As many of you may already know, Bill Moyers worked in the Lyndon Johnson Administration, and it is that period of time with which this article deals:

One of the darker periods of modern American history was J. Edgar Hoover’s long reign over the FBI, as we have learned since he died in 1972. So it is more than a historical footnote to discover new records showing that prominent public television broadcaster Bill Moyers participated in Hoover’s exploits.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Washington Post has obtained a few of the former FBI director’s secret files. According to a Thursday front-page story, Hoover was “consumed” with exposing a (nonexistent) relationship between a gay photographer and Jack Valenti, the late film industry lobbyist who was then an aide to Lyndon Johnson. Hoover’s M.O. was to amass incriminating personal information as political blackmail.

But as the Post reports in passing, the dossier also reveals that Mr. Moyers — then a special assistant to LBJ — requested in 1964 that Hoover’s G-men “investigate two other administration figures who were ’suspected as having homosexual tendencies.’”

Sigh. Tell me that doesn’t make you sad. It does me. I know, I know, it was a different time, but for someone who has long been considered to be above that sort of thing to have engaged in that sort of thing is just disheartening. Especially because:

This isn’t the first time Mr. Moyers’s name has come up in connection with Hoover’s abuse of office. When Laurence Silberman, now a federal appeals judge, was acting Attorney General in 1975, he was obliged to read Hoover’s secret files in their entirety in preparation for testimony before Congress — and as far as we know remains one of the only living officials to have done so. “It was the single worst experience of my long governmental service,” he wrote in these pages in 2005.

Amid “bits of dirt on figures such as Martin Luther King,” Judge Silberman found a 1964 memo from Mr. Moyers directing Hoover’s agents to investigate Barry Goldwater’s campaign staff for evidence of homosexual activity. A few weeks before, an LBJ aide named Walter Jenkins had been arrested in a men’s bathroom, and Mr. Silberman wrote that Mr. Moyers and his boss evidently wanted leverage in the event Goldwater* tried to use the liaison against them. (He didn’t, as it happened.)

When that episode became public after Mr. Silberman testified, an irate Mr. Moyers called him and, with typical delicacy, accused him of falling for forged CIA memos. Mr. Silberman offered to study the matter and, should Mr. Moyers’s allegations pan out, he would publicly exonerate him. “There was a pause on the line and then he said, ‘I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?’ And then he rang off.”

How indeed, Mr. Moyers? Or to the rest of us who have developed a deep respect and admiration for you? Or is this just old news:

Memories are short in Washington, and Mr. Moyers has gone on to promote himself as a political moralist, routinely sermonizing about what he claims are abuses of power by his ideological enemies. Since 9/11, he has been particularly intense in criticizing President Bush for his antiterror policies, such as warrantless wiretapping against al Qaeda.

Yet the historical record suggests that when Mr. Moyers was in a position of actual power, he was complicit in FBI dirt-digging against U.S. citizens solely for political purposes. As Judge Silberman put it in 2005, “I have always thought that the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends.”

Mr. Moyers told us through a spokeswoman that he “never heard of the Valenti matter until this story and had nothing to add to it.” He also pointed to a 1975 Newsweek article in which he wrote that he learned of the LBJ-Hoover relationship in “the quickly fading days of my innocence.” In the Nixon days, this was called a nondenial denial.

Well, my memory isn’t short. And the “nondenial denial” just doesn’t help matters much. I expected more, and better, from Mr. Moyers.

Oh – and just in case some folks have forgotten, J. Edgar Hoover was mighty good friends with Joseph McCarthy. As in the one from whom we have the term, “McCarthyism.” I might add, that J. Edgar Hoover was notorious for spying on American citizens. So, bear that in mind as you consider the above, and all of the ramifications of this article. (There are tons of books available on the subject of McCarthyism, McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover, if you wish to learn more. A simple search will reveal a number of them, especially at Amazon.com.)

And I wonder what Mr. Moyers thinks of Obama’s maintaining of some of Bush’s more egregious policies, given how outspoken he was when Bush began them (FISA, anti-terror policies like extraordinary rendition, State Secrets, etc., etc.). Despite the disappointment of what this article reveals, I hope Mr. Moyers will continue to hold the powers-that-be feet to the fire. That he will hold Obama accountable for continuing so many of the more despicable policies of Bush II that he decried when Bush did them.

Still, the disappointment lingers.

* By the way, you may recall that it was on the issue of GLBT people in the military, Hillary Clinton always quoted Barry Goldwater who said, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” So, it doesn’t surprise me that HE did not use the issue of homosexuality for political reasons. That the Democrats had no problems doing that, though, does…

At the beginning of her remarks, Secretary Clinton announces that Rep. John Lewis and others will lead a CODEL — CODEL is an acronym that stands for a group of members of Congress who go on a “junket” — along with Ambassador Andy Young, former Senator Harris Wofford, and renowned musician/composer Herbie Hancock (!) (See also: “Secretary to Send Off Cultural Delegation to India.”)

I was curious to learn more, so searched for “Martin Luther King” at the State Department Web site. Here’s a snippet from one of the search results, under “Diversity In Exchange” program, which strives to “build trust between citizens of different backgrounds,” in “Austrian Historian Researches Muslims in the Military.”

Such a program almost seems naive in this cruel, tough world but I couldn’t help but be touched by the sincerity and dedication of the souls behind these efforts. And, as for the search result, “Austrian Historian Researches Muslims in the Military,” at first, I wondered if I’d gotten a “bad” result from my search, but soon the connection became apparent. The page begins with this explanation:

Austrian historian and ethnologist, Dr. Valeria Heuberger, has taken a keen interest in the roles that Muslims have played in both the Austrian and U.S. militaries. That interest, which spans from the First World War to the present-day, has led Heuberger down a path of research comparing and contrasting approaches to diversity on two continents. [...]

Heuberger’s exchange program facilitated meetings with a variety of people including Muslims from Arab countries, Afro-American Muslims, Christians, and NGOs assisting former refugees from Somalia. One meeting she found particularly valuable was with military personnel at the Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The page ends with this reference to Martin Luther King, and ties together the man who spoke about dreams and the people, like Heuberger, who hope to continue to make those dreams real:

Heuberger says that political and spiritual leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. have an impact worldwide. “What one can learn from them is never to give up, self-discipline, and compassion,” she says. Her next lecture on “Islam in the U.S.A.” will be in January 2009 at the University of Vienna.

If you’re curious about these kinds of programs, you’ll want to check out this section on cultural exchanges and educational programs.

Next, here’s the official announcement of Hillary’s first trip as Secretary of State:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Travel to Asia

In her first trip abroad since taking office, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Asia, departing Washington, DC on February 15. Secretary Clinton will visit Japan (February 16-18), Indonesia (February 18-19), the Republic of Korea (February 19-20), and China (February 20-22).

In all capitals, Secretary Clinton will be discussing common approaches to the challenges facing the international community, including the financial markets turmoil, humanitarian issues, security and climate change.

In Tokyo, Secretary Clinton will meet with senior Japanese officials for discussions on the strategic bilateral alliance and cooperation with Japan on regional and global issues. The Secretary then will travel to Jakarta to hold consultations will senior Indonesian officials to discuss the close and growing partnership with Indonesia and perspectives on common interests in Southeast Asia.

In Seoul, Secretary Clinton will meet with senior leaders to discuss our expanding global cooperative partnership with our ally, the Republic of Korea.

The Secretary will conclude her trip in China where she will meet with senior officials in Beijing to further develop a positive, cooperative relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

Now, here’s what else is going on that’s of major importance:

Envoy Richard Holbrooke is in Pakistan:

REUTERS: Feb. 12 – On his maiden visit to Islamabad in his new role as U.S. special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Holbrooke mostly kept his own counsel.
Holbrooke is new to the region and has been charged with coming up with a fresh strategy to pacify Afghanistan and eliminate the al Qaeda threat from Pakistan. Deborah Lutterbeck reports. SOUNDBITES: Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair

Here are Secretary Clinton’s remarks on February 6th regarding the role of Envoy Richard Holbrooke. And below, just because I noticed it when I was scouring Reuters’ videos for news stories, a report on the progress that Pakistan is making in going after the plotters responsible for the horrific killings in Mumbai.

Special Representative Holbrooke’s Role in Afghanistan and Pakistan

QUESTION: Well, thank you so much for giving me a couple of minutes. The goal is a really nuanced, substantive profile of Special Representative Holbrooke. Boy, that’s a mouthful.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: You know, that gets – that doesn’t so much do a retread of his past, but really talks about the match between man and mission, and how he – what he’s done for the last eight years, how he’s approached this particular job. And so a lot of the story is about your relationship with him, and so all – pretty much all of the questions are geared to that.

The first thing I wanted to ask you about, though, is to tell me, in as much detail as you can, about the origins of your idea for some sort of special envoy or representative to this region. I understand that it was a trip to the region in ’07 and a series of meetings with leaders there that gave you the idea.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thanks, Jodi, and I’m really happy to talk with you about all of this. I do believe, in general, in the utility of special envoys. I have seen the importance of zeroing in with all tools at our disposal on problems from the Irish Troubles to the Balkans, and I knew that the use of special envoys can be very helpful.

