cross-posted to goodCRIMETHINK

rikyrah just told me she thought my last post about the Ohio debate should not have hidden the article I referenced in the end. I agree. Much of my case for Obama rests on his premise that “activating the civic gene in Americans” (my term) is ultimately what’s necessary to solve our biggest problems.

Ok, sounds good. But where he differs is in offering the tools to realize that engaged public. You can find it in his technology plan and government transparency initiatives. Any politician can “talk” about getting citizens engaged, but it’s a rare one who also promises to provide the tools of said engagement.

So that’s two points.

1) he talks about increased transparency and civic engagement
2) he promises to offer the tools to make that engagement effective

But wait, there’s more. He has already delivered on this idea in the financing of his campaign. That’s where this article by Robert Parry comes in. Parry explains the significance of Obama’s non-traditional financial support. Obama is beholden to the people. Hillary is beholden to more established, moneyed interests.

The more I think on it, the more significance this point makes. Go back to the piece I wrote where I discussed the compromises all ascending politicians make by necessity and the concept of “who does Obama owe?” Well, increasingly, he owes us.

But read on, and check this excerpt:

While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.

This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

Money rules the world. If the money is increasingly from the people, then we have a shot at actually getting a seat at the table. It’s not just talk. It’s not just promises. It’s the real deal.

If you want to add to the donor pool, go right ahead. It’s a good investment.

Fired Up!

cross-posted to goodCRIMETHINK

As usual, yall rocked the open thread. I was on a shaky Internet connection, so MSNBC’s stream fell off, but I kept up thanks to yall. Read the transcript on the train this morning, and I thought the following were worth highlighting from Obama on Iraq and mobilizing the American people.

BTW, I think Hillary did fine. The SNL callout and whining about getting the debate question first did look petty, but I think she did OK in explaining the breadth of her actions around trade and in discussing Russia. Her attempt to over-anti-anti-Semitism Obama also read a bit awkward.

Tim Russert was a bit of an asshole overall. If you have concerns about Obama’s church, please check the facts.

Anyway…

Obama on Iraq. Many have commented on his “drive the bus into the ditch” line, but the entire answer I thought was pretty good.

Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply — not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.

And so when I bring this up, it is not simply to say “I told you so,” but it is to give you an insight in terms of how I would make decisions.

And the fact was, this was a big strategic blunder. It was not a matter of, well, here is the initial decision, but since then we’ve voted the same way. Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is, who’s making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch? And the fact is that Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but in fact she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue. So the same person that she criticizes for having terrible judgment, and we can’t afford to have another one of those, in fact she facilitated and enabled this individual to make a decision that has been strategically damaging to the United States of America.

With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we — and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official.

That is the position that we should have taken in the first place. And President Musharraf is now indicating that he would generally be more cooperative in some of these efforts, we don’t know how the new legislature in Pakistan will respond, but the fact is it was the right strategy.

And so my claim is not simply based on a speech. It is based on the judgments that I’ve displayed during the course of my service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while I’ve been in the United States Senate, and as somebody who, during the course of this campaign, I think has put forward a plan that will provide a clean break against Bush and Cheney. And that is how we’re going to be able to debate John McCain. Having a debate with John McCain where your positions were essentially similar until you started running for president, I think, does not put you in a strong position.

Obama on Mobilizing the American People

You know, she mentioned that she is a fighter on health care. And look — I do not in any way doubt that Senator Clinton genuinely wants to provide health care to all Americans.

What I have said is that the way she approached it back in ’93, I think, was wrong in part because she had the view that what’s required is simply to fight. And Senator Clinton ended up fighting not just the insurance companies and the drug companies, but also members of her own party. And as a consequence, there were a number of people, like Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, who were not included in the negotiations. And we had the potential of bringing people together to actually get something done.

I am absolutely clear that hope is not enough. And it is not going to be easy to pass health care. If it was, it would have already gotten done. It’s not going to be easy to have a sensible energy policy in this country. ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They are not going to give up those profits easily.

But what I also believe is that the only way we are going to actually get this stuff done is, number one, we’re going to have to mobilize and inspire the American people so that they’re paying attention to what their government is doing. And that’s what I’ve been doing in this campaign, and that’s what I will do as president.

And there’s nothing romantic or silly about that. If the American people are activated, that’s how change is going to happen.

The second thing we’ve going to have to do is we’re actually going to have to go after the special interests. Senator Clinton in one of these speeches — it may have been the same speech where you showed the clip — said you can’t just wave a magic wand and expect special interests to go away. That is absolutely true, but it doesn’t help if you’re taking millions of dollars in contributions from those special interests. They are less likely to go away.

