Remember Jesse Jackson, Jr., and his claim that voters should “analyze” Hillary Clinton’s tears?  We should analyze those tears in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, he said, especially as Hillary will have to face the Democratic voters of South Carolina, 45% of whom are African-Americans who see “real hope” in Barack Obama.

Maybe Jesse and all those African-American voters who dismissed Hillary’s tears but saw “real hope” in Obama should analyze this in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and of Barack Obama’s deceitful campaign:

WASHINGTON — In projecting the job benefits from the giant stimulus bill signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, the White House says the 2nd Congressional District that includes New Orleans will receive the lowest job employment benefit among the 435 nationally.

The White House says it is a formula-driven number…

The 2nd Congressional District of Louisiana includes New Orleans, a city that is struggling to repopulate and to rebuild its infrastructure. Although the region is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, it will receive the least amount of stimulus from Obama’s vaunted package. New Orleans, I guess, is only worthy of one’s attention when one is campaigning and race baiting, not when one is writing a spending bill. That is quite the Mardi Gras gift for a city that supported him with 79% of the vote during the general election.

New Orleanians will still celebrate Carnival tonight with the Ancient Druids in Uptown. And New Orleans will recover, even if Obama and his operatives in Washington, DC, will sit idly at their desks as this city sinks into the Gulf. Besides, we have seen this before. Does anyone remember George W. Bush in 2005 or John Calvin Coolidge in 1927?

Question Hillary’s tears all you want, Senate Candidate #5. At least her actions and her little formulas will not wash us away. Maybe you and the people you answer to can analyze that after you finally read the stimulus package for which you voted. And please tell me if the African-American voters of South Carolina will still see “real hope” in Obama in the wake of his decision to ignore New Orleans.

Then I have been mislabeling myself for the past 36 years. See, I thought a feminist was someone who believed in women’s equality, who believed that women’s rights were human rights, who believed that women had the right to make decisions about our own bodies, that women had the right to equal pay, and that women had the right to self-determination, not being ruled by a man, to name a few. See, that’s what I thought it meant. What a surprise to discover at this late date that, at least according to Ms. Magazine, I have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Evidently, in their opinion, a feminist is someone who plays songs like, “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One” when he enters a hall (and I intentionally picked the link to go to Huffington Post since so many of those people claim there is no way this happened. Hell to the yes, it DID.). A feminist is someone who flips off - in public - in a speech that is televised - a female US Senator who is also a Former First Lady of the US and a Former First Lady of Arkansas who, coincidentally, believes women’s rights are human rights. She even gave a little speech about it. But I digress…

Apparently, a feminist is someone who chooses for the chair of the Democratic National Committee a man who is anti-choice (oh, and as a bonus, anti-gay). A feminist picks a pastor, Rick Warren, to give a major prayer who equates abortion to Nazism. Once again, as a bonus, is tremendously anti-gay, comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. So much so that he will not ALLOW gay people into his church.

A feminist, as it turns out, believes that women who are “feeling blue” should not be able to have an abortion. And a feminist believes any real discussion of abortion is above his pay grade.

A feminist, at least the one Ms. Magazine is revering, is free to make sexist comments about his competitor, allow vulgar, degrading sexual statements to be made and WORN on t-shirts (forget it - I’m not linking to those despicable shirts) without uttering ONE WORD against it, and pays the women on his staff less than the men.

And, lastly(but by no means the end), a feminist is someone who not only has retained on his staff, but ELEVATED to the top speech-writing post in the White House, this young man, Jon Favreau, who demonstrates his “affection” (read: sexist pig incredibly inappropriate actions) for Senator-Soon-To-Be-Secretary-Of-State, Hillary Clinton in the photo below:

Yep - no doubt about it - all my adult life, I have been completely and utterly wrong about what it means to be a feminist. Turns out, it is the exact opposite of what I always believed it to be.

I thought, I hoped, I prayed that after Bush was out of office, our country, our media, our leaders, our organizations, would return to the reality based community. Sadly, it seems that too many are continuing to perpetrate the charade of who Obama is. I guess it would just be too embarrassing to admit they, like so many others, had been completely duped by him (hey, if you want to know what it is like for all of those people who gave everything for Obama only to be dissed by him, just ask that sexist pig Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama’s campaign manager who threw not just Hillary but his own FATHER under the bus for Obama; or Jay Rockefeller; or John Kerry who shilled for Obama, hoping for that Secretary of State position; or HOWARD DEAN, who wasn’t even invited to the introduction of the new DNC chair, what it is like to realize they’ve been had. Frankly, it couldn’t have happened to more deserving people, especially Howard Dean, who allowed the Rules Committee to proceed in a completely unethical, immoral way all the while making it very clear who the DNC wanted for its nominee. So, Howie - what are you doing with your time under the bus?? Just wondering…). But to promote Obama, the most sexist, MISOGYNISTIC candidate I have ever seen as a FEMINIST is grotesque. Ms. Magazine has lost all credibility. Its editors have lost their minds. And they have sure lost me.

If this is what it means to be a feminist, freakin’ count me out. I don’t want to be lumped in the same group with a misogynistic (homophobic) pig like Obama. Clearly, we need another name for those of us who DO care, and work for, rights for women because as of this date, “feminist” has become a disparaging word, at least for me.

Say this is not true.

You tell us that armed guards are going to keep Roland Burris from taking his seat. One strike.

But Harry, now this?

Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn’t want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.

Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Now, granted Harry recommended women, which is REALLY rare from today’s Regressives Progressives. But Harry blew off four, count them four, black potential candidates to fill Barack Obama’s slot. The only black US senator is leaving that seat, and Harry couldn’t abide one of these four guys? And looking at the names tells me that Roland is the best pick of all.

At least Roland is not a long-time New Party borderline Communist waiting to send us all to the potato fields after he redistributes our income, like Danny Davis.

At least Roland is not a typical Chicago Fixer and Obama’s political Godfather like Emil Jones. How ironic, though. Jones Made Obama. Incidentally, this is the same guy who called an African American Clinton delegatean “Uncle Tom”. I wonder what he’s thinking now about his “Godson” Barack Obama turning his back on Roland Burris.

