having a slumber party...Daddy's doing Pizza duty..LOL

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don't seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that's because most people don't realize how different the two parties' energy policies have been.


ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed



Coal-to-Liquid

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 78% Opposed



Oil Shale Exploration

House Republicans: 90% Supported

House Democrats: 86% Opposed



Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration

House Republicans: 81% Supported

House Democrats: 83% Opposed



Refinery Increased Capacity

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 96% Opposed



SUMMARY



91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.



86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas

The only thing I know about the LGBT community politically is what Andrew Sullivan brings up, from time to time. It seems as if Hillpatine had a hardcore group.


Obama knows what he's doing; what he must do.



He's Jackie Robinson; doesn't mean he is weak.

I would like show appreciation for the prayer for the Obamas.

michelle,


From my take it seems that the LGBT

community from HRC is moving over to Obama. Let them mourn. You don't have to go listen to the calls. We need every vote we can get. I don't see this as him pandering or being pushed around in this instance. His team I believe is just attempting to be compassionate.

And in a general follow-up about the LGBT conference call, there's a pretty interesting discussion going on about it at Daily Kos here:


Anyone on the OBAMA LGBT conference call?



It's on the rec list now, apparently.



I'm "Michellebird" in the discussion and trying hard to be more measured in what I say. Don't know how well that's going, but seems ok :)



One very interesting comment IMO is from ChristieKeith who wrote:



my girlfriend supported Clinton. I'm aware that many of her supporters feel really bad right now. My response to my feelings about what I see Clinton having done in this election is not to demonize her or her supporters, but to focus on our common goals and on the general election.



That's why this call felt so off to me, because it was all this very elaborate hand-holding and endless time spent on their "emotional processing," it really struck me as bizarre, frankly. [emphasis mine - Michelle]



Like I said, I cried like a baby over Howard Dean. I love my girlfriend and I'm sad that she's sad. But this went way, way beyond any kind of welcome or unity into group therapy or something. Freaked me right out.



The reason I think this comment is so insightful is that it ties in to what I have seen of the Wounded White Woman dynamic playing out in all of this (which may apparently expand to include white gay men in this particular case ... I don't know).

Ms. Martin,


How did you come to be involved in the conference call?



I was contacted via email by the campaign yesterday inviting me to be part of it. I think they got my email address/info because I filled out a survey they recently sent out -- either to everyone registered on their website or to everyone who donated or along those lines. IN the survey I checked the LGBT box or whatever it was.



So I got an email yesterday, signed up from there, then got the call-in number emailed to me.



About hanging up, I literally could not bear to listen one second more at that point.

Michelle


I don't blame you for hanging up - I'm not willing to concede to the demands of the losers who have adopted illary's I'm entitled attitude.



How did you come to be involved in the conference call?

I hear ya loud and clear Michelle & Jelana. I feel a revulsion also for everything she stands for. I fear that they may plant their poisonous seeds of division within the Obama operation.


Hillary and her flunky Mayhill Fowler already set a trap for Barack by playing on his insecurities about not getting the white blue collar vote. That's when he tried to explain and talked about clinging to guns etc.



The funny thing is, there was no evidence that he was getting less of the white vote than other candidates.



The second trap was to accuse him of not wearing a flag pin while they were not wearing one. Rather than turn it back on them, he tried to reach out and explain.



Barack may be far too willing to accept responsibility for things that are not his fault or not even true...just because he's a decent human being.



Perhaps he might feel responsible somehow for alienating the fringe Hillary supporters. It's a trap if her panders to their phony outrage.

I just want to talk about the stick. My Arab-American father was always carving up walking sticks. He collected them - he had a few from his father in Lebanon, my grandfather. At my father's funeral I brought one of his walking sticks up to the lectern to hold as I spoke about him.


I love this picture and I love the man who carved the stick. Go Obama.

(even though I am very, very disappointed about his speech to AiPAC this week. Whatever. He's a politician, he isn't the Messiah and I never thought so)

truthseeker


Her presence is a complete turn off for me. I totally agree with you!

Val, thank you for that beautiful prayer. I will be praying it for him every day. I was also concerned about him today as I watched footage of him shaking hands with the masses. I said, "Lord, please don't let anyone stick him with anything." I feel better since I've prayed that beautiful prayer for him.


Jack Cafferty blasted the Cryptster today, & many emailers blasted hillbilly. Cafferty implicated McCain, who has been in office since 9-11, in agreeing with the invasion of a soverign nation who hadn't done anything to us & not working to secure the borders, yet saying that he has the plan & experience for national defense. Some emailers said to him that if hillary is serious about party unity, then she will transfer her delegates. They predict that she will have a big surprise for all of us at the convention. You know there is going to be bus loads of them at the convention.

Truthseeker, you know what? The my feeling of that call was of being unexpectedly dipped into a toxic pool. It was like walking into what I thought was a truth-friendly context and being slammed with deception.


That kind of energy isn't at ALL what I have felt from Senator Obama and his campaign in the past. In fact what I have previously felt from his campaign and from him is the opposite of that kind of energy. And that is why I support him to begin with.