So it is important for us to crack down on how these special interests are able to influence Congress. And yes, it is important for us to inspire and mobilize and motivate the American people to get involved and pay attention.

This point is critical and is usually my “closer” in arguing my case for Obama versus Clinton. rikyrah pointed out that Obama has reached his one millionth donor, and commenter Angela put me on to this article which explains the significance of his non-traditional financial support. Obama is more beholden to the people than Clinton is. He’s not just talking about limiting the influence of lobbyists, etc. He’s being about it.

But read on, and check this excerpt:

While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.

This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

Fired Up!

Sometime, last night, the ONE MILLIONTH DONOR signed onto Barack Obama’s campaign.

ONE MILLION DONORS.

One million people who have said, I believe in this campaign.

This is the core of why I believe Obama should reject public financing. Why should he take something that will handicap him? He doesn’t take lobbyist or PAC money. So, let the donors decide their funding level of his campaign.

If you’d like to join one million others: BarackObama.com

What really gets me about the Clinton campaign’s release of Barack Obama dressed as a Somali (which is meant to terrify Americans with visions of towelheaded terrorists running the country, I assume) is that another black person, Maggie Williams, would be involved. If the Clinton campaign is behind it. Maggie Williams as you might recall Hillary Clinton’s new campaign manager and therefore the buck stops with her with any racist, hate-filled stereotyping aimed at a fellow person of color. She should go down in the HNIC Hall of Fame for this one which if it can be lain at her door which threatens to take race relations backwards about 10 years or so.

Doesn’t look like it’s had much effect so far but something tells me that if Obama gets the nomination that we might not see the last of this and other photos from Africa. The GOP apparently has actually been conducting tests for exactly what the boundaries of racist (and sexist) political messaging might be. Ugh.

But where are other black leaders in speaking out against this black on black smear?

JJP reader Talented Tenth puts it best, I think:

I just saw the Drudgereport photo. I am sickened.

Less than 48 hours after Hilary Clinton attended the
State of the Black Union event, she releases a photo
trying to compare Barack Obama to a terrorist. It is
appalling and and a huge FU to the African American
community.

I belive that the Congressional Black Caucus needs to
respond swiftly

James Clyburn – needs to get off the sidelines.

John Lewis – needs to get off the fence

Maxine Waters, Stephanie Tubbs, and Sheila Jackson Lee
- is this acceptable conduct?

Those civil rights leaders who have now turned into
politicians and corporate leaders – what do you say?

When this campaign first started we saw a Democratic
party that had a Black male, a white woman, and a
Latino male all running for the highest office of the
land. No matter who you supported, you could be proud
to be a Democrat.

In one photo, I am now ashamed.

Me too — of the silence of our leaders in the face of abhorrent color-aroused tactics promoted by one of our own.

Over at TheRoot.com (which has added Jack and Jill Politics to its blogroll, thanks!) — there’s a great opinion piece published Tuesday by Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell of Princeton called Using Our Roots Against Us. Here’s a taste (emphasis mine):

The social death of slavery has cut off many black Americans from our ancestral narratives. During Black History Month we adopt our collective accomplishments and our common heroes as a salve against our lost personal stories. This is critically important, but there is something special about naming your own ancestors and encountering yourself in their reflections.

Yet here in Black History Month, Obama’s own black history is being used as a weapon against him. President Bush can traipse around the motherland safely encased in his armor of whiteness. No one can mistake him for a “native”. His role is simply to dispatch the White Man’s Burden with billions in abstinence-based HIV/AIDS programs and malaria-fighting mosquito netting. In a single photo, Barack can be painted as indelibly tied to a deep and mysterious, exotic and dangerous Dark Continent that produced the shame of slavery and the fear of Islamic radicalism.

Obama is vulnerable. This is the assassination that we should fear, because the Secret Service cannot protect him from it. The voters of Ohio and Texas will have to be the armored vest against these attacks. South Carolina voters soundly repudiated the Clintons for their race-baiting strategies. I believe that Ohio and Texas voters will ignore this revival of fear-based politics and embrace a new direction for American elections.

If they look carefully, these voters will not see the “scary Muslim” that this photo is supposed to evoke. They will see themselves. If they look carefully, they will see their own uniquely American stories that are tied to distant lands whose rituals they still honor and whose languages they still speak. If they look carefully, Americans will see themselves in kilts, saris, and sombreros. If they look carefully, Americans will see the way to throw off narrow, bigoted fear-mongering politics and build an expansive, hopeful patriotism that embraces the world even as it strengthens America.