I honestly don’t know what Jesse Jackson Junior is, besides being Jesse Senior’s son. Furthermore, he thew his own father under the bus for Barack Obama, which to me is a strong indicator of just how far he would go to get ahead.

Say what you want about Jesse Sr. Agree with him or don’t agree with him, but he has worked his tail off for the African American community since he was a young puppy. I remember Jesse speaking at my college during what the Gen-Y crowd would call the Stone Age. Jesse Junior’s achievement record is Nil compared to his father. He’s hitching a ride off of Daddy’s name and everybody knows it. So the least he could have done was show his father some respect. This goes to character. But still, this guy went all out for Barack Obama, even unto turning his back on his own father.

But Harry seems to have a problem with placing of anyAfrican American in the seat of the only black person in the Senate. And apparently Barack Obama has the same problem.

Barack would do well to remember that if he hadn’t bamboozled the African American community into thinking, among other things, that he is going to drop money from the sky upon them, he would not be President-Elect Obama today. This has to be a huge blow to the morale of the community. The Congressional Black Caucus has got to be wondering where Reid and Obama are really coming from.

Overall, I cannot avoid the temptation to say on behalf of Women in America: Welcome To The Club. Unfairness Sucks, doesn’t it? I’ll bet it does. That’s why this statement from the Obama camp is particularly unconscionable:

An Obama transition team spokeswoman would not comment, referring reporters to a report released by Obama’s transition team before Christmas.

I have a feeling, if this “transition” is any indicator, we are going to hear a lot of “No Comments” from Barack Obama in the next four years. He is doing the same thing with the Gaza conflict. He acts as if we are interrupting his hoops and workout every time the press asks him a burning question. Considering the practice he got during the primaries and the election, he’s seasoned at avoiding questions that force him to reveal a detail or make a commitment. But what’s up with this subject of his Senate seat replacement? Does Barack want to pull a Clarence Thomas and kick the ladder out from under him for African Americans now that he got to climb it?

This morning Reid has denied having this conversation at all. I hope this is true. But I have the distinct feeling that Blago knows where plenty of bodies are buried and some of those bodies were dragged across the room while the tape was rolling–

Considering Reid’s behavior over Roland Burris’ appointment— what with talk of Armed Guards–and considering there is a boatload of audio tapes– my money is on the man with the Big Hair on this one.

Things are lookin’ bad for ya, Harry. This morning FOX paraphrased you as saying on this morning’s Meet The Press,

“We have the right to do whatever we want to”.

Nice to know we are living in a Democracy, Harry. Nice to know. Just really hard to tell when we have a cranky Totalitarian bastard like you in charge of the Senate.

Jesse *let me repeat* Jackson, “I met with Blagojevich for the first time in four years, on Tuesday.”

Now, perhaps he means in an actual conference room, with pens, pads of paper, and donuts (or bagels), but it’s not *just words* in these situations. I would think, during a press conference, in a serious situation such as this, you would be very, very careful.

Because, as I read on Newsbusters, here is Jesse last August, tearfully hugging Blagojevich. There is much more here, at newbusters, from P.J. Gladnick.

It sure sounds like, according to the reports, that someone was offering to pony up, up to a million big ones, for Jesse to get the Senate seat. So, he needs to be very careful about what he denies, and when he denies it happened.

And if Obama has nothing to hide, in addition to all the scrubbing going on wrt news stories, why are they now scrubbing their own web site, and not allowing any Blago questions? From Politico: Blagojevich questions censored on Transition site

Politico has another article called * 7 Blago questions for Obama*. Too bad anytime someone tries to ask Obama those questions, they are deleted.

Like I said in my previous post, it doesn’t sound like, according to the phone calls, that Obama agreed to any kind of pay for play. But, he denied any contact at all, which doesn’t appear to be true. And that leads one to believe that he at least KNEW that Blago wanted something for the seat. Every one seems to agree on that - that Obama’s team was not agreeing to pay to play. Also, I want to know why Obama continued to endorse him and stand by him for the last four years, when, according to Chuch Todd and Joe Scarborough, everyone knew Blago was corrupt.

I am just not buying the excuses that neither Jackson or Obama knew Blago was corrupt. Shocked and saddened just don’t fly.

Obama said today in his press conference that he personally has not had contact with Blago, but they are pulling together all the info they can, about who might have, from his camp, had talks with Blago about the Senate seat. We know someone did….

And then we have this doozy from Hot Air, via Verum Serum, a photo of Obama and Blagojevich taken from Blagojevich’s official newsletter dated 11/12/08, eight days after the election. (I wonder what they are whispering about?)
The topic of the Blagojevich newsletter story? The Senate succession: Here is Uncle Pat and Joe Sco discussing the scandal, this morning. And more here. And an interview with Mike Duncan, RNC Chairman, here.

As people always say, it’s not about the crime, it’s the cover up.

1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along - same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

According to Taheri, Jackson said Obama:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Read the rest ->

Wow. I guess, for Jackson, “hymietown” is back. Didn’t Obama already get into trouble earlier this election season over remarks about Jerusalem? How about anti-Jewish material on his website? Regardless, such sweeping statements about Isreal, even using “Zionist” is telling about Jackson’s view of Jews. I bet he thinks all Jews are bankers who caused the mortgage meltdown (woooooo - I am being snarky, but would it really surprise anyone if this were the case?) And, just for the record, who is going to do all this “apologizing” Jackson talks about?

Buuuuuutt, you say, how can Jesse speak for Obama? Well, that’s also very interesting, and Jackson, of course, has a non-answer.

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

Look at that second paragraph again. Jackson sounds as if he not only feels Obama owes him but he also appropriates Obama himself into Jackson’s civil rights work. Looks like Jackson thinks he’s Obama’s daddy. Seriously, Jackson is trying to take credit for Obama’s political existence. Fair? I have no idea, but that statement reveals a real lack of finesse. Or maybe finesse isn’t the point.

Don’t forget, Jackson, the de facto “Black American leader,” also has Chicago roots; and his son JJ Jr, is an Obama campaign manager. While Jackson may be a loose cannon, I just can’t see him deliberately placing his son in a precarious position.

And for those of you who might think electing Obama will go a long way to healing the racial wounds of America, think again.

Will Obama’s election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

“No, that chapter won’t be closed,” he says. “However, Obama’s victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades.”