In 2007, I went as a senator to Iraq and Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, with two of my colleagues, Senator Bayh from Indiana and Representative McHugh from New York. And we had a series of meetings in both Afghanistan and Pakistan that illustrated dramatically the breakdown in communications between President Karzai and President Musharraf, between the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And it was clear to me that there was a great deal of animosity that could lead to problems between them, and with us as well, in what we were attempting to do. I had a long conversation with both President Karzai and President Musharraf, where each complained at length about the other, and it raised alarm bells in my mind. And when I got back to Washington, I called the White House and I spoke to Steve Hadley, the National Security Advisor, and strongly recommended that the President consider assigning someone to be focused on the area and to interact with the leaders in the two countries.

And that was just not an idea that the Bush Administration thought was worth pursuing. And later, they did appoint General Doug Lute to oversee the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that’s not what I was advocating. And I was convinced from ’07 on that so long as we remained involved in Afghanistan, and so long as Pakistan would impact what we could do in Afghanistan and also had implications for our security and policies in the region, that having an envoy made a lot of sense.

So when President Obama – President-elect Obama asked me if I would be Secretary of State, I told him in the very first conversation that I can recall that I had some ideas if I were to accept the job that I thought would be important to explore, and among those were the idea of immediately moving on someone for the Middle East and someone for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was positive about the idea. He told me to pursue it, work it up, get back to him.

And after I accepted the position and began looking at the broad array of problems that we were going to inherit, I put the Middle East, Pakistan-Afghanistan, among others, at the very top of the list, and began the process of, you know, recruiting people for both of those posts. And you know, it took some time, and I talked to a lot of people.

But I must confess that from the beginning, I recommended that Richard Holbrooke be the person that I and the President would send to Pakistan and Afghanistan. And I was, you know, delighted when the President agreed and we were able to work the necessary preliminaries from, you know, early – really, late December to mid January so that we could be in a position – because I wanted to nominate our two envoys for the Middle East and Afghanistan and Pakistan as soon as possible. And I explained to the President why I thought that would be an excellent way to, you know, get started and make a statement about what our priorities were, and he agreed. And as you know, we were able to accelerate the process and make the announcements, you know, on the second day of my – you know, of his tenure and the first day of mine.

QUESTION: Sure. And I would love – I mean, aside from the completely obvious parts – his achievements in the Balkans, et cetera, et cetera, his immense, long experience – can you talk a little bit about the specific match between man and mission? You said that immediately you sort of knew that Ambassador Holbrooke was the right person for this particular job. And you know, some of that is completely obvious to me, but since he was such a close advisor of yours so long – for so long, I’m curious about what qualities you saw in him that matched particularly well with the Af-Pak situation.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as I have said many times, and as the President has reaffirmed, you know, we have to make diplomacy and development at the center of our foreign policy and national security. And I have said, we have got to be smarter about how we exercise our power, and at the heart of smart power are smart people. And as he has proven many times over his long career in service to our country, they don’t come any smarter or more capable than Richard Holbrooke.

You know, at his introduction ceremony, both the President and I emphasized that nowhere is the need for a vigorous diplomatic approach more apparent than in the two regions that epitomize the nuance and complexity of our interconnected world than the Middle East and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Richard represents the kind of robust, persistent, determined diplomacy that the President intends to pursue, and that I’m honored to help him fulfill.

And when I think about what we’re facing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I believed that, you know, Richard brought a lifetime of experience. He’s passionate about securing peace in situations where it does not exist. He has seen the cost of conflict in terms of human lives with his own eyes going back to the early 1960s in Vietnam. He is single-minded in his desire to make the world a more peaceful place. And I know from many, many hours of conversation, going back many years, that he has a preexisting concern for Afghanistan. As a young diplomat, he traveled through Afghanistan. During the last eight years as he pursued his many interests, and particularly his work on behalf of the Asia Society, he returned to Afghanistan and Pakistan and the neighbors.

And the best way to know how somebody will handle a difficult situation is to look at what they’ve done in the past. And I’ve known of Richard Holbrooke for decades. I watched him up-close in the Clinton Administration. I admire deeply his ability to shoulder the most vexing and difficult challenges. And he does bring relentless focus and energy. He can wear you out, but it is necessary to keep everybody, you know, on point about what we’re trying to achieve.

QUESTION: Okay, great. And talk – let me just finish typing that quote, to keep everybody – can you talk a little bit about the art of managing Richard Holbrooke? I mean, this is a guy who even his closest friends admit that he is loving – you know, and they say this lovingly, that he can be overbearing, that he’s this enormous force of nature, that he can break a little crockery in the process of doing some very noble things. Can you talk a little bit about – since you are his boss – a little bit about, over the years, the best ways you’ve found to direct and focus him?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Gee, I’d never heard that he could be any of those things before. (Laughter.) You know, personally, because I do know him so well, I understand what drives him and, you know, how mission-oriented he is. He’s a consummate professional, and he is always looking for ways to advance the real and lasting solutions that are in pursuit of American interests and values. And obviously, you know, like any, you know, really focused and passionate person, occasionally he has to be, you know, brought down to earth and reined in so that he, you know, doesn’t levitate or, you know, levitate the rest of us.

But he is someone who, you know, is really such a dedicated public servant that I, you know – I am, you know, really grateful he took on this responsibility. It takes – you know, it takes a big change in his life to be able to relocate and do this. But I think that, you know, many – you know, many people who have worked with Richard over the years know that he’s someone who, you know, just doesn’t quit, is always trying to be creative and flexible, but without losing sight of what’s most important. He’s not somebody who gets – you know, loses the forest for the trees. He wants to count every tree, but at the end of the day, he wants to try to, you know, create the conditions that will lead to peace.

MODERATOR: Jodi, I think we’ll have to wrap up unless you have something very pressing.

QUESTION: Okay. Yeah, well, let’s do a couple of sort of fact-checky type things. These are things that I’ve been reporting that I would love your read on. Can you explain a little bit how control of the embassies in Islamabad and Kabul will work? I mean, does – essentially, does he have direct control over those embassies? Or will they work through the regular State Department machinery?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, you know, they’ll work through the regular State Department machinery, but in collaboration. You know, we have many Foreign Service and Civil Service professionals, you know, at State and in the countries, who have been and will continue to be, fully engaged on Afghanistan and Pakistan. You know, they are among the best we have. There are a lot of people of deep experience and expertise. They’ve been dedicated, often at great peril and personal sacrifice, and they’re going to be the underpinning of everything that our government does to achieve peace and stability in the region.

Obviously, I expect everyone to work together. And you know, we’re going to be, you know, looking to, you know, Richard to provide, you know, leadership. But we also will be, you know, seeking out the advice and opinions of others who have roles that are important in helping us determine our way forward.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. Okay, great. Now, this is definitely something I want to check with you because it involves a pretty private conversation. Someone – not Richard, I should note – told me, obviously second or third hand, that when the President first approached you about the Secretary of State job, that your sort of initial, immediate reaction had been to say, I really think Richard Holbrooke might be the best Secretary of State. You know, I just wanted to run that by you before we even think of putting it in the paper.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I never comment on conversations with presidents. I started that when my husband was president, and I’m going to continue it now –

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: — working for President Obama.

QUESTION: Okay, great. And one more personal anecdote. I have a little sketch of the dinner parties that Ambassador Holbrooke has thrown for you over the years in New York. It sounds like they were pretty fun affairs. Do you have any sort of favorite memories or moments from those?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Richard and Kati are close friends of mine and, you know, I really enjoy spending time with them. And the annual Christmas dinner, which they started in the late ‘90s, was just a delight. I mean, a wonderful guest list of eclectic and interesting people. You know, one year Richard had the Salvation Army show up and sing Christmas carols, and another year we, you know, had the late Peter Stone, who was just so funny, start an annual tradition of delivering a poem. And you know, he – I was First Lady and he called me the “First Shiksa” of the nation. I mean, we’ve just had a lot of fun over the years, and they’re just great to be with.

QUESTION: Okay. I heard the toasts got considerably more outrageous than that. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you’re not going to get any confirmation from me, Jodi. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Remember, I am now the chief diplomat of the United States of America. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay, fantastic. Well, thank you so much for this. It was really great to be able to talk to you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Great to talk you. Have a good weekend.

And here’s one more Reuters video / story, related to Holbrooke’s mission:

Pakistan moves on Mumbai plotters

REUTERS: Feb 12 Feb 12 – The Pakistani government says for the first time that the attacks on Mumbai were launched and partly planned from Pakistan.

A government advisor said they were holding in custody the ringleader and five other suspects.

The attacks in India’s financial capital killed 179 people.

Pakistani officials have shared their findings with the Indian government, which has heralded Pakistan’s work as a ‘positive development’. — Basmah Fahim reports.

Next month in Atlanta, a federal court will hear the high-profile appeal of former Alabama governor Don E. Siegelman, whose conviction on corruption charges in 2006 became one of the most publicly debated cases to emerge from eight years of controversy at the Bush Justice Department. Now new documents highlight alleged misconduct by the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney and other prosecutors in the case, including what appears to be extensive and unusual contact between the prosecution and the jury.