But what I felt does resonate strongly with how I have been feeling Ms. Hillary's thing all along.



And it's more than frustration, Truthseeker. It's the kind of visceral disgust and revulsion that I never ever thought I would feel in relation to Senator Obama's efforts on anything.



So -- yeah, I think you're right when you say: Ah, so they are still trying to set the agenda.



And in this case, in my feeling of it at least, they succeeded.

It probably would have been better to get the full story and then express your displeasure directly. I definitely hope this was a misunderstanding.

Ah, so they are still trying to set the agenda.


I feel in my bones that Obama should close the door on Hillary and Bill campaigning for him. This kissing of asses will not end well, it never does. They cannot feed the dissatisfaction of these women.



Hillary's mere presence on the campaign trail is a monument to her supposed victimhood.



Hillary still has the message on her site "Stand with Hillary". Silly me, but I thought there was no Hillary to stand with any longer. Why doesn't she release her delegates? Why isn't there a prominent banner with congratulations to Obama? This woman is not finished. She's just been forced underground.



I hear your frustration, Michelle.

PS to above rant: For context, I forgot to mention that the Obama campaign organizer of the call mentioned early on that there were nearly 1200 people on the call including some (many?) Hillary Clinton supporters. So it was not about educating Obama supporters alone, it was something else.

This is a rant of a sort I never expected I would ever have to do.


I don't know if it's right for me to post this here; I apologize if it's out of line.



I just hung up on what was billed as a National LGBT conference call hosted by the Obama campaign.



I am actually so angry about this I am sick to my stomach. This is the first time I have felt actually negative about anything from Senator Obama's campaign. This is what I wrote in the comment form through the Obama website (though I don't even trust that anyone is going to read it ... wow I am really upset about this)



I just hung up the conference call. I am appalled.



I thought this was going to be a call about LGBT issues. Instead I heard Steve start out by making Black women invisible (it was not a race between a "woman" and an "African-American", it was a race between a white woman and an African-American man.)



Then -- 30 minutes of being spoken to (or at) and the first presenter is a presumably white woman who is supposed to articulate to us listeners how Hillary Clinton's supporters feel?



We have 30 minutes to focus on LGBT issues and the first thing you want us listeners to do is focus on Hillary Clinton's supporters' feelings? Most of her supporters are heterosexual I would imagine.



I hung up when I heard that. I feel like this was an incredibly disrespectful way for Senator Obama's campaign to treat those of us who are his actual previous LGBT supporters. It was wrong to claim this would be about LGBT issues when it wasn't. It was wrong to not be clear. I used up some of my limited cell phone minutes on this. I don't have money to pay for extra minutes.



Such disrespect -- I really didn't expect this from the campaign. Please, next time be *truthful* about the focus of a conference call. If I had known what this was actually going to be about I would have been able to make an informed decision.



Now I wonder if the campaign is going to take its actual existing long-time LGBT supporters for granted. Because this was just plain wrong.



So. I am thinking about what Jack has said about how we need to see it from the Clinton supporters POV. And actually I have been able to do this all along -- I don't have the luxury of believing that how I see the world is the way, so I am often pretty aware of diverging and conflicting perspectives. The thing I don't have going is sympathy or empathy for these supporters.



If this had been billed as a conference call with a signficant focus on how Hillary Clinton's supporters feel, I would not have signed up, not have wasted cell phone minutes on hold and then listening to the first part. I'm not saying that such a conference call would be a bad thing to do -- just that I would not want to be part of it.



AND I find it incredibly disrespectful that it was billed as something about LGBT people then gets used as an excuse to focus yet again on how bad the upset white mostly hetero women feel. Now I didn't listen to what this woman said bc I hung up. So maybe she was going to focus on Hillary's LGBT supporters feelings, which has its own ugly implications IMO.



But I do know that the *majority* of these white-women-Clinton supporters who are upset are straight. Not only is there a distinctive hetero vibe to some of where they are coming from, not only is Hillary all about standing on her white hetero privilege, but simple math says it too: there are more hetero people than queer people.



I don't know what happened, if this was bad organizing, a result of weird Clinton-pushing political pressure, or if it reflects real disrespect in Senator Obama's campaign for existing LGBT supporters ... or what. Maybe I just don't understand something and this was to be expected and I was just unprepared.



This has actually kind of shaken me to the core, the lack of clarity and honesty about what the call was about. I never expected anything like this from the campaign. Whoa.



And truly, maybe I need to re-adjust my understanding of -- well, of something. Because this experience really rattled me.

Obama Launches Two-Week Tour On The Economy


"Change That Works For You"



First stop will be in Raleigh, NC



http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_launches_twoweek_tour_on.php

@ anon 9:32am:


You really can't pay too much attention to Dinesh D'Souza. Afterall, he did date Laura Ingraham-hocks and Ann Afghan Hound Coulter:



"Prior to his marriage in 1992, D'Souza had relationships with two well-known female conservatives, Laura Ingraham, a nationally-syndicated radio commentator to whom he was engaged but never married, and best-selling conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter.[8]"

Apologies if anyone already posted. Interesting read:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/06/angry-clinton-supporters_n_105653.html



Excerpt:

They're mad as hell, and Hillary Clinton's supporters aren't going to take it anymore.