An Obama election will be a “huge step” but not enough. Never enough. Shelby Steele, a notable AA writer and thinker on “Black America” would say that Jackson is signaling that “white America” will never be off the hook. I read it the same way. That’s, well, astounding because Obama’s campaign has touted his ability to be “trans-racial” and “bring people together,” not letting the past rule the present kind of thing. And here is Jackson, promising otherwise. Hmmmmmm.

Jackson was asked about Obama’s potential policies on a variety of issues, and he carefully started with the “I’m only a supporter, not a policy maker” hedge. But his remarks sound more precise than vague wishes on Jackson’s part.

What does Jackson want an Obama economic program to include?

On the economic front, he hopes for “major changes in our trading policy.”

“We cannot continue with the open-door policy,” he says. “We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad.”

“Open door?” Is that relating to trade or immigration as it affects trade, or both?
And how is Jackson channeling Obama with regard to the Iraq war?

Taheri says:

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “an illegal and unjust act.” But he’s now sure that the United States “will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time.”

What of Obama’s promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting “realities on the ground.”

“We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there,” he says. “We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith.”

And on Iran - what does his non-connection with Obama tell him about that?

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama’s idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. “We’ve got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want,” Jackson says. “Nothing is gained by not talking to others.”

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran’s uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn’t start without preparations.

“Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy,” he says. “He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared,” he says.

Interestingly enough, Jackson doesn’t say WHO prepares the ground. Iran, for its part, thinks the US should abide by some preconditions. Newsbusters notes:

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.
——————————-
On Saturday, Kalhor said Tehran would accept ‘repentance’ on behalf of the US government toward the Iranian people.

“Negotiations would be rational if the US moves out of the Middle East and the US government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime,” he said.

Apologies? Zionists? Well, remember what Jackson said:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House

Is this a response to Obama’s statement about meeting Iran without preconditions? And Obama’s vision for Israel, via Jackson?

“Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss,” Jackson says. “Barack will change that,” because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will “remain a source of danger to us all.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”

Thanks to his BACKGROUND? Obama swears he’s not a muslim, so this must mean his years in Indonesia, right? Ecumenical approach? BLT is ecumenical? Since when? BLT at least excoriates whites, Jews and many other AAs. How ecumenical is that? Or is ecumenical a euphemism for humping the pulpit? (Want to see Rev Wright “riding dirty” again?)

Now, all this is verrrrrrry interesting. Is Jackson acting as a surrogate? His son, an Obama campaign manager, famously said the campaign had to figure out how to attack a white woman (Hillary) in a “post OJ world.” Jackson supposedly went off the reservation sometime later with his “cutting” remarks, accidentally or not, caught on camera and has remained relatively quiet since then. So why is he talking now?

If Jackson IS a surrogate of the easily denied variety, his remarks are worthy of comment although the campaign will surely disavow. The tone of his remarks as well as the substance are likely to offend many Americans. But since campaigns constantly toss out “trial balloons” via the easily denied surrogate, Jackson’s remarks will definitely present just such an opportunity, regardless.

But what if Jackson is lobbing spitballs? If his earlier remark about Obama’s dangles more accurately reflects the reality of the relationship, is this interview his “scissors?” Is Jackson trying to assert authority? Or is he trying to steer Obama’s choices by making public what he feels Obama cannot get away with and enable him to thus get “half a loaf?” And why THIS reporter and THIS paper?

The author, Amir Taheri, is the columnist who broke the story about Obama telling Iraqi leaders to “wait for the next administration.” Presumably, Taheri is no particular friend of the Obama campaign. Odd that Jackson would have consented to an interview with this particular journalist - even more so when you remember Jackson never met a microphone or podium he didn’t want to preen for. He could have talked to anyone. He talked to Taheri.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Is the NYPost the only paper covering the World Policy Forum? You know how Marshall McLuhan famously said “the medium IS the message?” In this case, I think it is as important to ask why Jackson chose this venue as it is to parse his words.

Of course, maybe the Post is the only paper covering this hugely important gathering on the French seaside.

Still, Jackson’s remarks are incendiary in terms of foreign policy and current US relationships. I doubt they’ll play well here at home - so why make them? Is it all a smoke screen? Or is it dead on? Either way, I don’t like the feelings these remarks give me.

There’s much not to like. Jackson’s vague status with Obama makes it difficult to infer from these remarks Obama’s positions. That’s on purpose. The remarks themselves signal some potentially huge shifts in US policy. I’m also not at all comfortable with the idea that such a shift could actually be signaled by Jackson before the US electorate votes.

And I don’t like the tone. The notable thing about his tone is Jackson is both accusatory and promising apologies. Jackson accuses his own country of gross misconduct and promises some form of repentance. Think Jackson will be the one Obama sends over to apologize? It would serve him right, but Jackson has always felt more sinned against than sinning and his remarks reflect that. Jackson may feel his country needs to apologize, but he probably feels he should be on the receiving end of that apology. Forever.

I can tell you this: I will NEVER vote for Jim Clyburn again (he is my representative). He engaged in WILLFUL race-baiting, and completely manipulated what Bill Clinton said about Obama’s “fairy-tale” Iraqi War stance. I will never forgive him for the way he acted toward President Clinton.

And I will never forgive Obama for demeaning our only two-term Democratic President in four decades, a president who brought this country into fiscal responsibility, and prosperity. For whatever his faults (and they PALE in comparison to Bush’s, or even Pretender Obama), Clinton cared about the people of this country. He DID hear us, and acted accordingly.

Here is the video of President Clinton on GMA.

(H/T to TalkLeft for the video link. Big Tent Democrat had a GREAT piece on this yesterday. The link is HERE.)

It just makes me ill that this man, this great president, has been reduced by the likes of Obama and Axelrove, to defending himself against charges of racism. Bush really has made this the un-reality based community. It is nothing short of reprehensible on the part of the Obama campaign. Yet another reason for which I have no respect for Obama. That is another reason why he, too, will never get my vote, which I own.

Let’s not forget our good friends at memeorandum.com for Up-To-Date stories!