2) A paper in NC wonders if Presidential power, which has metastasized over the last few years, will be curbed in an Obama administration. The author sees in Emanuel’s decision to leave Congress to be Obama’s Chief of Staff confirmation that no job in Congress would compare with power in the Executive branch.

Read the rest ->

Presidential power has only further increased since [Andrew] Jackson. The need for government to act quickly in times of crisis, the centering of the president as the icon of national identity in popular culture and the executive branch’s control of information, among other factors, have vested a power in the presidency that far surpasses that of the other branches.

Thus it becomes not surprising to see one of the most powerful members of Congress [Emanuel] agree to become a White House staffer.

THE MORE SERIOUS QUESTION IS WHETHER A TRUE BALANCE OF POWER can be reconstructed. It needs to be. The Framers believed that an imbalance of power among the branches would inevitably lead to abuse and incompetence. The last eight years have proved them right. The Bush administration made constant claims to unlimited power that Congress had neither the will nor the ability to turn back. The resulting morass is history.

Whether an Obama administration will work to restore the constitutional balance is only speculation. The challenge is considerable. Checks and balances are inefficient, and ceding power to a coordinate branch is not easy, particularly when there are so many dire challenges facing the nation. But Emanuel’s choice to accept the chief of staff position rather than continue in Congress vividly demonstrates how much the need to repair the constitutional structure is in order.

I see this question as a moral one in addition to a constitutional one. I wonder if Obama will return any presidential power “to the people.” Hmmmmm.

3) Realclearpolitics has a transcript of Michael Steele announcing his bid for RNC chair. Now THAT would be interesting.

STEELE: I want the gig. I’m ready, I’m ready to lead this party. I think we’ve been kind of wandering and doubting ourselves for far too long. And I think this past election was the culmination of that self-doubt which has to end.

We have a message, I think, of empowerment and ownership and opportunity that resonates United States with Americans. We just need to get back to.

So, we could have an AA RNC chief, and AA president and de facto head of the Democratic party and ???? as DNC chief? Now that should make for some very entertaining racial politics.

4) The WaPo has a piece today about the ever-not-changing work of K Street. Apparently lobbyists see an incoming Obama administration as a reason to re-arrange the deck chairs rather than change how they do business. Out with republican head lobbyists and in with the democratic. Sigh. Oh, yeah, don’t forget the nepotism. Gotta have nepotism.

“Barack Obama campaigned on change. Well, change is good for the lobbying business,” said Ed Rogers, who was an aide to President Ronald Reagan and whose firm has represented such clients as Citigroup, Pfizer and Raytheon. “People will need the expertise and guidance more in the next year than they have in the last five.”

Many of the issues Obama has expressed an interest in tackling early, such as health-care policy, energy and taxes, have broad implications for some of the lobbying world’s most free-spending corporate clients. Patrick Von Bargen, a former chief of staff to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and aide to William Donaldson, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said he joined Quinn Gillespie this month with the expectation that his knowledge of clean energy issues would be a valued commodity.

“People who have labored in Democratic vineyards for years are familiar with the people involved, but also with the substantive issues, and how Democrats approach those issues,” he said.
——————
Ron Kaufman, a Republican lobbyist at Dutko Worldwide who served as a close adviser to President George H.W. Bush and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said he cannot recall a better time to be a Democratic staff member looking for work. But he said his firm has always tried to keep both sides of the aisle covered so it does not have to panic during shifts in political control.

“The only change for us is that the Democrats are now the varsity squad, and I’ve been demoted to the junior varsity,” Kaufman joked.
——————-
Steve Elmendorf, a former top adviser to former House minority leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), said that he understands why Obama took that approach, but that he does not believe lobbyists will be turned away. “I don’t think they’ve said ‘We’re not going to talk to lobbyists,’ ” Elmendorf said. “They are going to talk to stakeholders. The stakeholders are all going to be represented by lobbyists. It’s not going to be a black-and-white thing.”

Elmendorf is one of several who foresee a boon for the industry. A new Democratic administration and an increasing Democratic tilt in Congress means more activist government, he said. “That means businesses will have the potential for more things to happen to them. If they think that’s coming, they will be hiring people to figure out how to contend with that.”

BO has said he doesn’t want lobbyists to have unfettered access. But I think this stand is likely to quietly die a “death of 1000 cuts” as the collective power of all these lobbyists and their industries / interest groups do everything they can to preserve their influence. This could be very interesting to watch. Get out your hypocrisy-meters. And get out the hip-waders.

5) Newser has a story about the MLK family wanting its piece of the action from MLK / Obama merchandising. Now, as controllers of the MLK estate, etc, it is within the family’s rights to look after its interests. But scurrying after merchandising dollars strikes me as tacky. Of course, it is understandable that the family wants to protect its brand Of course, I don’t personally think of MLK as a BRAND, but I guess that’s a matter of perspective?

The family of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is demanding a share of the proceeds from the sudden wave of T-shirts, posters and other merchandise depicting the slain civil rights leader alongside Barack Obama.

Isaac Newton Farris Jr., King’s nephew and head of the nonprofit King Center in Atlanta, said the estate is entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees _ maybe even millions.

“Some of this is probably putting food on people’s plates. We’re not trying to stop anybody from legitimately supporting themselves,” he said, “but we cannot allow our brand to be abused.”

MLK Brand??

6) One of the justifications for “undocumented workers” has long been that those people do the jobs “American’s don’t want to do.” Does that include teaching? Perhaps so, because the Dallas public schools have been hiring people without SSNs and arbitrarily assigning one to them “until they receive a valid number.” Of course, there’s a chance those SSN numbers might be REAL to someone else. The Dallas News has the story:

Years after being advised by a state agency to stop, the Dallas Independent School District continued to provide foreign citizens with fake Social Security numbers to get them on the payroll quickly.

Some of the numbers were real Social Security numbers already assigned to people elsewhere. And in some cases, the state’s educator certification office unknowingly used the bogus numbers to run criminal background checks on the new hires, most of whom were brought in to teach bilingual classes.
—————
The investigative report, obtained by The News through a records request, found “that the inappropriate procedure of assigning false SSNs has been systemic for several years” within DISD’s alternative certification program, which prepares new teachers for state certification when they don’t have traditional credentials.

A call Thursday to DISD’s alternative certification office was not returned. In recent years, DISD has hired people from various countries, including Mexico and Spain, to deal with a shortage of bilingual teachers.
—————-
In July, the district discovered that 26 of the false numbers were in use after matching DISD employee Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration database. The numbers were already being used in Pennsylvania. DISD officials did not know Thursday whether the practice had caused problems for anyone holding the legitimate numbers.

Anyone out there having received an IRS notice of unpaid taxes on undeclared income might want to keep an eye on this story.

7) Still don’t see how the damaged economy will touch you? This article in the Christian Science Monitor should help clear THAT up somewhat.

If the states had their way, they would like Congress to give them help in four areas: help with the growing number of people applying for Medicaid, more funding for the rising unemployed, help with the growing number on food stamps, and an injection of funds to jump-start infrastructure projects that are ready to go.

In my area, the local schools have requested and gotten substantial increases each year. Since I live in a “progressive” area, increases are regularly sought for a variety of things: sidewalks (good), artwork around a remote public works building (?), community gardens (are you kidding me?), stormwater run-off infrastructure, another municipal pool (we only have 3) with glass pebbles inlaid on the floor, and more money for roads (well, . . . ) even as development in the form of housing continues unabated, with taller and taller and “greener and greener” condos going up

Oh, and we don’t allow “big box” stores in my community. They’re so, so, tacky and cheap, you know. So everyone drives over the county line to shop at Target and the brain trust here loses out on what remaining retail sales taxes are available. Even as more housing is built, property taxes increase because new housing does not pay for itself in terms of schools, sewer, water, and other city services – at least not here.
And the local university (isn’t there always one in a “progressive” town?) often buys up tracts of land, taking it off the tax rolls. So, as the university uses more services, it also cuts available tax funds to the town. And the university has a multi-billion dollar endowment. . .

Sigh.

It is important for me to tell you, because he rarely ever mentions it, that Larry is one of the most generous contributors to charity and to people in need that I have ever met. He donates to innumerable charities, including many that help the families of soldiers injured or killed in war. He has taken in both relatives and friends who needed a place to live for a while. (More about Larry’s generosity is below.)

The “Dream” statement is below, enlarged:

Then there’s this blog. Not only does Larry make NO money from this blog — let alone any of the writers — it runs in the red all the time. It’d blow your minds to know how much the servers and software assistance cost monthly. We get very few ads; we make a pittance off the Amazon ads (but so appreciate your clicking on Amazon here so we get those small amounts, which do help!). We would have had to shut down a long time ago except for your donations and Larry’s own generosity.- Susan

I’m afraid this isn’t very clear either. I trust you can read it though:

Where was the famous and much touted day of the election get out the vote power of the GOP?

Why isn’t the name of the Chairman of the GOP, Mike Duncan, a household name?

How did the Republican Party get out done in fundraising by the Democrats?

Where was the Republican presence on college campuses?

Why were the same people running things during the 2006 midterm election disaster still running things in 2008? In a party that is supposed to be the embodiment of merit based success, those that failed in 2006 should have been long gone. In any corporation, that board of directors would have been out….