Some Clintonites are so mad about Barack Obama's Tuesday victory that they've launched a web site to build support to launch a lobbying group to support Republican John McCain.



"We're going to run campaign ads to defeat Obama," says Ed Hale, a 63-year-old rancher and a Clinton supporter from Wellington, Texas. "We have doctors, lawyers, CPAs, the blue bloods, and then we have rednecks like me. It's a very diversified organization."



The split illustrates the difficult task the Democratic party now faces in rallying the troops behind Obama. Open dissent within party ranks provides Republicans with openings to exploit.

melinda,


you wrote:

"I would like some attention to the millions of us who voted for Barack.'

_____________________________________



The focus in the general will be on undecided voters, independents and moderates. That's just the way it works.



I think Obama has to be careful not to misinterpret the disapproval with Bush as a desire to embrace a wholesale 'progressive' agenda.



Included in polling data of the cut and dried 'right track/wrong track' question, voters are not only disapproving of Bush, but Congress as well.



I am fiscally conservative are I am unhappy with the growth of government under Bush's administration. I am unhappy with the way he mismanaged the war, but still willing to support the surge. I are unhappy with Congress for not allowing us to drill domestically for oil, build new refineries and develop more nuclear energy in an environmentally sensitive way. I want school choice. I am concerned with the economy but understand that higher taxes will severely hinder any opportunity for economic recovery.



Change is not synonymous with improvement and many moderates will be concerned, especially with Democrat majorities in Congress, of giving too much control to the Democrats, wary of increasing the size and scope of the federal government.

I posted this a ways back...it's a good article (with short audio clips) that goes through Clinton's speech and outlines how she failed at every opportunity to rise to grand stature. For posterity, this is important:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/time-and-tide-wait-for-no_b_105533.html



I've felt that the Clinton's were attempting to influence the history books. The pretense that she won, the media blackout in the BARUCH college appearance. The accusations of sexism. The implication that she really won but that it was stolen from her. All of this is preparation for her hope that Barack will lose in Nov, and to hide her failure and shame.

djchefron,


I would venture to guess that Bill Clinton's share of 'evangelicals' overlapped with his African American and southern support.



Obama's extreme pro-choice record is of concern.



Among these voters, Rev. Wright will be an issue, as well.



A pro-life Dem like Casey may keep blue collar Catholics from crossing over to McCain, but I think he has an up hill battle there.



To those evangelicals who supported Bush, McCain is the 'lesser of two evils.' They are more likely to stay home.

All - the road is going to get even steeper and more dangerous as we move closer toward the November election.


Barack asked that we:

'Please cover me with your prayers...cover me, Michelle, and my family with your prayers'. 'A blanket of prayer to cover us all, that is what I am asking of you. Pray for me'.



- A Prayer For Barack -

'Father, in the Name of Jesus, we lift up your son Barack Obama on our prayers. We thank you for a time such as this and for sending a man such as Barack to fulfill your work in our land. We blanket Barack, Michelle, and his family in our prayers, our love, our warm thoughts, our positive energy, and our spiritual forces. We ask that you cover him and his family with your precious blood. We stand resolute in prayer and in absolute power against any and all negative forces or spirit's of darkness, ignorance, and hatred that would seek to destroy Your handiwork. O Lord, Barack is Your Handiwork. And we praise, worship, and honor you for the great things you are doing and will do through his hands. In Jesus' Name ... Amen.'

S - you are 100% right. Only Hillary Clinton can fix the situation with her supporters. It is her mess to clean up. Any intervention from Obama will only escalate hostility until she resolves it.

S--


I don't have a political mind that is well-formed enough to offer an intelligent response to your question about which policies and which VP pick might appeal to those outside the Democratic fold.



But I think in general that Obama will be more likely to gain the White House if he shows in his VP pick a willingness to tap someone who has shown himself or herself to be a uniter, someone comfortable in hearing the truth and speaking the truth---about common sense things, even. Someone who represents "change" from the Bush/Cheney era, like Obama himself does.



So, to my mind, inspite of all the pressure he is getting to pick Hillary, I don't think she would have the appeal to non-Democrats that others might.



And, in my heart, I agree with Jelana who said that Barack is "not that weak" to bow to the pressure. I just don't know what all the factors will be nor do I understand all the forces at play now that Obama is our offical nominee. I was getting pretty annoyed with so much media attention to Hillary's supporters and what they want and what they need in order to vote for Obama---I would like some attention to the millions of us who voted for Barack. The Clinton campaign has been really hung up on the 18 Million number. Well, there are at least 18 Million of us who chose Obama in the first place, too.