Barack’s looking real tired on the campaign trail. He forgets how many states we have. He says the problem in Afghanistan is that we don’t have enough Arabic speakers. Well, I guess if anybody actually spoke Arabic in Afghanistan, that might be a problem. I guess with a ‘mic’ in his hand, sans teleprompter, he doesn’t do so well. All Hillary’s fault.

“Can’t I just eat my waffle?” “You’re wearing me out, brother.” “Come on, guys. I just answered, like, eight questions.” “My uncle helped liberate Auschwitz” – uhh, well, no, he didn’t. Sorry if FISA is a deal breaker for you guys , but, you know, where else you gonna go? “…Get over it!” he said, at a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rep. Diane Watson warned Barack not to use that particular phrase …

Hillary’s fault!

Let him eat his waffle! Where did that sixty-year-old woman get the energy to go meet plant workers at shift change at 5:30 a.m.? Obama, 14 years her junior, was constantly exhausted and exasperated.

Primary going on too long. Creating a fissure in the party. Hillary’s fault.

Heaven forefend the American people, all of them in all 50 states – yes, Barry, that’s 50, not 57 – should actually have a say in who we choose as the standard bearer of our party.

Remember when Obama called Hillary supporter, PA Gov. Ed Rendell in early April saying “You know I’m going to be the nominee, right? You’re not going to do anything to make that difficult, right?” Barack must have been real pissed that he actually had to look like he was working for it.

Remember Barack’s piss poor debate performance on ABC in April – Hillary’s fault. She went after him too hard. He didn’t have time to do his homework. Yes, they really said that. Whatsamatter, Barry, can’t handle it without Campbell Brown fluffing your pillows?

I guess not, because Howard Dean forbade any more debates after that. Why? Afraid the citizenry would actually see the truth? That the inexperienced Senator Obama was and is in over his head. He could not even explain what a Capital Gains tax is – or that it is a tax.

How encouraging for us, considering that IndyMac just collapsed and the stock market is tanking and people are losing their homes. He has not addressed any of this. Friday, on talk radio, the endlessly entertaining Arianna Huffington suggested Barry give a speech on the subject. Just what we need – another speech from Barack Obama. Who will write it for him, since, clearly, he does not understand the economy – or appear too worried about it. But when millionaire Michelle thinks you’re going to take your rebate check and buy a $600 pair of earrings with it, what does that say?

Damn that white witch in a pantsuit, not just crumpling up like so much tissue paper. Damn her always being ready and en pointe with policy. Damn those great debating skills. Damn her that she actually has a solid point of view and isn’t afraid to tell you what it is. Damn her toughness, her record, her resilience, her compassion, her experience, her smarts and most of all, damn the fact that she actually gives a fig about regular working folks. Damn her for making Obama look pale – yes, I said pale – by comparison.

Didn’t she know the DNC had already fixed this for him???

No kidding. Donna Brazile with her plotting little Slate article dated Nov. 5, 2004, “Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue – Tapping into the Obama factor.”

Setting the stage.

The all but unprecedented move by John Kerry to hand pick a State Senator from Illinois – no, not a U.S. Senator, but someone in the Illinois State Senate – you know, the guys who are in session 55 days out of the year — to give a huge speech at the Democratic Convention in ’04.

Setting the stage.

How long ago was the date for the 2008 Democratic Convention chosen? The last week in August is pretty late in the calendar, no? I know it has occurred to more than a few out here that it is the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. Gosh, I wonder whose candidacy that is supposed to coincide with? How long do you think Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Kerry & Co. have been rubbing their paws together plotting that one.

Setting the stage.

So if anyone wondered why Florida and Michigan delegates were given the death penalty way back when, in contravention of the Rules & By Laws Committee actual rules, which decree they can only be penalized by half, now you have your answer. If those two delegate rich states actually had even half their delegates when it counted for something, since Hillary was 20 points ahead in both, by the end of January, she would have won 4 out of 6 contests. Those wins, coupled with her momentum and important victories on Super Duper Tuesday would have sealed this thing up – for her.

Why do you think 3 other states were allowed to move their primaries up beyond the legal limit with no penalty? South Carolina, for one – a state with a very large African American population. Hmmm. Makes a girl think. Remember, Hillary was also supposed to lose New Hampshire by double digits – and won. Interesting that Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Donna Brazile were suddenly talking about tears for Katrina and the Bradley effect. Hmmm.

Even with his sweetheart ride in the press, backstabbing DNC party elites, all the money on the planet – probably sent from everywhere on the planet, dear Barack still couldn’t close the deal. Damn that Hillary.

Now that he has been ‘selected’ as the nominee, it seems he can’t raise funds the way he, and The Huffington Post, were bragging he could. I guess that’s Hillary’s fault, too.

Well, if Joan of Arc in a pantsuit is that all-powerful, then the weaker man should step aside, bow out for the good of the party, and let her do the job she is clearly ready, willing and more than able to do.

And she doesn’t even care if she gets to eat her waffle.

Hell, way back in 2005, even Senator McCain admitted she would make a good President – and got into hot water with his own party for doing so.

Tell you what, Senator Obama, you just high tail it back to Illinois and you can have all the waffles you want. Hillary will take the job. She actually knows how to help the ailing economy. If you doubt this, take a look at Hillary Clinton’s exclusive April 3rd interview with Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, and Alegre’s “Unemployment Rising.”

And Senator Clinton actually has correct positions on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and has had them all along.

Senator Obama, what will happen if your Sunday pander to NASCAR fans fails?

Since you have so upset the Democratic base and many of your own supporters by reneging on FISA, public financing, womens’ rights, gun control, Iraq, Iran, not to mention endlessly angering Hillary’s supporters with your extremely disrespectful behavior toward her and them, where will you go? And who will you blame? Who is left?

Please. Tell me, Senator Obama. If the stress of your chickens coming home to roost grows a boil on your behind, will that be Hillary’s fault, too?

Jesse Jackson is now falling all over himself to apologize for his “hot mic” comments about Senator Obama. Rev. Jackson intimated Obama is threatening his own support within the African American community by lecturing them on morality and talking down to them. Actually, I think Jackson said he wanted to cut off Obama’s “member”, or maybe he felt Obama was cutting off his own ‘member’ with these kinds of statements – but I’m trying to be polite. [Don’t miss Larry Johnson’s classic post last night, “Is Jesse Jackson in Trouble with the Secret Service?.”