Why can’t members of the black community name one black Republican… or even know there is an equivalent to the Congressional Black Caucus on the Republican side.

Once upon a time, it was cool to be a Republican. That time has passed.

With a Presidential Nominee and a Chairman of the Party, not to mention the continued idolization of Reagan, the Republican Party has now become my grandfather’s party.

So here is some advice…

1. Find a new image. The Republican party has been the party of the rich white man for the last 50 years, a total shame and a betrayal of what made it great.

Remind people of your history.

Remind people that the first woman elected to Congress was a Republican. Remind people that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. Remind people the Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Remind people that Susan B. Anthony was a Republican. Remind people that the party that fought to get African Americans and women the right to vote was the Republican Party. Remind people that the Republican Party is the party of equality and freedom for all people. Remind people that the Republican Party is the party of innovation, dynamism and inspiration, not the party of old rich white guys.

2. Find a new Chairman. I suggest someone young and energetic. Michael Steele would be a great choice. Chairman of GOPac, he is universally respected in the Party. A former Lt Governor and Senatorial candidate, he is acutely aware of the minutia and difficulties of campaigning. As a PAC chairman, he is a keen and experienced fundraiser. As an ex-Lt Governor and Senatorial candidate, he is also aware of what image is and how to cultivate one in the media. Add this to the fact that he is also an African American, this instantly dispels the old rich white guy image.

3. Rebuild the College Republicans. Why is it that the college campuses have been taken over by the Democrats and how could the GOP have let the Democrats the first crack at a generation of Americans? Make youth reach out a priority… that is truly the future of the party and generates decades worth of votes.

4. Stop talking about Reagan as if he was President just yesterday and as if he was some sort of current force in politics when he left office 20 years ago… and people under 25 don’t remember him being President at all and those 35 and under just barely do. Reagan is a great figure to point to, but should be treated more like Lincoln than Clinton, who is still current, topical and all voters remember.

5. Clean house, get rid of the campaign and organizational staff that lost you the 2006-2008 elections. The GOP got it’s butt kicked up and down the electoral map by the DNC, not once, but twice. Bad. It’s time to draft some new players….

6. As a correlation to step 5, stop running people like Fred Thompson, John McCain, Duncan Hunter, or even Mitt Romney and anyone else born pre-1949. Though they are all good and honorable men, with much to offer, they don’t resonate with the majority of today’s voters and the image they present is one of the past and not one of the future.

7. Rebuild the party around your young stars. Primarily, stop the take down of Palin and stop it now. Get a hold of your party and get a hold of it now. Bolster people like Palin, Jindal, Cantor, Pawlenty, Steele, Watts and the like.

8. Stop relying on the technology of the 1990’s to get the job done in the 2000’s. The GOP has allowed the communications medium of the future to be taken by the Democrats… how the hell could you let that happen?

Stop relying on talk radio to get your message out.

The GOP needs a network of bloggers and a much larger online foot print. (BTW, Mr. GOP, I am available for consultations and to offer any advice on how to replicate an Obama type take over of the netroots should you decide to move into the new millennium LOL.) They need to increase netroots networks and maximize online fundraising capabilities.

The GOP also needs to gather cell phone numbers and create an SMS messaging program. Their membership databases need to be updated. According to one of my readers, the amount of horribly outdated information in the phone banks was astounding. I am guessing that is what happened to the election day get out the vote effort.

9. Start running a 50 State strategy much like the Democrats did, and start now. There is no reason that the Republican message should not appeal to everyone. The GOP should get off its’ butt and go talk to the people they haven’t visited in 50 years. I have a feeling they might like to see them… or at least some of them will, but isn’t that enough? Making small inroads into voting populations is essential because those small inroads become larger with time. And eventually, you can win states by the 0.5 to 2% margins that Obama rode to victory.

IN CONCLUSION: The GOP needs to remind people of its history, but also to leave its’ history as history. The Republican Party can no longer ride on the legacy of Reagan. They must re-invent itself and become the party of the future.

The Grand Old Party must become the Brand New Party or it will continue to wither away and die.

This is cross posted from my new blog home at http:/texashillblog.blogspot.com, so if you have links, please change them! Thanks!

He is a quintessential enigma wrapped in a conundrum (i.e., an inscrutable mystery having only a conjectural answer). He is an old style Chicago politician, complete with all of the corruption and unsavory relationships, but has a soothing voice and easy manner. He got away with a mythological presentation of his family history in part because the media was unwilling to ask him why he was known as Barry Soetoro until he was about 18 years old. He has still not explained his trip as a young man to Indonesia and Pakistan.

We know nothing about his academic achievements in college. If you have an honest, objective bone in your body you will admit that if he had high SAT or ACT scores we would have heard about it. His college performance as an undergraduate was mediocre and he certainly earned no accolades for getting a high GPA. Otherwise, we would have heard about it. I graduated Cum Laude and was Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Missouri. We know nothing about Obama’s record at Columbia University or Occidental College.

We do have a clear record of his clever politicking but meager accomplishments since 1995.

Barack is a savvy, tough politician. He figured out a way to shove an established politician, Alice Palmer out of the way. And he won election to the Senate of the United States. However, he was at best an undistinguished legislator and only got his name on a slew of bills in his last two years in the Illinois state legislature thanks to Emil Jones. Barack avoided many tough votes, often choosing to vote “present,” but did not champion any major legislation. He continued this record in the U.S. Senate. He did not chair any hearings and undertook no significant legislative initiatives.

Barack did prove to be adept at raising money. This was achieved, as we will discover in the coming year, through the efforts of two prominent Chicago families–Lester Crown and Penny Pritzker–who also bankrolled Rahm Emanuel.

In fact, I believe that Rahm Emanuel may have been the one to introduce Obama to the Crown and Pritzker network. It is a point worth pursuing. Barack also put together a very sophisticated, nationwide campaign organization that made phone calls to prospective voters and knocked on doors.

We have discussed in detail on this site the fraudulent fundraising that was part of his campaign. At the end of the day, Barack reneged on his promise to rely on public funding and outspent the McCain folks by at least a factor of 8. Let’s give Barack credit–he played hardball and won. He’s not the first politician to use political and financial shenanigans to beat an opponent–just ask Barry Goldwater and George McGovern about Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon).

I have watched and listened with a mixture of amazement and sadness at the celebrations of African Americans over Barack’s triumph. Let’s be clear. Barack is no Jackie Robinson (Jack Roosevelt “Jackie” Robinson). Back in the day when African Americans were banned from competing on an equal basis, there was no doubt that Jackie Robinson and host of other black baseball players deserved to play in the Major Leagues. The breaking of that color barrier was long overdue.

But Barack Obama has never, until now, had any significant experience managing a government enterprise. If he had been white, with his record and associations, he would never have been elected and certainly would not have ousted Hillary Clinton. So let’s admit that he is an Affirmative Action choice by a majority of Americans.

I welcome sending a clear signal to every person who is a minority in this country that they are accepted and loved. The legacy of racism in our country has left ugly wounds that unfortunately are still festering. It is odd that so many African Americans continue to insist there is blatant racism in the face of the commercial and professional achievements of black entertainers, athletes, and businessmen and women. America today is not the America of 1946 that still allowed segregation and kept talented individuals like Jackie Robinson, Josh Gibson and Larry Doby from having the opportunity to compete.

The nice thing about the full integration of professional sports is that we no longer worry or think about a players color when discussing their performance. As a Washington Redskins fan I think cornerback Carlos Rogers is a bust. The man, who has dropped more sure-fire interceptions than any cornerback I can remember, could not catch the clap in a Thailand whorehouse. Shawn Springs, however, is a stud who delivers. When Washington played Pittsburgh last Monday Springs was out with an injury, which gave Rogers the chance to play. My point in this is to illustrate that in talking about the performance of these two men we don’t worry about their color. It is what they do on the field during a game that counts.

In watching Jesse Jackson, Juan Williams, and Oprah Winfrey weep over the news that Barack had won, I could only think of Sally Fields. Remember when she won the Academy Award for her work in Places in the Heart? She tearfully accepted the Oscar with this unforgettable line:

“The first time I didn’t feel it but this time I feel it and I can’t deny the fact you like me. Right now, you like me!”

So, America now has officially told black people, “we like you, we really, really like you.” Got it? From that standpoint I am happy that Obama’s election will inspire and reassure African Americans that they are accepted. Barack’s election does not completely erase the scars of segregation and Jim Crow, but it is a welcome step.

It is now Barack’s Martin Luther King moment. We are not going to judge you by the color of your skin but by the content of your character. We are going to judge you on what you do. So how is that going?

Barack’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff is alarming and troubling. It is a sign that he is catering to the Lester Crown family and his national finance chair, Penny Pritzker. He selected a man who served on the board of Fannie Mae when deliberate lies about the company’s performance were reported to shareholders. He selected a man who was a strong supporter of the October 2002 resolution to go to war in Iraq. The fact that Emanuel is closely tied to his money people tells me that this is more of the old style politics that rewards those who pay the most.

On the plus side, Barack has selected some solid people to advise him on what to do about the intelligence community. He and his advisors are showing good judgment on that front. I look forward to getting back to an intelligence community that is allowed to be a truth teller without being subjected to political pressure.