‘Nuff said.

You know the deal.

hat tip to commenter Craig Hickman for pointing this out.

About two hours ago Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Obama’s Washington State campaign chair, I think, answered questions about Obama and foreign policy experience. Nicely done.



Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, smearing Obama as a “native Somalian” for her friend, Hillary Clinton.

As if the CBC/Fox debates weren’t indication enough, it’s time for some of these longtime incumbents to retire.

Obama wasn’t wearing the “native clothing” of his country. He was a visitor wearing traditional dress, something politicians do regularly when they visit other countries. Tubbs-Jones deliberate smear is an attempt to make it look like this is what Obama wears at home while he’s reading the paper, just to drive home the message that “this nigger Obama is not like you, he is not American, so do not vote for him.” What else is a viewer supposed to take away from this statement:

“We ought to be able to be able to support people wearing the clothing of their nation.”

Get it? America is not Barack Obama’s nation.

Lemme just say this: There’s nothing wrong with being black and supporting Hillary Clinton. But when you use social capitol as a black person to legitimize the use of race and racism to derail a black candidate, you disgrace yourself.

All this is meant to do is knock Obama off his game for tonight. My bet is it won’t. But you can’t say they didn’t try.

Sometimes you read a reply and it sticks with you.

The Subject Was – Hillary Trying to Sabotage Obama for November

I yield the floor to b-serious:

Sorry for the long post, but I just saw something that’s driving me crazy.

OMG!?!? The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums over the weekend.

I’m not kidding. They’re spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey’s sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, “bi*ch.” You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).

Now, I won’t deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton. The media is doing nothing but excusing her behavior.

Guess what, that “double standard” theory doesn’t fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she’s not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success?

Why doesn’t the media focus it’s attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won’t acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, “cheap,” and his hope, “false.” The list goes on and on.

I don’t care if she’s a woman, man or whatever . . . when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

“Shame on you Barack Obama”?!?!?! Who the hell is she to talk to him like he’s some 4 year old? This ain’t pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast.

Senator Obama is a grown a*s man. He’s just as accomplished as she is, yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie??? She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had.

It’s never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 20,000 but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states (24 to 11), have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH!

No. We still have to hear the media talk about a Clinton comeback, even when the MATH says it’s highly unlikely.

She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that (beleive it or not) this brotha is just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple.

Her stunts are going to backfire on her. It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don’t like negative politics . . . it’s as simple as that.

You know, I’d love to see the press give Obama as much room to be a stereotypical black man as they give Clinton to be a stereotypical woman. I’d love to see Obama get the opportunity to go straight up gangsta and show his a*s! But we all know that would never happen. The second he shows ANY aggression whatsoever, is the moment people see him as the “angry black man.”

This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I’m not saying that they’re better or worse, just different. I’m just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it’s still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can’t forget those double standards, right?

Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to FEAR black men.

Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she’s done over the weekend??? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the “white man,” the way Hillary talks about the “boys club?”

Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he “invaded her personal space.” If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama’s black a*s the second he steps out of line.

Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media. There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her “Scarlett O’Hara” routine. It’s a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it.

You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004. He knows he can’t do or say certain things because he can’t afford to make white folk uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman.

Trust me, we all know the routine. Smile . . . show your teeth . . . get that base out of your voice . . . don’t look them straight in the eye . . . don’t show emotion . . . make them comfortable and they might call you one of “those good black people,” and throw you a few crumbs.

Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it.

But I also know that there are many “oppressed” white women who would never trade places with my black a*s. That same “oppressed” white woman has been quick to clutch her purse and call the cops when she sees me in her neighborhood after 8:00pm. Hillary reminds me of one of those types of people.

All I’m saying is that it’s more complicated than the media would like to suggest.

So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don’t make excuses for Hillary’s poor and divisive behavior. And don’t pretend like Obama doesn’t walk a tight rope everyday as well.

Obama caught hell just for saying, “you’re likeable, enough” because people didn’t like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the “snub” because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn’t looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!

I can’t make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the “black candidate.” It’s the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace “girl power” in ways Obama could NEVER embrace “black power.” Now you’ve got Tina Fey saying “Bi*ch is the new black.” WTF does that mean?

Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown a*s woman who knows exactly what she’s doing. She conveniently plays off of gender oppression and white privelege every chance she gets.