Well, Reverend, you’ve done many good things in this country. I hope you are not the latest to go under Obama’s big, fat bus. It’s OK if you are. Join us. We’ve been down here for months. We’re kinda getting used to being disenfranchised. All us bitter voters who are actually taking a stand. You know, kind of like Hillary did today when she voted NAY on FISA. Yeah, didn’t you hear? She voted against giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for spying on us. But, your friend Senator Obama; the one with the “redemptive and historic” candidacy, just threw the fourth amendment under the bus, along with all his supporters – and voted YEA. How do you, and they, reconcile that, exactly?

Seriously, Reverend, you’ll like it under the bus. We’ve opened a concession stand – we serve hot dogs and turkey burgers every day at 4 pm. Along with some bitter chips and arugula.

Guess if your son goes out and accuses President Bill Clinton of being a racist when you knew it was nonsense and said as much, albeit ever so quietly, maybe next time you’ll slap your rude kid upside the head and tell him to stop lying – and stand up for your old friend Bill with a little more gusto.

Oh, and Reverend, did you hear, Senator Obama just insulted some more Americans. He was Uuhh-ing and Errrr-ing his way through some public remarks and said the following:

“Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can speak English – they’ll learn English – you need to be worrying about whether your child can speak Spanish.”

So now English is no longer the official language of this country? I think he ought to encourage more people to learn to speak English properly, instead of pandering to the Europeans. We should be worried about the fact that our public education system is so abysmal, we have huge numbers of kids not graduating high school.

Chuckling, as usual, he pointed out how embarrassing it is that foreigners come to this country and speak several languages and we go to France and can barely say “merci beaucoup.” How about working on reading, math and science instead of French. I speak French, which is a lovely language. It hasn’t done doodle-y squat for me. And I beg to differ with him that all Europeans speak several languages. We have a number of immigrants in the U.S., with citizens originating from many countries, who lock themselves within their own communities and do not bother to learn our language. If I moved to France, you’d better believe I’d need to put all my years of school French to work toute de suite.

This ELITIST cannot resist any opportunity to make disparaging comments about all in his wake. Open mouth, insert foot, leg and thigh bone. Perhaps it is his instinct to people-please. He works so hard to ingratiate himself to his adoring crowd, forgetting everything he says is captured for replay to other folks who might not find that particular comment so appealing. Let’s go to the videotape!

Not that I want common ground with the notorious Karl Rove, but we agree on one thing: Obama is like a man at a cocktail party, sipping his extra dry martini, tossing out ‘bon mots’ and snippy insults about everyone else in the room.

So, Reverend, listen, now that he is insulting the African American community, according to you and anyone in this country who doesn’t speak a second language. And ‘bitter’ voters. And Asian voters. And women voters. And just about anyone who didn’t see fit to vote for him. And he’s flip flopped on every policy he had in the first place, why should we be so enamored of him?

And let’s not forget our most recent addition – Wes Clark – who reaped a little Karma last week by making the colossal mistake of speaking up for the unity pony, touting Senator Obama’s ‘great judgment and communication skills.’ General Clark used the unfortunate sound bite that ‘getting shot down in a plane down does not qualify you to be President.’ While his remark may be true, not a smart statement no matter how you slice it. Next time, Wes, forget all that post-primary unity crap. Just stick with Hill till the bitter end and say PUMA!

I can see where the General was hamstrung because Obama has little else by way of accomplishments to speak for him. In going for the jugular on Senator McCain, Clark found himself chowing down on some turkey burgers and bitter chips, too.

Do you two know each other – well, let me introduce you!!

The Under the Bus Support Group meets every night at 6 pm sharp. At the end of each meeting, you can recite your own version of the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity to accept that I have lost credibility in the political community, the courage to like being ostracized and vilified for the next five news cycles and the wisdom to never be so stupid as to endorse a dissembling, inexperienced charlatan again.

Speaking of Karma, Jesse Jackson, Jr. made this statement about you yesterday:

“Reverend Jackson is my dad and I’ll always love him. He should know how hard that I’ve worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

Wow. Your own son just threw you under the bus. This is absolutely amazing! You should ‘keep hope alive’?

What hope is that? Are you gonna put up with this crap when you were absolutely correct. There is nothing hateful in pointing out that Barack Obama displays a superior attitude towards just about everyone.

Hillary Clinton was also absolutely correct when she said, “You don’t need a President who looks down on you.” Never mind that it is no way to get votes.

You cannot lift people up by putting them down. Most people do not get inspired by being on the receiving end of a slap, particularly by a man who regards them as one would a bug under a glass.

Stephen Covey’s book, The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People, has a chapter: “Seek First To Understand, Then To Be Understood.” Senator Obama might do well to read it.

A New Campaign Charge: You Supported Clinton

In Georgia, Representative John Lewis, a prominent civil rights leader, is facing primary challenges from two black candidates who have been critical of him for backing Mrs. Clinton for months before shifting to Mr. Obama. To underscore the point, one of the challengers set up his headquarters in the same building that served as Mr. Obama’s office for the primary.

So when Jesse Jackson Jr. threatened to find someone to run against him if he didn’t endorse Obama what he really meant was that he was going to find someone to run against him because he took too long to endorse Obama. Typical thuggish behavior. These folks are into command and control. Big time.

Another New Yorker, Representative Gregory W. Meeks of Queens, faces a primary opponent who has sought to make an issue of Mr. Meeks’s support of the Clinton campaign in a district, New York’s 6th, where Mr. Obama drew nearly 56 percent of the vote.

The man seeking Mr. Meeks’s seat is Ruben Wills, 36, a former chief of staff for State Senator Shirley L. Huntley and an organizer for Mr. Obama in southeast Queens. “I was on board with Obama from Day 1,” Mr. Wills said. “Meeks had to be dragged across the line.”

Some take their thuggery to new heights. Or perhaps lows would be a more correct description. And they are concentrating that hate on one particular Congressman, Edolphus Towns of Brooklyn. They claim that black people supported Hillary because they were ashamed of being black.

To her, the reason black leaders like Mr. Towns stuck with Mrs. Clinton was obvious. “Racial self-hatred,” said Ms. Queen, who is black. “It was as if they were saying: ‘We people of color are not ready yet. We’re not ready to be in the White House.’ Self-hatred does that to you.”