I do not hate Barack Obama. While I think he is unqualified to be a good President I stand ready to be proven wrong. Which reminds me of Robert Gates. I opposed Robert Gates as the replacement for Don Rumsfeld. Gates’ record at the CIA was not distinguished. He played politics with intelligence and pandered to the Reagan White House.

But let’s give Bob Gates his due. He has been an outstanding Secretary of Defense and has restored sanity and integrity to that entity. I was wrong about Bob Gates. I hope I am wrong about Barack Obama. If I am, then America will be better off.

As Americans, we expect certain liberties and rights that were granted us by our forefathers, who wrote documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “We the people” expect that these fundamental rights will always be protected. However, in the current Democratic Presidential Primary, this has not been the case. We believe that the The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.

The preview, all 33 minutes of it, is compelling. In essence, it is a visual companion to the work of Dr. Lynette Long at Caucus Fraud and Peniel Cronin on Primaries and Caucuses (which will appear at NQ shortly). In short, it is disturbing not just how this happened, but THAT it happened in our country.

I invite you to watch the preview to this documentary, about which the authors said this:

This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”

This documentary contains powerful, important information. I urge you to spread the word however you are able. Now is the time.

To view, CLICK HERE.

My deepest thanks to all of those at “We Will Not Be Silenced” for your commitment to democracy, to the rights of Americans, all Americans, to vote. Thank you for your courage and integrity in getting this critical information out. And thank you for bringing the voices of these Americans out for us all to witness

Why, if a big huge stink is NOT made about the cover, people might actually read the ARTICLE inside! And they might, just might, see that this Emperor, just like George Bush, is wearing no clothes.

So instead, let’s just ratchet up the furor because heaven knows, NO other politician has EVER had a satirical cartoon done about them in the history of politics – ever! That’s why this one is so shocking! And no doubt, RACIST! Because they are making fun of Obama!!!!! How COULD they?!?! Don’t they know that this is unprecedented?? Oh, wait – it’s not.

You can go to this website, Political Humor, and see cartoons about all KINDS of politicians. The difference there is that the cartoons are mocking the actual people pictured, not the nebulous blogoshpere and its potential for rumor-mongering. (There are far more sites than this one – I just found this one first, and quite easily.)

But that wasn’t the point. Well, it is kinda the point with Obama – to blow something completely out of proportion and twist the message behind it.

We saw that time and time again during the primaries, like with the Bill Clinton remarks in SC that they twisted in an attempt to paint him as a racist. But the point in this particular instance was to distract Obama’s lemmings, I mean, followers – no, uh – SUPPORTERS from reading the article inside. Now, the material in there is not a surprise to those of us who are thinking – uh, informed voters, but it might well be to those bandwagoners in the Obama camp. It paints a picture of Obama different from his carefully crafted image as an outsider, a new voice, the reincarnation of JFK and MLK (gag me). Unlike the articles we have sought out to get all of the pieces of this puzzle, this magazine, a national, respected, magazine, puts it all together in one place (and honestly, went fairly easy on him from other sources I have seen, particularly those in Chicago). We can’t have that, can we?? Not according to the Obama camp.

What this article, “Making It“, makes clear was the calculated ascendancy of King Obama, the meticulous way he cultivated relationships to move him further along his path to what he wanted all along – the presidency. This was no accident, no fluke – Obama has been planning, scheming, and working for this day. It recounts just how he got this far, who helped him, and how; upon who’s backs he has climbed, and on who’s throats he has stepped. What is also clear is his opinion of himself, and it is mighty high indeed. Oh, yes – he knew he was going to be King, I mean PRESIDENT:

Almost as soon as he got to Springfield, he was planning another move. He was bored there—once, he appeared to doze off during a caucus meeting—and frustrated by the Republicans’ total control over the legislature. He seemed to believe, according to colleagues at the time, that he was destined for better things than being trapped in one of America’s more notoriously corrupt state capitals.

And he did not always get along with his colleagues in the State Senate. In fact, he had quite the acrimonious relationship with State Senator Hendon, and the two almost came to blows (here’s a surprise – Obama started it) on the floor of the IL senate. I bet you haven’t heard that before, right? Oh, no, he is always the consummate professional, isn’t he? No. No, he isn’t. Raise your hand if you are surprised at that!!! Yeah, I didn’t think so.

How about that Community Organizing experience he touts so much? The platform upon which all of his subsequent experience rests? Well, he had this to say about it:

…And for the most part I would say I wasn’t wildly successful. The victories that we achieved were extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for young people put in place.

Wow – you can see why that experience, all 2 -3 years of it, are so foundational for the rest of his political life, and certainly for the presidency. I would go so far as to say he has already demonstrated some of his “extraordinarily modest” legislation since he got into the U.S. Senate, all two pieces of it (post office naming and helping out in Congo). Oh, it just gives me shivers to think what modest things he can accomplish as president!! I am sure the list is endless of the mediocrity he can bring…

Another aspect the article exposes it just how Obama came to be at Trinity United Church of Christ. You know he isn’t a native of Chicago (though one of the Obamabot talking points is how offensive it is that Hillary Clinton isn’t from NY yet is a senator from NY), and that was an issue. Where else to obtain your bona fides but your church, right? Well, certainly for the young Obama:

Obama seems to have been meticulous about constructing a political identity for himself. He visited churches on the South Side, considered the politics and reputations of each one, and received advice from older pastors. Before deciding on Trinity United Church of Christ, he asked the Reverend Wright about critics who complained that the church was too “upwardly mobile,” a place for buppies. Though he admired Judson Miner, he was similarly cautious about joining his law firm. Miner once told me that it took “a series of lunches” and hours of discussion before Obama made his decision. At the time, Obama was working on “Dreams from My Father.”

Notice anything missing about how he choose his church home? How about FAITH?? Or THEOLOGY? Um, no. No it was all about which church was going to help him the most politically. Theology and faith seemed to have little to do with his decision.

Apparently, the same was true of where he worked – it was what the church, and the firm, could do for HIM, not what he could do for THEM. JFK is rolling over in his grave, no doubt…

So, yes, if I was Obama, I imagine I would want a big huge smokescreen, too. A well orchestrated, “Look Over THERE!” By completely twisting the point of the political cartoon, he has made the issue the cover, so the issues raised within the covers are discredited at best, and ignored at worst. He has made the point the cartoonist, not his own history and his claw and nail climb to the top. Now, even if any of his army actually read the article, they would be able to dismiss any fact that was the least bit critical (or true) because of that darn cover. The one about the rumors. The one making fun of us out here, not the Obamas. It is clever, I’ll give him that. And is certainly in keeping with how he has run his campaign, and his political life. But it is also dishonest, manipulative, and insulting. If you actually read the article, though, you will see that is just SOP for Barack Obama.

Oh, one last thing – I got the following the humorist, Andy Borowitz, and thought he summed it up nicely:

Obama Releases List of Approved Jokes About Himself
Bid to Help Late Night Comics

Saying he is “sympathetic to late night comedians’ struggle to find jokes to make about me,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) today issued a list of official campaign-approved Barack Obama jokes.

The five jokes, which Sen. Obama said he is making available to all comedians free of charge, are as follows:

Barack Obama and a kangaroo pull up to a gas station. The gas station attendant takes one look at the kangaroo and says, “You know, we don’t get many kangaroos here.” Barack Obama replies, “At these prices, I’m not surprised. That’s why we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, “I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.” Barack Obama replies, “She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American Dream.”

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, “Why the long face?” Barack Obama replies, “His jockey just lost his health insurance, which should be the right of all Americans.”

Q: What’s black and white and red all over?
Barack Obama: The New Yorker magazine, which should be embarrassed after publishing such a tasteless and offensive cover, which I reject and denounce.

A Christian, a Jew and Barack Obama are in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean. Barack Obama says, “This joke isn’t going to work because there’s no Muslim in this boat.”

And there you have it. Jokes can still be made about Bill Clinton and Monica. Jokes can be made about McCain, including his time as a POW. We have seen the number of so-called jokes about Hillary Clinton. But Obama is off limits, people – except for these five jokes above. Got it, people??

There is discussion that by moving the Democratic National headquarters to Chicago, he is not only increasing revenue for these characters, he is setting up Chicago as a site for the Olympics. Knowing Obama’s associations in the Windy City suggests that this move is not altruistic.

Now we are hearing that Obama will once again break with tradition during the Democratic National Convention to give his acceptance speech at a huge rally in the stadium of the Denver Broncos, known as Invesco Field. (See NewHampster’s post for some financial information on Invesco.)

The New York Times describes it this way:

The Democratic National Convention Committee and the Obama campaign announced on Monday that they would break with tradition and move the final day of convention activities, including the acceptance speech, from the Pepsi Center in Denver to Invesco Field… which can hold more than 75,000. A sea of 75,000 people swarmed around Senator Barack Obama at a rally in Portland, Ore. in May ..and Mr. Obama is planning a repeat performance at the Democratic National Convention in August..

