NYT Editorial On Wright And Hagee

Thanks to Craig Hickman for the link. I'm just clipping the closer. My emphasis added in bold.

It was the most forthright repudiation of an out-of-control supporter that we can remember. We would like to say that it will finally take the racial charge out of this campaign. We’re not that naïve.

It is an injustice, a legacy of the racist threads of this nation’s history, but prominent African-Americans are regularly called upon to explain or repudiate what other black Americans have to say, while white public figures are rarely, if ever, handed that burden.

Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial — complete with video of Mr. Wright — that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina.

If Mr. Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, we fear that there will be many more such commercials. And Mr. Obama will have to repudiate Mr. Wright’s outbursts many more times.

This country needs a healthy and open discussion of race. Mr. Obama’s repudiation of Mr. Wright is part of that. His opponents also have a responsibility — to repudiate the race-baiting and make sure it stops.

Wow NY Times. Go head. All they were missing was to call out the Clinton campaign for its race-baiting.

To those who have written in saying "but McCain repudiated Hagee immediately" or that the situation is somehow incredibly different. I say "false."


1. McCain's campaign actively sought the endorsement of John Hagee. That is an entirely different thing. It's not like Hagee was just out there in the mood to endorse. When you seek someone's endorsement, you are saying you're completely cool with that person.

2. While it is true that McCain "distanced" himself from some of Hagee's statements on Feb 29 he didn't fully "repudiate" them for several more weeks.

3. Some have commented here that Obama's "pastor judgment" indicates he cannot be trusted with running the country. Fine. Now listen to what McCain's campaign said to explain the Hagee endorsement

A McCain adviser acknowledged on Monday that the campaign had failed to look into Mr. Hagee’s background adequately and said that as a result the campaign’s procedures for vetting endorsers had improved.

Oh my stars! What on Earth would happen if we let McCain be president and he failed to look into the background of people offered national security clearance? We'd all be killed, that's what would happen. Brown terrorists would walk across the Mexican border and kill our babies dead, all of them. Clearly John McCain doesn't have the judgment to lead. We don't need a president who learns how to vet people "on the job."

4. It's not just a Hagee situation for McCain. Remember Jerry Falwell? Jerry Falwell was "an agent of intolerance" according to the John McCain of 2000, but come election 2008, Mr. McCain saw fit to speak at the commencement of Falwell's Liberty University. I know that's what I do with agents of intolerance. Why just the other day, I gave a speech at a luncheon for the Chattel Slavery Restoration Society Of Norfolk. What can I say? Their French onion dip was to die for.

Jerry Falwell also blamed America for 9/11, but his argument was much weaker than Wright's. He didn't even go so far as to blame American foreign policy, preferring instead to blame lesbians, gays, feminists, abortionists and the ACLU. What a damned idiot, rest his soul.

The point being, John McCain and every other Republican seeking national office has made a quadrennial ritual out of kissing the ring finger and asshole of vile, ignorant, hate-filled, so-called Men Of God, who use their pulpits to enrich themselves and launch baseless attacks on large groups of Americans.

Don't pretend Mr. Straight Talk somehow exercised magically superior judgment. His hands and the hands of his entire party are filthy with explicit appeals to the very worst of human nature, and you don't have to dig through years and years of DVDs to find the perfect soundbite. These boys do it out in the open.

That's how little they think of us. That's how much we're being played.

Run, Condi, Run?

Eugene Robinson writes in his latest column:

Oh, please; oh, please; oh, please. I know it's undignified to beg, but please let John McCain pick Condoleezza Rice as his running mate.

I know that this campaign has already bestowed an embarrassment of riches upon those of us who are paid to watch and listen. With its vivid, compelling characters, its abrupt reversals of fortune and its ever-rising stakes, the presidential contest has been the best reality show on television. It seems almost greedy to hope for yet another infusion of star power so late in the season.

And, yes, I'm aware that it probably won't happen. Then again, this campaign season hasn't shown much regard for probability. A couple of years ago, what sort of odds could you have gotten from Vegas bookmakers on the scenario that Barack Obama, the first viable black presidential contender, would be leading Hillary Clinton, the first viable female candidate, for the chance to run against McCain, long considered a pariah by his party's activist base?

Rice's name was tossed into the mix by Dan Senor, a Republican "strategist" who is best known for his "What, me worry?" performances a few years ago as spokesman for the U.S. civilian authority in Iraq. On ABC's "This Week," Senor noted that Rice recently appeared at one of right-wing activist Grover Norquist's regular meetings for the conservative "chattering class" -- an unusual foray into domestic politics for a sitting secretary of state -- and claimed that Rice "has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning" for a spot on the ticket with McCain.

The notion drew laughter from Sean McCormack, Rice's spokesman, who told reporters that if Rice is indeed campaigning for the vice presidential nomination, "she's the last one to know about it." Then he dusted off the formulation that Rice always uses to deflect questions about her possible political ambitions, which is to ask "how many ways" she can say no.

The thing is, though, that -- understandably -- Rice doesn't go all the way and make an airtight, Shermanlike statement. Why should she foreclose her options? Given the craziness of this political year, who knows what might happen? And looking down the road, the quiet groves of academe -- where she vows to retire, like a latter-day Cincinnatus -- may prove less than stimulating after the heady experience of running the world. I've always thought it more likely that she would eventually be tempted to run for the Senate from California, rather than jump right into presidential politics.
................................................

She would, however, provide three things that McCain could really use: relative youth, undeniable pizzazz and photogenic diversity. The Republican Party is in danger of presenting a ticket that looks like a tintype portrait of yesterday -- while the Democratic Party shows the nation a YouTube video of tomorrow.