For his part, Towns made his decision to support Hillary based upon normal rational thinking and a little something called loyalty. A moral quality that these Obama thugs care nothing about. They would have to have morals to appreciate it.

“I serve in the Congressional Black Caucus, and he is a member,” he said. “But Hillary Clinton represents New York State, and I’ve worked together with her on many projects.”

So where will this lead? I cannot begin to guess. Because every single day something new surfaces about these thugs and their Chicago style of politics. But one thing is for certain. They will find more creative ways to intimidate people that do not share their views. Because that is just the way they roll.

Sparks Fly at Black Caucus Meeting

Sources at the meeting said that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, a Clinton supporter, expressed the desire that Obama and his campaign would reach out the millions of women still aggrieved about what happened in the campaign and still disappointed that Clinton lost.

~snip~

According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, “However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I’m running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it.”

Isn’t that sweet? He is a regular ball of joy and conciliation. I guess no one ever told him that the first step in reaching out to someone is to actually extend your arms (Figuratively speaking of course. Because I sure don’t want that dude trying to touch me). Apparently they don’t teach that stuff at Harvard. Or at the College of Community Organizers. Or at the Chicago School of Thugs.

And then poor little Barky revealed that him’s feelings had been hurt by the Clintons and that maybe he should be the one asking for an apology. A reaching out. Boo Hoo Hoo… Lil Barky needs a hug. Him does. Yes him does. Anyone seen his blankie? His binkie?

Obama then said two sources at the meeting said that he’d held his tongue many times during the campaign against Clinton in the interest of party unity and sensitivity. Clinton and her allies had suggested he was a Muslim, had said he wasn’t qualified to be president.

~snip~

According to the sources, Obama suggested he bit his tongue every time. He could be asking for an apology, he could be asking for the Clintons to reconcile with him, but he chose to rise above it.

Yes Barky, just when is it that you bit your tongue? Was it when your guy Jesse Jackson Jr. told the world that Hillary didn’t cry for Katrina and that the black folks were going to have a say in this election and set Hillary straight? Did your tongue swell then?

Or were you biting your tongue when Donna I’m uncommitted but I need to be committed Brazile twisted Bill Clinton’s fairy tale words all around. Maybe you were biting it when Hillary gave everyone a civics and history lesson about LBJ and the Civil Rights Act? Were ya holding back then too? Does it still hurt? Maybe that’s why you stammer and stutter so much. It’s all our fault. And those mean old Clintons.

Poor Lil Precious is so torn up inside. Him got him’s feelings hurt and him can’t just get over it himself. So he wants the rest of us to get over it. Somehow I just don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon.

18 million Hillary supporters reach out and ask for reconciliation. And Obama lectures us on how hurt he is. Poor lil misunderstood Barky.

Here’s what I think.

PUMA! Just Say No Deal!

Even more now than ever.

Adolph Reed Jr. is Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

______________

I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal.

His political repertoire has always included the repugnant stratagem of using connection with black audiences in exactly the same way Bill Clinton did—i.e., getting props both for emoting with the black crowd and talking through them to affirm a victim-blaming “tough love” message that focuses on alleged behavioral pathologies in poor black communities. Because he’s able to claim racial insider standing, he actually goes beyond Clinton and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous.

It may be instructive to look at the outfit where he did his “community organizing,” the invocation of which makes so many lefties go weak in the knees. My understanding of the group, Developing Communities Project, at the time was that it was simply a church-based social service agency. What he pushed as his main political credential then, to an audience generally familiar with that organization, was his role in a youth-oriented voter registration drive.

The Obama campaign has even put out a misleading bio of Michelle Obama, representing her as having grown up in poverty on the South Side, when, in fact, her parents were city workers, and her father was a Daley machine precinct captain. This fabrication, along with those embroideries of the candidate’s own biography, may be standard fare, the typical log cabin narrative. However, in Obama’s case, the license taken not only underscores Obama’s more complex relationship to insider politics in Daley’s Chicago; it also underscores how much this campaign depends on selling an image rather than substance.

There is also something disturbingly ritualistic and superficial in the Obama camp’s young minions’ enthusiasm. Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish quality in the sense that they treat others’ criticism or failure to support their icon as a character flaw or sin. The campaign even has a stock conversion narrative, which has been recycled in print by such normally clear-headed columnists as Barbara Ehrenreich and Katha Pollitt: the middle-aged white woman’s report of not having paid much attention to Obama early on, but having been won over by the enthusiasm and energy of their adolescent or twenty-something daughters. (A colleague recently reported having heard this narrative from a friend, citing the latter’s conversion at the hands of her eighteen year old. I observed that three short years ago the daughter was likely acting the same way about Britney Spears.)

Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz, a Clinton supporter, noted that the Obama campaign advisers have tried to have it both ways on the race question. On the one hand, they present their candidate as a figure who transcends racial divisions and “brings us together”; on the other hand, they exhort us that we should support his candidacy because of the opportunity to “make history” (presumably by nominating and maybe electing a black candidate). Increasingly, Obama supporters have been disposed to cry foul and charge racism at nearly any criticism of him, in steadily more extravagant rhetoric.

The campaign’s accusation that the Clinton team made Obama look darker in a photo or video clip than he actually is—and what exactly are we to make of that as an accusation?—and the hysterically indignant reaction to Geraldine Ferraro’s statement that much of Obama’s success stems from the fact that “the country is caught up in the concept” of a black candidacy are no different from the campaign’s touting its “historic” character. Obama supporters fulsomely attacked even Clinton’s attempts to portray him as inexperienced, which is standard fare in political campaigns. They also charged that she was playing to racism. See most recently Harvard sociologist Lawrence Bobo’s characterization that she was “disrespecting” black people, a leftover canard from Jesse Jackson’s campaigns (which, lest amnesia overtake us, were also extolled as historic firsts).

The Jackson comparison points to one of Obama’s key contradictions: Like Jackson, he wants to appeal to blacks with the “it’s our time now” line, and to white liberals with that, as well as with the “I’m black in a different way from Jesse” qualifier and the religious conversion rhetoric. A friend said that Obama’s campaign, in stressing his appeal to rapturous children and liberal, glamorous yuppies, offers vicarious identification with these groups, as well as the chance to become sort of black in that ultra-safe and familiar theme park way.