Could Obama win over evangelicals, if he can then it is over Religious Right Figure Gets Chills:
Obama Could Win 40 Percent Of Evangelicals | June 6, 2008 11:56 AM





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"With clients like Focus on the Family, Franklin Graham, and Campus Crusade for Christ, Mark DeMoss may be the most prominent public relations executive in the evangelical world. A former chief of staff to Jerry Falwell, DeMoss became then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney's chief liaison to evangelical leaders."



In a new interview with Dan Gilgoff for BeliefNet's God-o-Meter, DeMoss explains the lack of religious enthusiasm for McCain and predicts a potential major shift to Obama.



How is John McCain doing among evangelicals, a crucial Republican constituency?



The evangelical world or the conservative religious world is not his natural habitat, so he doesn't strike me as being all that comfortable with it. I think that's evidenced by the strong comments made in 2000 about Falwell and Robertson. ...



You represent some of the nation's most powerful evangelicals. What do those leaders say about McCain?



This is one guy's perspective, but I am surprised by how little I've seen or read in conservative circles about McCain since February. I don't think I've gotten one email or letter or phone call from anybody in America in the last four months saying anything about this election or urging that we unite behind John McCain and put aside whatever differences we have. Back in the fall and winter, you'd get several things a day from conservatives saying, "The future of the Supreme Court is at stake. We have to stop Hillary Clinton. Get behind so and so--or don't' go with this guy." It's just very quiet. It could meant there's a real sense of apathy or it could mean they're' waiting for the general election to begin. But it's a surprise, given the way email networks work now.



Barack Obama is trying hard to win evangelical voters. Does that effort stand a chance?



If one third of white evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton the second time, at the height of Monica Lewinsky mess--that's a statistic I didn't believe at first but I double and triple checked it--I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election. You're seeing some movement among evangelicals as the term [evangelical] has become more pejorative. There's a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing. There's some concern that maybe Republicans haven't done that well. And there's this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 40-percent.

Michelle Obama attack alert:


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/6/103323/8168/915/530970

Wow......


http://www.livesteez.com/videos/watch/W2Fh7It

melinda,


You wrote: We need a strong, strong ticket that appeals to Democrats, yes, but also across the broader spectrum that includes some progressive Republicans and Independents.

______________________________________



Not just a VP choice, but policies that appeal to Independents and progressive Republicans.



What would those policies be? Which VP, reinforces those policies?



I am very interested in your response because I consider myself to be a conservative Independent.

Junglecat,


Fairness Doctrine pops into my mind...LOL

Did anyone catch Glenn Beck this morning on CNN griping about how he was worried that an Obama's presidency would threaten his job security? He is basically worried that he would not be able to spew his garbage without consequences.


Junglecat

s said (emphasis added), "The onus is on Hillary to repair the damage she has done.




She not only needs to embrace Obama with enthusiasm, she also needs to "aggressively counter" hostility toward him and his legitimacy that she started with her scorched-earth rhetoric.



She needs to "make perfectly clear that she was not robbed, that she lost fair and square." She is the only one who can effectively deliver this message to her die-hard supporters."



BINGO!



I keep saying, this race ended in February. Hillary's ego that gave a lot of her supporters a false impression of reality.



Obama can't waste the entire summer on the Harriet's of the world. He should cut his losses with people like her.



This race was over the night of the Wisconsin Primary. Her last-ditch hope was March 4. And she never got big enough margins out of OH and TX to change the math.

black american princess,


where in the world did you find these?



Unfortunately, we know we must steel ourselves for everything at this point. Hillary pandered to the lowest common denominator so now nothing should surprise us.



bserious,



I understand just how you feel.

Hillary should be the one to come out and actually admit that she is

responsible for the failure of her compaign. She can solve it if she really wants to. I won't hold my breath for that though. Unfortunately, if

Obama really and truly wants this he may eventually have to do it. He should not do it anytime soon though. He should let everyone get

through the grieving process first and only do it as a last resort. We knew it would not be easy!



melinda,

As far as the VP, I don't believe he would EVER give it to Hillary.

He is not that weak

VEEP thoughts are on my mind this morning.


I understand the general call to allow Hillary's supporters some time to calm down, because their disappointment is genuine and the reality of the situation may take some time to sink in.



But I am thinking that the voices of Obama supporters---clearly equal in number to Clinton's---deserve to be heard, too. Hillary does not represent the change that Barack does; she has blatantly lied (sniper fire, anyone?); she has run her campaign millions of dollars into debt; she has proclaimed that McCain would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Obama. Frankly, she has given me little reason to want her on the ticket...though several months ago I thought that might be an attractive option. Not saying that I would refuse to vote for Obama if she's on the ticket---I won't get all dramatic and defiant like some of the more strident Clinton supporters---but I think he can do better. We, as a party, can do better.



We need a strong, strong ticket that appeals to Democrats, yes, but also across the broader spectrum that includes some progressive Republicans and Independents. We want to show the world that this is a Movement of the American people, ready to heal the nation and to earn back the respect of others.

djchefron,


Your post picks up on the very discussion we were having yesterday.