Some of us don’t see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement. And she can’t stand the fact that this uppity negroe didn’t wait his turn in line.

But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to “POOR HILLARY”

One huge BRAVO.

cross-posted to goodCRIMETHINK

Thanks to JedReport on DailyKos I was put on to another ugly fact about the Clinton campaign. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, works with John McCain’s top advisor. More dirt. It never stops.

I think we’ve done a good job covering this campaign between our posts, your comments and of course, the Clinton Attacks Obama wiki. However, there’s only one solid way to end this. Sure it may help to write or call the DNC (202-863-8000) or write respectful letters to her campaign, but the best way is to beat Hillary Clinton, resoundingly, on March 4th. People, we cannot let this madness continue.

Here are steps you can take to ensure Obama rocks this thing and closes the chapter on these shady people.

This is it. I’m tired of reading and complaining about Hillary and her nasty ways. Let’s do the damn thing and end it.

My next post will provide advice on how to canvass for Obama. You need to be on the phone with your family and friends. You need to help put a stop to this ugliness.

DO NOT EXPECT OTHERS TO DO THIS FOR YOU

Be the change you want to see.
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

If you’ve been sitting on the sidelines, get in the game. There can be no watching when it comes to negativity like this. When your kids ask you what you did when Hillary Clinton used race and fear to attack Barack Obama, when she attempted not simply to win her own nomination but undermine him in the general election, what will you be able to say?

“I read about it?”
“I wrote a comment on a blog about it?”
“I got real mad on the inside?”

No, that is not enough. More is demanded of you. Help stop it. Now.

If we don’t do this, then we will get the type of politics we claim to despise.
If we don’t do this, we have established a negative playbook against future black candidates.
If we don’t do this, we deserve neither the presidency nor the government nor the country that might emerge with Barack Obama.

He is not the one being tested. We are.

We got word about this. Pass it on to friends, family, students, etc. The sponsor website and full scholarship info have more. Here’s the release

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Alltel Wireless, America’s largest network, and world renowned poet Dr. Maya Angelou are teaming up to celebrate Black History Month with the fourth annual “Words of Wisdom” essay contest. Students at participating Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) nationwide are encouraged to submit their responses to the following question: “In remembering the past, what will you do to contribute to a brighter future?”

“As the next generation strives to find their place in society, it is important for them to reflect on their unique history as well as the lessons history offers to shape their goals and aspirations,” said Regina Woziwodzki, director of multicultural marketing for Alltel Wireless. “We are excited to offer students a forum with our ‘Words of Wisdom’ essay contest to share their life experiences and improve our society through their experiences.”

Ten Grand Prize winners will each receive a $5,000 scholarship to a participating HBCU institution of their choice as well as a trip to Little Rock, Ark., to meet Dr. Maya Angelou and enjoy a private concert with R&B sensation Ruben Studdard. While in Little Rock, students and their guests will also enjoy tours of local landmarks, such as the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion.

Participants will be judged on their responses to the essay question as well as their ability to strike an emotional chord and exude passion through writing.

“I’ve very much enjoyed meeting our next generation of young people, hearing their words of wisdom and witnessing the change they’re looking to make that will undoubtedly benefit all of us,” said Dr. Angelou. “I am honored to have been apart of this program for three consecutive years because I truly believe in Alltel’s commitment to the education of African-American students across the country.”

Essay submission forms and contest rules are available online at www.alltel.com/wordsofwisdom. Entries must be post-marked by March 1, 2008, and winners will be presented with their awards on March 31, 2008. Graduating high school seniors who will be attending HBCU institutions also are eligible to participate.

Alltel is owner and operator of the nation’s largest wireless network and has more than 12 million wireless customers. For more information about Alltel, please visit http://www.alltel.com.

About Dr. Maya Angelou

An internationally respected poet, writer, civil rights activist and educator, Dr. Angelou has authored best-selling titles such as “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” “Gather Together in My Name,” “The Heart of a Woman” and the collection of poems “Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water ‘Fore I Diiie,” which was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. The first black female director in Hollywood, Dr. Angelou has written, produced, directed and starred in productions for stage, film and television.

The video department at Slate has done a great deed



It’s just a compliment, jeez guys.

Despite the backlash against President Clinton when he compared the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama to that of Rev. Jesse Jackson after the South Carolina primary, a top Clinton advisor evoked that comparison again today.

Long-time Democratic National Committee member Harold Ickes, who served as deputy chief of staff for President Clinton and is a top aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton, made the comparison at a breakfast with reporters today when asked if he thinks stretching the Democratic primary on for three more months will hurt the Democrats in a general election.