........................................................................

So I won't hold my breath. But I can't help but imagine having another controversial, larger-than-life character wade into the fray, one who not only raises McCain's big wager on Iraq but also takes us further into terra incognita on issues of race and gender. Whatever you think of Condoleezza Rice, she's a formidable woman with more qualifications than almost any other vice presidential choice I can think of. We'd get to watch another brilliant political novice try to take the country by storm. And, as a bonus, there would be the piano recitals, the early-morning workouts, the skybox appearances at football games, the impromptu lectures on Russian history (in Russian), the daily fashion show. . . . Pleeeeeease?

Dr. Rice as McCain's running mate? I just can't see it for many reasons. If this is a 'change' election, the last person you want as your running mate is someone chained to both 9/11 and The Iraq War. Plus, I can't see the 'bases' going for it: not the evangelicals, not the money people, not the tough-on-defense crowd. Plus, a single woman as Vice-President? Don't think so. But, it is interesting throwing this around with my fellow political junkies.

So, tell me JJP readers...

Thoughts on Condi Rice's Prospects as McCain's running mate?

Embedded In Texas: Insight From A Fellow Volunteer On HRC's Primary "Win"

I worked with Robert Swann. This man is the shiznits. He's a Dallas native, and posted a comment on my personal blog I thought worth sharing....

---------

Baratunde! For those of you following the blog, I’m one of the four men (the local guy) who responded to Baratunde’s call to unload food and drink when he first rolled up to the Dallas Headquarters from NYC.

To add to your impressions of the Texas Primary, here’s what I think is the biggest (almost) unreported story from the Primary/Caucus:

HRC’s “win” in Texas is being credited to fears inspired by the “red telephone” ad and to last minute doubts about Barack’s experience. As a Dallas native who canvassed seven turfs in South Dallas and Pleasant Grove (see video at dallasnews.com or google “canvassing dallas news”–our video is #1 for that search term) and then went to his own precint caucus in very Republican, very white Highland Park, I can assure you there were NO last minute doubts about Barack. Better than 90% of hundreds of doors I knocked on were strongly supporting Obama, both at Primary polls and at Caucus.

At my own Caucus location, all four precincts went resoundingly for Obama, with margins varying from 7 to 5 up to 11 to 3. My own precinct, 1226, went 9 to 4 for Obama. This trend held across the state of Texas, resulting in a caucus win for Barack. So where did all these Primary votes for Hillary Clinton come from?

Answer: REPUBLICANS!

Sabotage or “mischief” voting across party lines in the open primary is as old as Texas politics. We here in Texas know this. We want to be sure that voters in the upcoming primaries understand that what they saw in Texas was NOT a show of support for HRC, but rather an attempt by cynical Republicans (who have nothing interesting to attract them to their OWN primary in Texas) to choose a Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton) that McCain can beat in November.

The Republicans in my neighborhood were smirking and winking at each other as they went in to cast their Clinton votes. Ask any Texan who watched the polls in Republican precints. Why didn’t they do the same thing at the Caucus Tuesday night? Because at the Caucus, you have to show your face in order to participate. We tend to know our neighbors around here, and it would be hard to fool anybody about one’s true convictions in an open Caucus. The real vote, the principled vote, in the Democratic Primary in Texas in 2008, was the vote we cast at Precinct Convention (same thing as Caucus, for those of you observing Texas and scratching your heads.)

In this neck o’ the woods, a vote for Hillary Clinton is considered to be a vote for John McCain. The only thing Texas Republicans (those not already supporting Obama, and I met quite a few of them on my turf walks) fear is having to run against Senator Barack Obama in November. Those favoring Hillary Clinton in Mississippi and Wyoming and Pennsylvania (to name just a few) should think long and hard about this unless they want to see 4 more years of Bush/McCain.

HRC likes to claim that caucuses discriminate against working class folks. She can’t really believe that, and if you’d been with Baratunde and Greer and all the rest of us to see the Caucus lines in South Dallas and Pleasant Grove and Duncanville and Desoto and Oak Cliff, you wouldn’t believe it either.

Sent Barack another $25 last night. Time for all of us to do the same.

Robert Swann
Dallas, Texas

An Open Letter To Republicans In Open Primary States: Vote Obama

cross-posted to goodCRIMETHINK

This letter was passed on to me recently. There's been a lot of talk about Republicans for Obama (Obamacans), often followed by the assertion that they are faking their support for him. This writer, a Brooklyn-based reverend, no less, makes a stronger appeal to Republicans than merely Clinton-bashing...

An Open Letter to Republicans in Open Primary States: Vote for Obama

This is an open letter to my American brothers and sisters among the Republican Party who have yet to vote in your state’s primary. If your state is among those that are OPEN primaries, I am writing to ask you to consider voting for Barack Obama. For those of you who are not aware, an open primary registered voters of one party can request and vote upon the ballot of the other party. This is a truly powerful and progressive privilege, and in this year’s election, with John McCain as your party’s de facto nominee, you should consider the rare opportunity you have to venture across the party line, albeit temporarily, to vote for Senator Obama. It might be enough for some of you that a vote for Barack could effectively guarantee that Hillary Clinton is blocked from reaching the general election, but I will ask you to consider voting for Senator Obama on the basis of a higher plain of reasoning.

On principle, I am not registered with either party. As an Indpendent, I voted for Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and in this election I support Senator Obama. Recently, I have spoken with a handful of Republican friends and