I don't think Obama needs to give a 'gender' speech.



The onus is on Hillary to repair the damage she has done.





She not only needs to embrace Obama with enthusiasm, she also needs to "aggressively counter" hostility toward him and his legitimacy that she started with her scorched-earth rhetoric.



She needs to "make perfectly clear that she was not robbed, that she lost fair and square." She is the only one who can effectively deliver this message to her die-hard supporters.



But to be sure, her words and actions now will be competeing side-by-side with her previous comments against Obama that the RNC is already preparing to use against him. Which Hillary will be believed?

Two points, I hope O had a drink/food taster with him at Hillary's crib, and, two, does Tubbs-Jones have dental insurance? I have never seen anyone with gums that discolored when she is grinning on "Final Verdict" last night, its gross.

From You Tube:


Obama Wins: Newspaper Front Pages from Around the World

Sorry for the long links, here they are in shortened format:


http://tinyurl.com/6dp2g6





http://tinyurl.com/5enc3b

Welp yall, it looks like the garbage has started already. As disgusting as these 2 links are below, I wish I could personally email them to every white female Hillary Clinton supporter so they'd REALLY know what's up.




http://bp0.blogger.com/_wQ_rSruShhk/SEgeQ6wL79I/AAAAAAAABy0/j_cx6zGOZUs/s400/DSC09493hfhfhf-------kkkkk.jpg







http://bp2.blogger.com/_wQ_rSruShhk/SEgeslPCoMI/AAAAAAAABy8/1CTajThRQvk/s400/Michelle_Obama_034mmmmm.jpg





I'm praying for God to give Barack and Michelle an extra helping of strength because this is just the beginning of what they'll have to deal with...

i just want to say about the mccain speech against the green background...in color theory when you put a low intensity color against (human flesh) against an intense color (kelly green backdrop) the intense color should accentuate it's opposite or compliment. the green should have made mccain look redder or pinker not yellow or green. unless he was under yellow or greenish lights. so if people think he looked green, it was the lighting not the backdrop. as for the yellow teeth that is a whole other issue.

the point is the consevatives are really losing control of the media

colbert had pat buchanan interview last night. he accepted pat's apology. pat had not offered it and it was not clear what the apology was for, but stephen DID accept. poor pat look confused.

i loved how obama handled the cnn interview and specifically the v.p. talk. he is showing them who is boss with incredible diplomacy. cnn has played their hand and lost. SUCKERS!

djchefron,


Excellent article! I love how the writer exposes the hypocrisy in people like Gloria Steinem.



The following part says it all:



"The media is the real target of their rage, while the anger at Obama comes from the sense that he's benefited from it and failed to denounce misogyny the way he does racism."



That is an extremely privileged argument to make. It basically says Obama has an AFFIRMATIVE DUTY to defend Hillary Clinton's honor.



How privileged it must be to presume someone else has an OBLIGATION to fight your battles for you.



Mind you, Hillary never wasted a breath speaking out against racism in the campaign. In fact, she was quoted in the WaPo as saying that racism was NOT a factor in the campaign.



She said this as she touted her "white, hardworking white" vote; as a quarter of the voters in states like PA and WV openly admitted that they based their decision on race (note: internal polling said upwards of 85-90% of said voters picked Hillary).

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.


Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.



They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.



They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.



For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.



Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.



And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.



Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.



Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.



And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.



And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.



With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.



Thy will be done, Almighty God.



Amen.



Franklin D. Roosevelt - June 6, 1944

Found this article at the New Republic
The New Republic



3 A.M. For Feminism

by Michelle Goldberg

Clinton dead-enders and the crisis in the women's movement.

Post Date Friday, June 06, 2008



DISCUSS ARTICLE [0] | PRINT | EMAIL ARTICLE







Amy Siskind, a 42-year-old mother of two from Westchester, stood in a Washington, D.C., park on the last day in May, telling a few hundred cheering people that she would not, under any circumstances, vote for Barack Obama. She was a lifelong Democrat, she said, a donor and a volunteer for the party. But, watching the race with a "mixture of shock, disgrace, and disgust," she was appalled at the leadership's failure to defend Hillary Clinton from the sexism that she believes bolstered Barack Obama's campaign. "Now I have a message for Howard Dean and the DNC," she said into a microphone, acid in her voice. "I'm not your sweetie!"



Siskind was one of the speakers at a rally that brought busloads of people, overwhelmingly women, to demonstrate near the Democratic National Committee (DNC) meeting that would decide the status of the Florida and Michigan delegations. The states had been stripped of their delegates--a decision Clinton endorsed--because they had broken party rules in holding their primaries early. But, as Clinton lost steam, seating them in full became crucial to her argument for the nomination, and thus, to her supporters, a matter of high democratic principle. Oaths to oppose Obama proliferated, often among longtime female fund-raisers. "You have betrayed us, our children, and our future," Siskind proclaimed during her speech, "and you will learn the new meaning of stay-at-home moms!"