Wanting an auspicious event, Obama will deliver his speech on August 28th, the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. And if that is not propitious enough, Obama’s campaign is broadcasting that the last person to give such a speech to such a large crowd was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy addressed a similarly sized audience at Memorial Stadium in Los Angeles. Not everyone is convinced that bigger is better. Matt Burns of the RNC stated:

Not surprisingly, Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats are more focused on stagecraft and theatrics than providing real solutions to the challenges facing our nation.

Nor does everyone see the double omens of King and Kennedy as a positive reflection of Obama. Conservative commentator, Michael Barone said:

No one has done it since Kennedy because no one thought he could fill a stadium since Kennedy. Evidently Obama feels he can and feels he can stop it raining too.

Of course Howard Dean is excited about the decision. Dean said of moving the speech:

This is very much in keeping with Senator Obama’s philosophy and, I might add, my philosophy as well. I think it’s very fitting, especially the way Sen. Obama got here with his enourmous grassroots operation.

One thing we can be sure is part of Dean’s “philosophy” is that the Obama campaign has turned the change of venue into a fund raising event, something absolutely necessary for the impoverished Democratic Party. As the Washington Post put it:

And how did the campaign break the news to supporters? How else? Through an Internet fund-raising appeal.”I wanted you to be the first to hear the news,” campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to Obama’s millions of contributors. “…Barack has made it clear that this is your convention, not his.”

Prior to the August convention, during his trip to Europe this month Obama’s campaign wants him to give a speech at the Brandenburg Gates in Berlin. By doing so, Obama will accomplish an ancestral hat trick and evoke Ronald Reagan who addressed West Berliners there in 1987.

I understand that for Barack Obama, attempting to emulate powerful and famous people is essential. Obama himself has no record of achievement. He is now known as Backtrack Obama for all his flip flopping, and no doubt he feels he must persuade people by imitating his successful forebears.

But it’s creepy that he’s using the propaganda strategy of rallying huge crowds to hear him, while calling it an event for the people. It’s creepy because this tactic of using an energized mob has been utilized by tyrants throughout history. One doesn’t have to go back to ancient Greece, where the word tyrant comes from, to understand my use of the term as it is defined in Wikipedia:

In ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions. The word “tyrant” then carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone who illegally seized executive power to engage in autocratic, though perhaps benevolent, government, or leadership. Support for the tyrants came from the growing class of business people and from the peasants who had no land or were in debt to the wealthy land owners.

As Heidi Li Feldman of The Denver Group said in her interview with Bud White for NQ, “you can’t legitimize something that is not legitimate.”In fact, at his request, Leni Riefenstahl made an amazing documentary about the rise of Adolph Hitler. The film, Triumph of the Will, is a beautiful and moving account of the early days of the Third Reich, of a time when Hitler brought hope and promise to a suffering nation. It is a haunting reminder that the faith and enthusiasm of German people gave rise to arguably the most horrendous deeds in the modern world . But the film itself portrays ordinary people coming together because they heard the charismatic and powerful rhetoric of a leader who promised to improve the lives of all German people. Here is the description from Wikipedia:

The primary aspect of the Nuremberg Rallies was to strengthen the personality cult of Adolf Hitler, portraying Hitler as Germany’s saviour, chosen by providence. The gathered masses listened to the Führer’s speeches, swore loyalty…the rallies served to demonstrate the might of the German people. The visitors of the rallies by their own free will were subordinate to the discipline and order in which they should be reborn as a new people.

I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama is Adolph Hitler. I am suggesting a cautionary tale of tyranny from recent history that has many eerie similarities.

Once again, I am in the minority. While I stood and still stand as a member of the 18 million strong majority of Hillary Clinton’s supporters, I represent an infinitesimal minority as a member of the less than 10% of African Americans who did not vote for Senator Obama. In this peculiar, yet familiar position, I find myself reflecting on the current state of race relations as it applies to the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.

I have been shocked and saddened by the leeway and passes, concerning transgressions no non-black person would be permitted, that the black community, by and large, has given to Senator Obama, all in the name of “the struggle” (read: getting him elected). He has been allowed to blatantly discriminate against religious and ethnic groups.

Had it been McCain or Hillary doing the same to African Americans, there would have been outrage, and justifiably so. However, too many brushed it aside as “something he has to do to get elected.”

Senator Obama was allowed to defame the black church by conflating it with the racist rants of Rev. Wright in order to save his political career, and the majority of the black community acquiesced, some nodding their heads, others looking the other way.

Senator Obama has been allowed to ignore our community on several occasions.

A few of us got upset and spoke out, but were quickly silenced with threats and intimidation. I’m sure we all remember how Tavis Smiley spoke his mind:

And then, this happened:

Tavis Smiley, the bestselling author of the “Covenant With Black America,” is in a world turned upside down. He said he’s being “hammered,” “barbecued,” and is “catching hell” from black Americans for suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a major mistake by declining to speak at the State of the Black Union event that Smiley plans to host next week in New Orleans.

“There’s all this talk of hater, sellout and traitor,” Smiley said to me in a telephone interview. Smiley even mentioned getting death threats, but wouldn’t elaborate. He said his office has been flooded with angry e-mails. “I have family in Indianapolis. They are harassing my momma, harassing my brother. It’s getting to be crazy,” Smiley said.

…

For Smiley, the tumult is a major turnabout. Until now he was a darling commentator in black America. His passion for the people endeared him to many. People listened to his commentaries on the popular Tom Joyner Morning Show, and snapped up so many copies of the “Covenant” that it made the top ten lists of the both the New York Times and the Washington Post. When Smiley talked, black people listened.

“One of my friends said, ‘you are being barbecued in the blogosphere,’” Smiley said. He told Black America Web writer Michael Cottman’s that “I’m catching hell.” In our interview, Smiley said: “This is the first time in my entire career that I have found myself in this kind of relationship with some folk in black America. I now know what it feels like to have the weight of the Internet world bearing down on you. Man, it’s an eye opener when you get caught in the middle of it.”

In the same breath, Tavis Smiley, a man who has endeared himself to our community and worked and spoken out on our behalf, is called a sell out for not unquestioningly supporting Senator Obama, a man we hardly know, who’s “credentials” with the black community pale in comparison, but Obama is praised and passionately protected for essentially selling us all out to get elected. Something isn’t adding up.

Currently, I believe too many of us in the black community are painting Senator Obama as someone and something he is not. Senator Obama is not a champion of the black community. I’m hard pressed to find one African American supporter of Senator Obama that can name one thing he has done for the black community, other than give a speech or two (for his own political gain) and run for president. None of which have anything to do with us as a community.

I’ve heard African Americans say, “Well, he’s trying to achieve Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream.” This, to me, is the ultimate disrespect and perversion of Dr. King’s dream.

Dr. King didn’t march, suffer abuse, get arrested and die so that Barack Obama, or any person of color for that matter, could be president. Dr. King was not so shortsighted. He fought for equality, for equal opportunity, so that all would be judged “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Dr. King fought so that if a woman or man of any color or creed were worthy and deserving of the presidency, then they would not be denied due to ignorance and prejudice.

Today, too many African Americans are simply judging Barack Obama by the color of his skin, and not by the content of his character, much less the depth of his achievements and length of his resumé.

There is no need to pretend that this is not the case for many (not all), for when we are in “friendly” company, the truth comes out. One woman looked me in the eye and said, point blank, “I’m voting for Obama because he is black. Why shouldn’t I? I’ve been voting for white men all my life.”

A friend of mine apparently had an African American male at a restaurant tell her, “A vote for anyone else is a vote for slavery. Obama ‘09 [sic]!” I know black Republicans who vehemently disagree with Obama on all policy issues, but are voting for him and have the audacity to chastise me for not supporting Obama and claim I’m “forgetting the movement.” That many of us feel this way is sad, yet understandable, but not tolerable.

If voting for Senator Obama isn’t about race, why have I been called an “Uncle Tom”? Why have I been called a “race traitor”? Why have I been called a “house n*gger”? Why is the harshest treatment of “dissenters” reserved for those of us of similar pigmentation to Senator Obama? It’s best we are honest with ourselves.

For all of the racism (yes, that is what it is) festering within the black community, the paranoia surrounding non-black racism (termed such because Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, etc. are being rampantly accused of racism as well. “White racism” does not begin to encompass the range of accusations) has reached fever pitch.

Many are and have been arguing that calling Senator Obama inexperienced is racism; recalling the truths that many of us believe that we must and often do have to be twice as qualified, if not more, than white candidates in order to be chosen for the same position. Academic studies bare out the truth of this, and the same truth for women of all colors competing against men.

Too many claim, loudly and directly, that any person, who is not African American who chooses not to support Senator Obama does so primarily due to racism. Yes, there are individuals who will not vote for Senator Obama because he is half African, but there are also people who refused to vote for Senator Clinton because she was female, and there are still some who will refuse to vote for Senator McCain because of his age (African Americans are not the sole targets of oppression). But these people do not make up the majority of voters. The majority of them voted for Senator Clinton, not against Senator Obama and vice versa.

Most importantly, for the overwhelming majority of those who did not vote for Senator Obama in the primary, and for those who will not do so in November, racism was not and will not be a factor.

I have written all of this because I believe we are at an important impasse. The way our community, and the American citizenry at large proceeds from now on will determine the trajectory of race, gender and generational relations for decades to come. I have thought for a long time about how to express an empathy but also a gutteral disagreement with the aforementioned sentiments as they apply to Senator Obama.