“We have two really strong and very good candidates. This party has been blessed … to have a woman who, I think will be the next president of the United States [and] to have a powerful spokesman in the form of Sen. Obama and he is, that’s one of the reasons I supported Jesse Jackson in 19894 and 1988, I thought we needed a strong, powerful candidate, a black candidate, running for president,” Ickes said.

Indeed, Ickes did work on Jackson’s presidential bids. But the comparison is a sensitive subject for voters, who felt President Clinton’s comment comparing Obama’s decisive South Carolina win to that of Jackson was inappropriate and racially charged.

Ickes would also like you to know how impressed he is with how well black people dance.

Thanks to reader “anonymous” for the tip.

Steve M:

Taylor Marsh and Jeralyn Merritt were delighted by Tina Fey’s pro-Hillary Clinton “bitch is the new black” monologue on last night’s Saturday Night Live. And, y’know, arguing that a tough dame like Hillary can get things done is valid — I’m ready to back Hillary if she’s the nominee.

Say what you want. Any one else see the irony of saying “bitch is the new black” on a show that doesn’t even have a black cast member to play the black man running for president?

That “bitch is the new black” thing is about as astute as John Lennon’s “women are the niggers of the world.”

If women were the niggers of the world, people would call them niggers. And if bitch was the new black, then Tina Fey would be making jokes about trying to catch a cab in New York at midnight.

And if the only way you can claim oppression is through comparison and analogy, well, you might want to sit and think about what it is you’re really saying.

Speaking of which, I have one to offer, just in case the above statements from Fey and Lennon haven’t made it clear:

Racism is the new rape.

Doesn’t even sound right, does it? Leave the violins at home.

UPDATE: It was John Lennon, not Elton John, who said it. Corrections made. Sorry I’m not up on my Beatles. 

It’s not only that I’m not ever going to vote for Hillary Clinton. It’s that the next person who tells me that her campaign isn’t using race as a lever against Barack Obama might get kicked in the face.

Remember when Hillary staffers were fired for circulating emails contending that Obama was a closet Muslim? Well, something tells me that’s not a firing offense any more. This story on Drudge claims Hillary’s campaign passed him this photo:

Obama looks terribly authentic doesn’t he? What with the ugly wristwatch and the Gap Khakis. Even Drudge points out that other world leaders have dressed in traditional costumes:

Hillary’s campaign is circulating this photo because despite how fucking awkward Obama looks, what makes the costume convincing to the ignorant observer is simply the color of his skin.

Obama’s singular venture into psychotherapy aside, his campaign has not engaged in fear-mongering, gender-baiting, or anything that could remotely resemble dirty pool (Remember that Rezko moment? All Obama had to say was “Marc Rich”). The Clinton campaign can only compensate for its horrifying mismanagement by using bigotry as a vehicle for character assassination, even as she lectures Obama about his “tactics”.

Incompetence, personal viciousness, character assassination, exploiting bigotry for votes, who does that remind you of?

And for those of you who want to argue that it’s Drudge, so it’s not believable, consider the fact that Hillary wants those guys as pals. In terms of how to run a campaign, they don’t disagree on much.

In fact, it’s safe to say that Hillary and Bill Kristol are pretty much on the same wavelength.

Why not just elect Bush for another four years, fuck it? What’s the difference?

UPDATE: The Clinton’s response:

Enough.

If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted.

On a related note, Maggie Williams will be fitted for her bandanna and apron later this week.

  
UPDATE 2: Not to make excuses, but I generally refrain from “hankerchief head” type insults because I think they’re wack. When I wrote this post, I was furious, and these were the only words I found to explain what I was feeling.
What makes you a sellout is when you willingly participate in defending the use of race and racism to hurt another black person, when you know what that shit feels like. It’s not about being conservative, or a Republican, or whatever, since Williams is neither. It’s about embracing that crabs in a barrel mentality.

UPDATE 3: For those of you on this thread who are pissed we “linked to Drudge as a credible source,” what makes it credible is the non-denials of the Clinton Camp, which lead Josh Marshall to conclude the following:
Put it all together and the Clinton camp would appear to be unwilling to make even the most perfunctory denial that they are or were circulating this photo around.

We held up on this because we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything. But I think the Clinton camp’s statement speaks for itself.

I follow my instinct on “bank shots”. No, I didn’t think that “madrassa” story came from the Clintons. But this? It has their fingerprints all over it. 