Hillary Clinton has lost the nomination, but some of her most ardent female backers seem unwilling to accept it. A strange narrative has developed, abetted by Clinton and some of the mainstream feminist organizations. In it, the will of the voters was thwarted by chauvinistic party leaders in concert with a servile media, and Obama's victory represents a repeat of George W. Bush's in 2000. It's a story in which Obama becomes every arrogant young man who has ever edged out a more deserving middle-aged woman, and Clinton, hanging on until the bitter end, is not a spoiler but a feminist martyr.



This conviction, that sexism cost Clinton the nomination, is likely to be one of the more toxic legacies of this primary season. It is leaving her supporters feeling not just disappointed but victimized, many convinced that Obama's win is illegitimate. Taylor Marsh, a blogger and radio host whose website has become a hub for Clinton fans, says she gets hundreds of e-mails from angry Democrats pledging not to vote for Obama. She's started running posts from such readers under the headline democratic storm warnings. "I'm not saying that this is a huge voting bloc," she says. "I'm just saying that there is a huge amount of talk and I'm convinced it's a reality that needs to be addressed."



Surely some of this political nihilism will fade by November. Right now, it's hard to quantify; Internet forums and political protests exist, in part, to magnify the passions of a few into an illusory groundswell. In exit polls from Indiana and North Carolina, at least half of Clinton supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama, but there's no way to calculate the role of gender in their disaffection.



In the months to come, feminist leaders and Clinton herself will urge women back into the Democratic fold. Still, the bitterness is intense. Kate Michelman, the Obama-supporting former head of naral, has heard enough of it to get worried. "It does feel to me, just recently, like we're on a death mission," she says. "[T]here is a danger where we set a course for failure in November."











It didn't start out this way. In February of 2007, Gloria Steinem pushed back against the mushrooming discussion of identity politics, publishing an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Right Candidates, Wrong Question." She argued that queries about whether Americans were more prepared to elect a woman or a black man were "dumb and destructive." "[M]ost Americans are smart enough to figure out that a member of a group may or may not represent its interests," she wrote. "This time, we . . . could double our chances by working for one of these candidates, not against the other." When reporters asked if she was supporting Clinton or Obama, she said, "I just say yes."



Eleven months later, her position, and that of many feminists, had grown more rigid. Taking to the Times op-ed page once again, she argued, "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House." When the time came to choose a candidate, it turned out identity politics mattered. "We have to be able to say: 'I'm supporting her,' " she concluded, " 'because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman.' "



Like Steinem, much of the second-wave women's movement would move from enthusiasm for both candidates to dismay and solidarity as Clinton was eclipsed and dismissed. They watched professional media types sing smitten fanboy hymns to Obama and, at the same time, spend hours dissecting Clinton's laugh and cleavage. The prospect of electing a black man clearly thrilled commentators, while the prospect of electing a woman elicited a derisive shrug. For some women, reaction to the coverage was radicalizing.



What's more, seeing Clinton losing to a younger, more charismatic man seemed to echo a primal experience of middle-aged female humiliation. "One can find it in any place of employment," Steinem tells me. "Women who were senior tellers in banks were performing the same work as junior vice presidents. They trained them as they came in at the entry level and then saw them pass upward."



By the spring, the Clinton campaign and the cause of women's rights were joined in the minds of many. Second-wave activists chided Obama-supporting women for not getting on board and began interpreting any attack on Clinton as a slight against their gender. The seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida started to seem like a feminist cause célèbre.



The movement coalesced in mid-May, when members of Clinton's finance committee, including Susie Tompkins Buell, sometimes described as one of Clinton's closest friends, and Allida Black, editor of the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers at George Washington University, formed WomenCount PAC. The group ran full-page advertisements in The New York Times, USA Today, and other newspapers addressing the country on behalf of "the women of this nation." The ads proclaimed, rather grandly, "Hillary's voice is OUR voice, and she's speaking for all us." Their story was featured on the "Today" show, "Good Morning America," CNN, and Fox, and they joined other volunteers in organizing the rally at the DNC.



Meanwhile, Clinton, who'd previously avoided presenting herself as the woman's candidate, brought gender to the forefront of her campaign as never before. On May 19, in a Washington Post interview, she spoke out for the first time about the sexism she's faced throughout the race, calling it "deeply offensive to millions of women." The press, she suggested, had failed to decry "incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists." She began injecting feminist and civil rights language into her arguments for seating the Michigan and Florida delegates. Piously invoking Seneca Falls and Selma in a May 21 speech, she pledged to "carry on this legacy and ensure that in our nominating process every voice is heard and every single vote is counted."



More and more, she was tying her campaign to the grand narrative of women's emancipation. "I am in this race for all the women in their nineties who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House," she wrote in a letter to superdelegates on May 28. "For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls--and little boys--whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, 'See, you can be anything you want to be.' "



Mainstream feminist organizations joined calls to seat the two states, with leaders of NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation participating in the rally at the DNC. Some have suggested that the DNC's reluctance was in itself a sign of covert sexism. "There's a strong feeling that this would have been handled differently if Hillary Clinton hadn't won [those] states," says Kim Gandy, president of NOW.