During my thoughts, my mind stumbled upon a memory of an episode of one of my favorite political satires, The Boondocks. The particular episode deals chiefly with R. Kelly, the allegations against him, and the reaction of the black community. As R. Kelly has recently been acquitted on all counts of child pornography, this episode holds even more relevance for the current time. Moreover, I find humor is often the best way to deliver the toughest message.

[Disclaimer: The Boondocks is a show aimed at political commentary and social satire of race relations, specifically as they apply to the black community, seen through the eyes of some in the black community. As such, while the following clip contains some offensive language, it should be viewed through the lens of satire and critique. Also, at roughly 2:00 in the video, it seems the original uploader has inserted music that is not original to the episode. Please disregard it.

Lastly, I will not respond to claims of "racism," concerning the video clip, in the comments (as a black woman, frankly, I am tired of them, and am fully capable of recognizing and critiquing racism when I see, exhibit or experience it). If you can't handle political satire, perhaps you should not be on the internet.]

For me, Huey’s speech (the young man with afro), beginning at 2:21, is the part I find most relevant and most in sync with my current viewpoints regarding Senator Obama and how many in the black community view him. Huey’s speech is as follows:

“What the hell is wrong with you people?!? Every famous n*gga that gets arrested is not Nelson Mandela. Yes, the government conspires to put a lot of innocent black men in jail on fallacious charges, but R. Kelly is not one of those men. We all know the n*gga can sing.

But what happened to standards? What happened to bare minimums? You a fan of R. Kelly? You wanna help R. Kelly? Then get some counseling for R. Kelly! Introduce him to some older women. Hide his camcorder. But don’t pretend like the man is a hero…and stop the damn dancing! Act like you got some G*d damn sense, people! Damn! I’m through playing around here!”

Huey, as our protagonist, speaks truth to power. I believe his general sentiment can be translated to the current situation within the black community regarding Senator Obama and his candidacy.

Every black man that runs for office is not a saint, nor a victim. It is not our responsibility as African Americans to vote for him, protect him from legitimate criticism, or turn a blind eye to his glaring short comings because of a coincidence of pigmentation. Yes, there is racism in our society.

Yes, many African Americans and other ethnic minorities, as well as women, have been qualified for positions, only to be told to work harder as they were passed over for a white, or younger, or male (or all three) lesser experienced individual. Yes, the United States Federal Government, state governments, and local governments, have propagated injustices, and continue to propagate injustices against African Americans.

Yes, many, including Republicans and Democrats have used dirty tricks, back room deals, and racism as a weapon against a plethora of candidates, black, white, female and male, robbing them of their ability to achieve and to serve.

But Senator Barack Obama is not one of those candidates. We all know the man is a decent public speaker. We all know he is the first candidate of color to come this close to attaining the presidency.

“But what happened to standards? What happened to bare minimums?” If you are a supporter of Senator Obama, and want to help him, then instruct him to go back to the Senate for a few years, at least serve his first term, and gain some experience. Introduce him to some non-radical non-domestic terrorist, non-racist and non-anti-semitic preachers, and non-convicted on 16 of 24 counts of corruption friends! Help him form a platform and a record, and teach him not to change his position on an issue every time he goes to a new state or switches from primary to general election mode. But do not pretend like he is above reproach, a saint, or a messiah. And stop covering up for him or threatening and intimidating those who disagree with you. He is a politician!

And please, stop the chanting and fainting. It’s creepy.

As Obama loses his grip on the nomination and the momentum of his candidacy slows, his campaign is reviving its race-baiting tactics heading into North Carolina.

We’ve seen this played out before: The Obama campaign hints that whites are unwilling to vote for Obama because he’s black, an Obama surrogate claims the Clintons are using race, and the Obamablogs, Keith Olbermann, and finally the MSM pick it up as “truth.”

The day after Clinton’s surprising victory in New Hampshire, Obama supporter Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. — in words which will live in infamy –said that Hillary’s tears in New Hampshire will “have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina and other things Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head toward South Carolina where 45 percent of African Americans will participate in the process.”

This was followed by Obama suggesting to mostly black audiences that the Clintons were playing them for fools by criticizing him. Obama appropriated Malcolm X’s “hoodwinked, bamboozled, okie-doke” speech and sent a clear signal that racial politics was on the table.

This narrative was given the blogger boy stamp-of-approval when Markos Moulitsas Zuniga claimed (falsely) that Team Clinton darkened a picture of Obama to make him look menacing.

Lastly, Orlando Patterson gave it legitimacy by claiming in the pages of the Times, again falsely, that there was not a black child in Hillary’s “3 a.m.” ad. Discussing Patterson, but just as accurately Obama’s racial strategy in general, Taylor Marsh said “Looking for racism in every moment of a white person’s political campaign is as bad as being racist. No, actually, it is racist.”

The Obama campaign successfully telegraphed their campaign talking points and the big blogs, Air America (Randi Rhodes said “Geraldine Ferraro is David Duke in drag”), Keith Olbermann, and many others fell in line and parroted the lie that the Clintons have been using race or are racists themselves. As others have pointed out, no one can explain why the Clintons would use race in a Democratic primary contest where African Americans have a disproportionate voice.

On the heels of another Obama defeat and the prospect that Hillary is picking up genuine momentum, members of his team are again telegraphing to their supporters in the press and the blogs that it’s time for racial politics. David Axelrod revved up the race machine when he told NPR that:

The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.

By framing the issue in terms of race, Axelrod signaled that others should do the same. Following on cue, Rep. James Clyburn told the Times:

“When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

In essence, Clyburn is telling us that Clinton owes the black community because of their support during the Lewinsky scandal and that Clinton should refrain from criticizing Obama:

Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Clyburn, of course, ignores Rev. Wright, Wiliam Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Bitter-gate, all self-inflicted wounds. In truth, all Hillary has done to hurt Obama is win big, crucial states by talking about economic issues and national security, pretty boilerplate stuff.

The Democratic Party consists of two warring factions, and the precarious coalition that forms the Party is on the verge of splitting apart. Working class whites are not naive to Obama’s shenanigans. They’ve watched as the Obama team has smeared perhaps the most racially progressive president in our history as a racist, and they’ve seen Obama ridicule their concerns, faith, and culture.

The Obama campaign would like the superdelegates to believe that African Americans will revolt if Obama is not given the nomination. The more likely outcome–and this has actually been quantified, is that working-class whites will go with McCain if Hillary is not the nominee.

This is not because working class whites are racist but because Obama represents a wing of the party which encourages the trashing of poor white people, lacks an economic focus for their needs, and excuses the racist and America-hating rants of Reverend Wright.

Obama’s cold-hearted tacticians aren’t using these tactics because they are concerned about the plight of African Americans. They are trying to scare superdelegates about racial issues and smear the Clintons.

The use of race has nothing to do with race: this is about power, pure and simple, and controlling the largess of the federal government. Although the media loves to claim that Obama has brought in new voters, Hillary has actually received more votes than Obama and has done something which has the potential to change the political landscape for a generation: She has built a new governing coalition centered around the largest part of the electorate, women, and fastest growing part of the electorate, Hispanics.

I suggest that African American politicians, comfortable senators, wealthy blogger boyz, and lobbyists like Tom Daschle fear that Hillary’s new coalition could actually complete the New Deal promise of universal health care and dominate politics for a generation. John Kerry, for example, has gone so far as to say UHC is dead on arrival in the senate but Obama is a good candidate because the color of his skin, not exactly meat and potatoes for the working class.

Obama’s losses in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania should not be underestimated. Obama is unable to win critical swing states despite having a near-monopoly on the institutional power-brokers, the media, the blogs, and the activists.

The narrative that Obama is a weak general election candidate is starting to take hold. Sensing this development, the Obama team has turned on the Wurlitzer and alerted its supporters that it’s time to smear the Clintons as racists once again. We’ve heard Axelrod and Clyburn.

Watch next for the blogger boyz, the columnists of the Times and the Post, Joe Klein, and then the mainstream media. We’ve heard this song before, and we know all the notes and lyrics by now. It means Obama is in trouble.

Give Barack Obama his due.  He has revived feelings and emotions that recall the Sixties.  But not all of the feelings and emotions of that era are good or decent.  Unless you are at least 53 years old, you have no real clear memory of the struggles of the period.  So I am guessing that most folks reading this blog only know the Sixties through movies and TV shows.

We are proud to present Flineo’s latest work.  It is brilliant.  It combines images of today with the words of yesterday.  

It is important to acknowledge that Barack is able to run for President today because of the civil rights movement that came to full flower in 1968.  It was a movement born in blood—Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy are among the most prominent and best-known martyrs.  But the Sixties also stands as the Ying and Yang of good and bad political movements.  On the one hand, King and Evers preached non-violence and defied the racists to attack them with clubs, dogs, guns, and mobs.  On the other hand there were groups like the Weather Underground, the Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers.  They advocated violence.

As a young boy living in Indonesia, Barack had no firsthand experience with, or knowledge of, this period of upheaval in the United States.  He learned about it later, in large measure from Frank Davis, a black activist and communist who favored the tactics of the Black Panthers over the non-violence of Martin Luther King.