I often tell my students that, even though Paul Wellstone was my good friend from college to his death and an individual for whom I always had great respect, no politician in this system is likely to be a person you’d want for your sister-in-law or brother-in-law. And, as many Progressive readers may know, I’m hardly a Clinton fan. I’m on record in last November’s issue as saying that I’d rather sit out the election entirely than vote for either her or Obama. At this point, though, I’ve decided that she’s the lesser evil in the Democratic race, for the following reasons: 1) Obama’s empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a “movement” that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment in either a failed campaign against McCain or an Obama Presidency that continues the politics he’s practiced his entire career; 2) his horribly opportunistic approach to the issues bearing on inequality—in which he tosses behaviorist rhetoric to the right and little more than calls to celebrate his success to blacks—stands to pollute debate about racial injustice whether he wins or loses the Presidency; 3) he can’t beat McCain in November.

Frankly, I suspect that Clinton can’t beat him either, but there’s no way that Obama will carry most of the states in November that he’s won in the primaries and caucuses. And, while it makes some liberals feel good to think that a majority of the American electorate could vote for a black Presidential candidate, we should keep in mind that the Republicans haven’t let one dog out of the kennel against him yet. The Jeremiah Wright contretemps is only the first bark.

Obama’s style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It’s like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that’s so big that they can’t hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they’ve told different people. And Obama’s belonging to Wright’s church in the first place was quite likely part of establishing a South Side bourgeois nationalist street cred because his political base was with Hyde Park/University of Chicago liberals and the foundation world.

For now, the Jeremiah Wright connection probably won’t hurt him too much, partly because the Republicans at this point mainly may want to keep him and Clinton bleeding each other as long as possible. And his Philadelphia compromise speech—a string of well-crafted and coordinated platitudes and hollow images worthy of an SUV commercial, grounded with the reassuring “acknowledgment” of blacks’ behavioral inadequacies—has gained him breathing room by holding out a vague promise of racial “reconciliation” that has appealed to centrist liberals ever since Booker T. Washington’s comparably eloquent 1895 accommodation to Southern white supremacy. Obama gets credit for “opening a conversation” on race, for “taking the matter on squarely.” But he doesn’t really speak to what we ought to be doing to address the injustices, past and present, that he mentions. Despite all the babble about Obama’s transcendence, Obama persists in portraying black Americans as a stereotypical monolith: blacks feel x; whites feel y. And the trope of black “anger” is a tired chestnut that neither explains nor characterizes political grievances or aspirations. (By the way, Obama’s casting Wright’s alleged “anger” as generational is entirely consistent with his earlier praise of Ronald Reagan for sensing Americans’ desire to undo the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.)

Because he’s tried carefully to say enough of whatever the audiences he’s been speaking to at the time want to hear while leaving himself enough space later on to deny his intentions to leave that impression, his record represents precisely the “character” weakness the Republicans have exploited in every Democratic candidate since Dukakis: Another Dem trying to put things over on the American people.

Obama’s campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction—built largely on victories in states that no Democrat will win in November—that will fall apart under Republican pressure.

And then where will we be?

Correction: Adolph Reed Jr. apologizes to Katha Pollitt for stating that her daughter influenced her to support Obama. Her daughter did no such thing.

Adolph Reed Jr. is Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

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

Reprinted by permission of The Progressive. Reed’s article was part of a debate on Obama in the May issue that included an affirmative by Edwidge Danticat.

Obama Campaign Points Finger at Rush

“There were elements of the Republican Party, including Rush Limbaugh, Sen. Clinton’s new ally, who were urging people to cross over and vote for her,” said Axelrod, referring to the Limbaugh-led “Operation Chaos,” a bid to disrupt Obama’s path to the nomination and prolong a divisive primary battle. “She obviously was somewhat a beneficiary of that.”

Let’s have a reality check here folks. It seems Mr. Axelrod is suffering from Cult-Aide syndrome. You know, that mysterious disease of sudden memory loss that affects Obama supporters. Because what Adolf, I mean David, Axelrod neglects to mention is that it was his savior, I mean client, Barack Obama who began this mischievousness of courting Republicans to cross over and be Democrats for a Day over a year ago.

Bush Latte: Obama “Democrat for a Day” scheme in Florida, not only in Nevada?

But this is not about some “hard sell” to recruit voters to become permanent Democrats. Not at all. After the primary, you may re-register back to the Republican or Libertarian parties, or revert to your previous status as an Independent! There will be plenty of time before the general election in November 2008.

Not enough proof for you? How about this?

And if that is not enough proof that Obama has been the one behind all of this, take a look at the results.

Of course, Obama has carried Republicans in more states than Clinton has thus far, and has long pointed to this as evidence of his potential general election crossover appeal.

Notice the pattern? The Obama campaign starts something, then works their voodoo convincing the rest of us that is was actually Hillary or anyone else that was behind it all. The whole meme is that Obama is someone fresh, someone new and someone that preaches a “message” of hope and new politics. While conversely Hillary is polarizing, is responsible for the war and is willing to do anything to get elected. And people are buying into this bullshit.

How about a few more examples? Let’s source this pattern out and get to the bottom of things. It all started with Michelle Obama’s pronouncement in November 2007 that despite Hillary’s large lead among African Americans black folks would wake up.

Michelle Obama: ‘Black Americans will wake up and get it’

“First of all, I think that that’s not going to hold,” Mrs. Obama said of Clinton’s current numbers in an interview with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski. “I’m completely confident.”

Acknowledging a certain reluctance in the African American community to back her husband for president, she said that support would come — but it would take time.

“Black Americans will wake up and get it,” Obama said.

Michelle Obama has never been one to mince words. She is a strong supporter of black segregation dating back to her days as a Princeton student. In fact her senior thesis (now permanently scrubbed until after the election) did precisely lament the fact that she has always considered herself a victim because of her race.

Mrs. Obama as an Ivy League schoolgirl

In her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” Michelle LaVaughn Robinson lamented that white professors and classmates always saw her as “Black first and a student second.”