Feminists who supported Obama were incredulous. Harvard Law professor and civil rights activist Lani Guinier suggests that Clinton's supporters were trying to turn her into the Al Gore of 2008. "It appears that some of Hillary's supporters want to externalize the problem, which is why the analogy to 2000 seems to work," she says. "Then they can say it wasn't anything wrong with her candidacy--instead, it was an injustice that was done to women."











The wholesale conflation of Clintonism and establishment feminism--and the merging of their grievances--has created a kind of disorienting parallel reality. But what accounts for this through-the-looking-glass split?



Partly, it's a response to simple longing. The prospect of a female president who is also a feminist would have been a shining triumph for a movement that has lately had more disappointments than successes. "At least in a certain segment of second-wave feminism, the emphasis on getting women in office was always very, very high," says Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, now a fellow at Harvard's Radcliffe Institute. "In a certain sense, second-wave feminism is in its old age. . . . For many second-wave leaders who are at the peak of their professional life, or beyond the peak of their professional life, this would seem like such an enormous final victory."



Back in the pre-feminist days of 1934, Malvina Lindsay, the women's page editor of The Washington Post, argued that women wouldn't vote for one of their own for president "because they have set too high ideals for their goddesses." Indeed, she wrote, "the woman President that Miss Lillian D. Rock, secretary of the National Association of Women Lawyers, expects to see in the White House within her lifetime will have to be a super-woman to take the hurdle of female appraisal."



Second-wave feminism was supposed to prove Lindsay wrong. One of the central premises of the movement was that women had been artificially set against each other, and that, if they could unite behind their common interests, they could revolutionize their roles in the world. In the mid-'70s, elite young women were already pondering who could break the ultimate glass ceiling, and among their candidates was an impassioned young lawyer, Hillary Rodham, deemed an icon of her generation by Life magazine after her 1969 Wellesley commencement speech. In his biography of Hillary Clinton, Carl Bernstein describes Betsey Wright, later Bill Clinton's gubernatorial chief of staff, imploring Bill not to marry Hillary, take her off to Arkansas, and thus spoil her chance at becoming the first female president. "I really started in on how he couldn't do that. He shouldn't do that," Wright said. "That he could find anybody he wanted to be a political wife, but we'd . . . never find anyone like her" to run for office.



For young feminists, who have largely gone for Obama, their first encounter with Hillary came when she defended Bill from charges of philandering during the 1992 presidential campaign; for them, her case for leadership was never clear-cut. But, for many of those who remember Hillary Rodham, her reemergence as a political power in her own right seems a kind of generational redemption. "She's the candidate that I have wanted for decades," says Allida Black. "I had heard about Hillary for a good fifteen years before Bill ran in '92, and I was for Bill because of Hillary."



For these supporters, Clinton's portrayal during the campaign has been anything but inspirational. They say the press has demonized and degraded her, and almost any zealous supporter can reel off a list of journalistic insults. The media is the real target of their rage, while the anger at Obama comes from the sense that he's benefited from it and failed to denounce misogyny the way he does racism.



"We thought we'd gotten past a lot of this stuff, and it turns out that we were deluding ourselves," Black says. "When CNN calls Hillary a white bitch, when they talk about her cleavage, when the metaphor to describe her presentation is, oh, she reminds me of my wife when she's angry and tells me to take out the garbage, or when they mock that Hillary has the support of white women . . . I've been stunned by it. I've been flabbergasted by it." (CNN, of course, did not call Clinton a white bitch. The GOP consultant and McCain adviser Alex Castellanos did, or kind of did, on the network. But the way many Clinton supporters retell it is itself indicative of their distress.)



Of course, Clinton has encountered straight-up misogyny--lots of it. At the same time, anger at obvious instances of sexism has expanded to encompass every setback she's faced, every jab thrown her way--the cut and thrust of any normal campaign. Several of her feminist defenders, for example, interpreted calls for Clinton to drop out, lest she cause a party rift, as expressions of condescending gender bias. "The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right," Ellen Malcolm, founder and president of Emily's List, wrote in The Washington Post on May 10. But that wasn't anti-woman or even anti-Clinton; it was just Democratic politics. Similar worries were aired about Edward Kennedy in 1980--a Christian Science Monitor story claimed his "to-the-bitter-end candidacy already may be irreparably splitting the Democratic Party"--and about Jerry Brown in 1992, once Bill Clinton came near a mathematical lock on the nomination.



Indeed, Clinton has never been just a victim of her gender. When it came to the deeper narratives of the campaign, Clinton benefited, as do many women in politics, from her good fortune of having married a successful political man. Hillary Clinton has spent only four more years than Obama in the Senate, but she was consistently assumed to be a more plausible commander-in-chief than her rival based on her time as First Lady. At the same time, it's been widely assumed that she's been entirely vetted, leaving many parts of her life--her disastrous leadership style on health care reform, her role in trying to silence and discredit Bill's mistresses, her husband's post-White House financial dealings--unexamined. The slimy right-wing rumor mill that tormented the Clintons in the '90s has directed its venom toward Obama: He's the one who has been depicted as a Muslim Manchurian candidate in a smear campaign that has gotten a dispiriting degree of traction.