And here is the critical point for us today.  Barack Obama has not surrounded himself with those who represent and espouse the views and vision of Dr. King.  He has cast his lot with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.  The hope he offers is not the hope of Dr. King.  Dr. King saw beyond skin color.  Barack has embraced a religious movement that is Africentric and prone to sharpen divisions between black and white.  That’s a movement I can live without.

In this YouTube posted on April 5th, Helen reminisces — with her typical great wit and her insights — on the presidents since JFK. From Helen Thomas’s latest column:

“Obama has captivated the enthusiastic support of America’s youth and ignited their interest in presidential politics. His eloquent speeches are designed for the bully pulpit. But does a good speech make a good president?

“Obama stresses he was against the invasion of Iraq, but he doesn’t say he was not in the Senate when it was initiated. Since become a senator, he has twice voted to fund the war.”

You know, Helen Thomas has been a reporter and columnist — and hanging around Washington, D.C. — longer than most of us have been alive. But it hasn’t ruined her keen eye or her abilities of perception and insight. She’s proof that not all pundits are unable to think clearly “inside the bubble.”

Here’s more on Barack Obama from Thomas’s latest column via the Seattle P.I.:

I am still trying to find the key that has made Obama a prime candidate for the presidency, and to understand what he has done for the country beyond his middle-of-the-road political moves to make his name known and to steer clear of hot-button issues.

The Rev. Martin Luther King had a dream, too. But he acted on it. He went to jail, he marched, he led.

There’s more “Essential Helen” below.

Helen hits the “Obamedia” for its Obama-lovin’ coverage:

There is no question that the pundits and the news media have been harder on Clinton, perhaps because she has been longer in the public eye and there is more to pick on.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that the major newspaper columnists are giving Obama a free ride, while trashing Clinton. Likeability undoubtedly goes a long way with them, and he has mesmerized the media.

Clinton, on the other hand, has left herself open to criticism for dubious involvement in foreign policy decisions in the Clinton years. But one can’t deny that she was there and that her opinion was respected.

Obama can be forgiven for acting like a front-runner, but not for his patronizing remarks such as: “My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants.”

Even Clinton has the audacity of hope — and why not?

I’m glad that it is not just we who pick up on Obama’s arrogance and his sense of entitlement, earned or not.

Read all of “Clinton should hang in there and run a good race to the end.”

NOTE: Helen Thomas also has some things to say about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan, and I’m going to include those remarks in a separate post.

ALSO OF NOTE: YouTube is also a national treasure because I was able to type “Helen Thomas” in its search engine and find so many videos featuring Helen Thomas. Check them out — it’s so delightful to hear her speak, any time, and it’s great to rediscover those videos of Helen grilling President Bush.

::::::::::::::

UPDATE: He’s not Helen Thomas, but Joe Scarborough — lately, I hear — has been praising Hillary’s “grit”:

We pointed out, in Fleaflicker’s story, that he “is also a friend and close associate of Obama’s national Co-Chairman, Jesse Jackson Jr. and he attends the Salem Baptist Church of Reverend James Meeks, another of Barack Obama’s spiritual advisors.” (We hoped that CNN and Roland Martin would take note of our concerns. That was the point of the story.)

We are pleased to find this YouTube of CNN’s Roland Martin interviewing Hillary Clinton yesterday in Memphis, following her speech:

In this wide-ranging interview, CNN’s Roland Martin asks Hillary Clinton about the legacy of Martin Luther King, the inequalities that impoverished youths face to this day, the national discussion about race, and more.

Thank you, Mr. Martin, for a fair and balanced interview.

We also look forward to fair and balanced commentary on CNN.

Lessons we learn when we are young tend to stick with us throughout life. Especially when those lessons are learned from people we respect and admire. Hillary Clinton learned a few important lessons from a very great man whose death we both mourn and celebrate on this day.

At the tender age of 14, Hillary had her first “Awakening” when a pastor took her to see the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speak in Chicago. The sermon was named: ‘Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution.’ And no sermon could have been more appropriate or more effective in determining the future of this young woman. Because what she learned that day was that there are issues more important than any of us. There are injustices we must confront because solving them expresses our morality and validates our humanity.

As Hillary spoke today [PHOTO] at the 40th anniversary of Dr. King’s death she paid tribute not only to the man she once met but to the dream he literally gave his life for. [VIDEO UPDATE AT END.]

Hillary’s Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of Dr. King’s Death

As a young woman, I was privileged to be taken to hear Dr. King speak by a youth minister who opened my eyes and ears and my horizons. Dr. King’s call to action that evening in Chicago led me to confront a world bigger and broader than the one I inhabited. He had a way of doing that, of pushing us outside our own comfort zone, of making it clear that we had to be part of the revolution that was going on. It wasn’t a revolution of guns. It was a revolution of hearts and minds, of attitudes and actions.

When one heard Dr. King speak, and I stood in line for a very long time that night to shake his hand. And he was gracious, and he was kind to lean over to shake the hand of a 14-year-old girl from the from the suburbs of Chicago, who went to an all-white church and an all-white school, and lived in an all-white suburb. But he didn’t ask me, as I reached out my hand, where do you live, what is your experience? He just took it and looked in my face and thanked me for coming.

[ PHOTO CAPTION: Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) (R) stands with civil rights leader Dr. Benjamin Hooks (C) and Charles Taylor (L) on the balcony of the former Lorraine Motel, now part of the National Civil Rights Museum, where Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968 in Memphis, April 4, 2008. April 4th marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the civil rights leader who was shot as he stood on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. REUTERS/Mike Segar (UNITED STATES) || Slide Show at Yahoo News ]

Hillary learned something valuable that day. And it was after that speech that she began to see the world differently. She began to understand that she had been given a privileged life compared to so many less fortunate. And she decided that she would dedicate her life to helping those in need, those who were forgotten and invisible. It was as if she had intuitively understood the deeper meaning of Dr. King’s message.

And when he stood against discrimination, he wasn’t just seeking to free African Americans from the shackles of slavery and the past that had been shaped by that abomination; he was seeking to break the shackles of hatred on the hearts of us all. He yearned for our country to fulfill the ideals that it had given lip service to, that were embodied in our founding documents. In his last speech here, he took us on a tour of history, but showed us the unfinished business and unrealized promises of America.

She was also inspired to share Dr. King’s deep conviction to stand up against injustice and continue fighting for what one knows is just even when all hope has failed. She more than many, has seen the dark depths of despair and yet she has risen every time to conquer when others so often counted her out and wrote her off.

His faith in America animated and sustained his journey. Like with any faith, there were dark moments when one doubts, when one is on the brink of giving up and throwing in the towel. But he would always come back from those dark places and so must we.

And Hillary claims justly that her run for Presidency is directly inspired by what Dr. King preached his entire lifetime.

Video Tribute to the Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Well, I’m running for president because I still remember Dr. King’s challenge. He asked us what we would say when we appear before the throne of judgment and are asked, ‘What did you do for others?’ Dr. King said that no matter what our answer might be, God would say, ‘Well, that is not enough.’ There is always more to be done.

For throughout her life she has striven to do to do more, to push harder and to work smarter. From her early work on the Children’s Defense Fund to her advocacy for the SCHIP program, Hillary has always stood up for the least fortunate, for the voiceless in a society filled with self interested blow hards. And even though she was unable to accomplish her goal the first time, Hillary made it her life’s work to manifest Universal Health Care for all Americans, not just those that could afford it. Because for Hillary, like Dr. King, doing so is a moral responsibility.

Hillary’s Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of Dr. King’s Death

Dr. King taught us everything we needed to know about his legacy and how to carry it forward, but in the end it is up to each of us to walk that path. It is not an easy path. It was hard for him. It is hard for us.

Sometimes we take steps backwards so maybe then we can figure out a new way forward. But I have abiding confidence, and yes, faith that we can make our way to higher ground. Whether or not we make it to the mountain top, whether we make it to the Promised Land is not for us to know, but I believe with all my heart it is for us to try. And when we get tired and when our faith starts to waiver, we can of course remember Dr. King’s faith in us.

Yes Hillary is a fighter. Because one cannot give up, one cannot give in when winning the battle is so essential to realizing the dream that Dr. King so eloquently charged us to fulfill. And like Dr. King, Hillary realizes that we may not make it to the mountain the first few times we try. But that should never stop us from trying time and time again. Because the journey is itself just as important as the goal.

Dr. King taught us everything we needed to know about his legacy and how to carry it forward, but in the end it is up to each of us to walk that path. It is not an easy path. It was hard for him. It is hard for us. Sometimes we take steps backwards so maybe then we can figure out a new way forward. But I have abiding confidence, and yes, faith that we can make our way to higher ground. Whether or not we make it to the mountain top, whether we make it to the Promised Land is not for us to know, but I believe with all my heart it is for us to try. And when we get tired and when our faith starts to waiver, we can of course remember Dr. King’s faith in us.

Thank you Hillary. Nothing could be truer or more pertinent today.

VIDEO UPDATE:

Special thanks to C.S. for the video.

:::::::::::::::

Please follow the link below to a clip of the first part of Hillary’s speech today.

Hillary Commemorates MLK