I got around to watching the SOTBU.

I tired of Tavis in the past few months because of his repeated condescending commentaries on Tom Joyner insulting Black folk about their support of Barack Obama.

Unlike a lot of Black folk, I’ve been supporting Obama from early on.

Just recently became an Obamaholic, but I supported him with my money, time, effort, and feet months ago.

I’m tired of Tavis insulting Black folks, intimating that they can’t read and choose for themsleves who they want to support.

Quite honestly, he continued that same line of bull at the SOTBU, where he was constantly condescending and questioning the ‘ emotionalism’ of the Black Community’s support of Obama.

And, isn’t it interesting that Tavis sounds like a milder version of the mocking Billary that has shown up this weekend, insulting Obama AND his supporters. Interesting indeed.

My question, if I had been at the SOTBU, would have been..

I’ll have to doubt the RATIONAL thought process of folks supporting someone, Hillary, who the polls have told us, a YEAR OUT

HALF THE COUNTRY HAVE SAID THEY WILL NEVER EVER VOTE FOR HER.

Now, explain to me the RATIONAL thought process behind supporting someone with THOSE kinds of negatives.

Folks have to make up their damn minds about Obama.

You’ve got those who perpetrate that him voting record is akin to Sam Brownback…which is why we can’t vote for him.

Then, there are those who say he is ‘ too liberal’…and, to be honest, I never thought LIBERAL could be used as a bad word IN BLACK CIRCLES.

Then, there are those who bitch and whine about him not ‘talking about Black issues’.

Just exactly what the hell is a Black issue?

I’ll give you one that I believe IS a Black issue – retroactivity with regards to those hideous drug sentences….relates to criminal justice, and ‘ just-us’, and the feeding of young Black men and now women to the Prison Industrial Complex.

Well, guess what? Hillary’s already told you that she intends to get elected on the back of sending ANOTHER generation of young Black men and women to the Prison Industrial complex – she’s AGAINST retroactivity, which puts her to the right of Scalia, and ON PAR WITH UNCLE CLARENCE.

She’s ready to get elected on the backs of young Black men and women and tell me again why MY support of Obama is ‘ emotional’.

Obama is more progressive. Obama is the only chance of ridding ourselves of the Imperial Presidency. If Obama implements HALF of his transparency in government policies, it will transform how government is scene by the average citizen.

Obama was against this war.

Not only did she vote FOR the war, she refuses to apologize for her actions that have cost 4,000 lives, mutli-thousand permanent casualties, nearly 1 TRILLION DOLLARS that could have been used elsewhere.

She refuses to apologize for her vote, and would have had us in IRAN.

Once they race-baited Obama, it wasn’t even about Obama anymore.

It was about ANY future Black politician with political aspirations higher than a safe, gerrymandered Congressional seat.

If she is allowed to racebait her way into the nomination, then this will be the future blueprint as to how to take out ANY Black politician, which is why I will NEVER vote for her. I will NEVER be complicit in setting into cement the ceiling for future Black politicians.

Tavis is SUSPECT, because, he didn’t just fall off a turnip truck. Stevie Wonder could see the race-baiting being done on Obama, and he didn’t say JACK about it.

A LOT of the ‘ usual suspects’ are SUSPECT because of their silence.

If a Republican had done to Barack Obama what the Clintons did, the ‘ usual suspects’ would have been up in arms.

As it is, they were doing Marcel Marceau impersonations.

I fully expect the GOP to go after Obama with race-baiting full throttle.

But, here’s the rub…

The GOP has never pretended to be THE FRIEND of the Black community.

And, the Clintons did..but, when push came to shove, and this Uppity Negro began to beat them…..

They pulled out Lee Atwater’s manual and used it without abandon.

And, anyone who stands with that race-baiter AFTER she’s done that to Obama is SUSPECT, A TOOL, AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

If the shoe fits, then Tavis should wear it, no matter how many Black Covenant books he writes.


Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell

Special Contributors: James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Adam Luna, Kamala Harris

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats




Sponsors

Advertise here!

Obamacare – Get Some


Archives

Peep ‘Em

I Am A Community Organizer (300x243)

Community Activity



Black Behind Coverage/Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog which does not represent the views of the authors' employers, clients nor vendors.

Ain’t Like All The Rest

Jack and Jill Politics is not affiliated with Jack and Jill of America, Jack and Jill Magazine, "Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill to Fetch a Pail of Water" nor any of the other Jack and Jills out there on the Google. Just so's you know.
Bitnami