Obama was probably smart not to bring up more of his opponent's shortcomings; doing so would play into the narrative of victimization that became the dominant theme of Clinton's campaign in its final weeks. "Without question," Susan Estrich, author of The Case for Hillary Clinton, wrote in late May, "there is serious disaffection right now among many women about the sense of being shunted aside, told to pipe down and line up, the sense that the Hillary campaign, and Hillary herself, has become a mirror for the frustrations the rest of us have faced as we battle subtle and no[t]-so-subtle discrimination."



This psychic wound is not Obama's fault, but it is his problem. Establishment feminism has not done itself proud using its noble struggle for social justice as an alibi for political hardball. But it represents women whose frustration and sense of unfairness are deeply felt, and those feelings need to be addressed.



For a start, that probably means Obama shouldn't nominate a vice president like Jim Webb, who has a number of attractive attributes but a notably bad record on women's issues. He also needs to stop calling women he doesn't know "sweetie." Beyond that, both feminists who support Obama and those who support Clinton suggest he give a speech about women's issues similar to the one he made about race. One of the things Obama is best at is making people feel that he understands their grievances and anxieties, even if he disagrees with them about remedies. If he can reach out to working-class whites offended by affirmative action, surely he can do the same for the middle-aged women who feel wronged by their surrogate's defeat.



"I do think he could talk more about the contributions that feminism has made to this country, from pay equity to basic respect for women, and, in particular, he should acknowledge the legitimate frustrations of women who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s," says Guinier. "The way you speak to people who are in pain is to acknowledge their pain."



Clinton and her feminist supporters, though, also have work to do, because their rhetoric of disenfranchisement has become destructive--witness the chants, during Clinton's speech on the night Obama won the nomination, urging her to continue on to the convention. It would be the grimmest irony imaginable if feminist irredentism helped elect a candidate as anti-feminist as John McCain. In recent weeks, Clinton has fashioned herself as a standard-bearer for women's rights. Ultimately, her work on behalf of Obama will show whether she means it.

OMoses!

I so glad you used the photo of him with the stick! Yeah it is Obama time now! And he's gracious enough to give Hillpatine cover she so she can claim she doesn't want to be VP.


1. It's not an option.

2. It's not an option.

3. It's not an option.



Her concession speech on Saturday better be effin' brilliant and employ the talking points dictated to her by Obambi.....

That post makes me chuckle and feel like when the lights flash and all the symbols line up on the slot machine. Yep, it's a match!


For a couple days now it's been dawning on me that people better be real careful how they handle Obama, 'cause he 'ain't no punk. The movie "Fresh" comes to mind. A black kid takes out a gang of drug dealers using strategy learned in the game of chess. He does it for love...of his addicted sister.



Yessiree, BarackAttack has a plan, and he's not afraid to use it!



I wonder if Obambi plays chess.

Read this over at The Field:


Patrick, on June 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pm Said:

I’ve long suspected, and am now seeing, qualities in Obama that I doubt many people expected him to display (or even possess) - a focused ruthlessness in what he does, of purpose.



It’s easy to look at Obama and see the big ears, and the easygoing manner, and the seemingly immature focus on “hope” and the ever-nebulous call for “change.” It’s also easy to look at Obama and see a strong community organizer, a calm, rational leader of an incredibly energetic movement, and a man we can all respect and anticipate calling “President.”



But there’s a problem. Both groups underestimate him.



What does a man who is an empty suit, one some call “Obambi”, or a man who is the leader of an emotional movement bent on “hope” and “change”, do when that movement actually succeeds? Real change, real work, is done once all the glitz and glamor has ended, and takes years. Emotional movements, or alternatively, empty suits, both have the quality of being unable to turn electoral games into effective government policy.



So I’ve long suspected that Obama had to have other qualities, ones that allow him to take the results of those elections and turn them into something greater. He did it in Illinois; and the focus about his manner suggested to me that there’s an underlying ruthlessness to his personality that is never seen in high flying speeches about change or hope. This ruthlessness is hinted at, but not proved by, the seemingly military-precise timing of almost everything he did throughout the campaign; an awareness of everything, all at once, with the ability to filter out what is irrelevant and focus in on what’s important with the precision of a laser beam.



And what Al has shown us in this post, and the already implemented changes in the Democratic party, I think is proof enough of these qualities in Obama, the ones less obvious in his stump speech or unseen due to his newness on the national stage.



These are qualities Obama HAS to have in order to succeed as President. It amuses me to see people underestimate him, because it means that when they finally see what he’s really done, they’ll be all that more floored by the power and scope of it. In short - he’s an impressive man to watch from a sociological perspective. I guarantee you we never see the whole picture, and people like that are very, very appealing to me. He has a power that few will ever really know.