Yes, victimhood was a trait used by Michelle Obama early on. It is little wonder that she gravitated to the church where victimhood was the sermon du jour every Sunday during that most segregated hour in America. As Michelle saw it then and still sees it now, white folks would never accept her as is, they would always think of her as something less than them. So to her, segregation was the only acceptable way for her as a black person to be.

“further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”…

And this concerned her so much that she wondered if all black folks at Princeton felt the same way. She had it in her mind that being black was something more important than being a person. So her own identification started with the premise that she was black first and human second. I will make no mention of the fact that science has proven this assumption to be incredibly wrong. But don’t tell Michelle.

“I wondered whether or not my education at Princeton would affect my identification with the Black community. I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with Whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that Black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”…

So in other words, in the world according to Michelle, hanging out with white folks made people forget that they were blacks. And that is according to her, something really bad. I don’t expect she was one of the people around the country that joined in singing Michael Jackson’s “We are the World.” She is more of the James Brown “I’m Black and I’m Proud” type of person if you ask me.

But then Hillary pulled off an impressive upset win in New Hampshire shocking the Obama campaign and the political pundits. And almost immediately afterward Obama’s Campaign Co-Chair Jesse Jackson Jr., son of Farrakhan friend Jesse Hymietown Jackson, and Grand Wizard of the JJJ announced Obama’s strategy very plainly. Watch for yourself:

How convenient that JJJ neglects to mention the tireless work Hillary provided immediately following 9/11 and how she took a leadership role as the following video demonstrates.

And then the infamous South Carolina memo surfaced that put it all into perspective and proved without a doubt that the Obama campaign intentionally played the race card to steal away Hillary’s strong African American support.

With his impressive win in North Carolina last night Obama once again received 90% of the African American vote. Does anyone actually believe that any group of people have the same political beliefs 90% of the time? If it was possible we wouldn’t have all the fighting and gridlock that has become commonplace in Congress since the beginning of our country. So it has to be something other than politics that unites 90% of the blacks. And I am quite certain that what it is that unites them is race. They support Obama because he is half black but he identifies as a black. Sort of like Joe Lieberman being an Independent but caucusing with the Democrats. Only difference is, they give Lieberman a Chairmanship and he takes it seriously. Obama, not so much.

After Hillary’s outstanding win in Ohio the buzz promoted by the Obama campaign was that Ohio voters were racists and that is why Obama lost so decisively. Exit polls from several sources promoted the same belief.

Race mattered more in Ohio primary than in any other state

In exit polls conducted for the Associated Press, 20 percent of Ohio voters surveyed said the racial backgrounds of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton loomed important in their vote.

But what is not mentioned in this article is the percentage of blacks that voted for Obama. It is as if race can only be seen as a detrimental factor if white people use it to form their opinions and cast their votes. A full 87% of blacks in Ohio supported Obama for the nomination but what made the headlines were those 20% of Ohioans polled that considered race in their decision. The 87% black vote we are supposed to ignore or somehow gloss over. And that appears to be exactly what Donna Brazile and the DNC expect us to do.

Donna Brazile, the one that started the race war against Bill Clinton has concluded that blue collar white voters are part of the past and no longer a necessary part of the Democratic coalition which she sees as blacks, young people and overeducated whites (no offense to Uppity Woman).

Brazile vs. Begala on CNN: Brazile’s Blowout

But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

Before the election results came in last night SusanUnPC of No Quarter said something very important in response to a comment I made at the beginning of a thread. And my apologies in advance should I embarrass her for pointing this out. But in my opinion she is a very wise person that many more of us should listen to.

Indiana & N.C. Results Thread

If all I’m capable of is looking at my arm, seeing the color of my skin, and voting accordingly, I am not worth much. Imho.

And that is the crux of all of this nominating process. What started out as a race of ideas has become a race about race. And this diary has pointed out several examples that back up the claim sufficiently.

Many of us in the Hillary camp are distraught at what this race has become. We feel strongly that the Obama campaign has played unfairly. We know that they have successfully exploited people’s fears of the consequences of having a frank and honest discussion about race. And they have used it at every turn and do so with the tacit acceptance of the Democratic elite.

In case any of you forgot, it was John Kerry that said specifically that what made Obama uniquely qualified to be President was his race. Never mind that Geraldine Ferraro saying essentially the same thing only a week or so previously and was vilified and attacked mercilessly as a racist by the Obama campaign.

Open Mouth, Insert Foot [Updated]

the color of Obama’s skin makes him uniquely qualified for president and even reach out to the moderate Islam world (VIDEO BELOW).

The message I get from this whole experience is quite clear. It is ok to be a racist if you are an Obama supporter.

What the hell has happened to our Democratic Party?

Let’s begin with a little history.

On March 24, 2007, SEIU and the Center for American Progress Action Fund sponsored a Presidential Health Care Forum in Las Vegas. All of the Democratic candidates showed up but one candidate stood out from the rest of them. But not in a manner he would have preferred. Yes, Barack Obama bombed big time at this forum. He was unprepared. He stammered a lot and generally received terrible reviews. And on March 28th in CNN’s The Situation Room, Democratic strategist James Carville gave his opinion of the race merely repeating what everyone already knew.

The Situation Room

CARVILLE: But what’s happening [...] to Senator Obama is, he has had a couple of less-than-impressive performances at a health care forum out in Las Vegas and things like that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: [H]e’s a very talented guy. And he’s very effective. [H]e started out pretty good. I mean, it’s pretty remarkable he is where he is, in terms of somebody…

STEELE: Right.

CARVILLE: … new, and — and burst on the scene like that. But I think that what might be a little troubling, if I was running Obama’s campaign, is, is that he seems to get up — need to get up to speed on a couple of these issues.

Shortly thereafter CNN began receiving phone calls from the Obama campaign complaining that Carville was a Hillary partisan and couldn’t be considered as unbiased political analyst. Then the blogosphere caught wind of the Obama camp’s concerns …

“Respected” bloggers like Stoller and Kos chimed in. First was Stoller, arguing that Carville is just like a Politico hack. Stoller implied that Bay Buchanan, despite her work for Tom Tancredo, was more ethical than Carville.

Stoller: “James Carville’s Blogger Ethics Problem”

James Carville is identified as a CNN Political Analyst, and here he is spreading conventional wisdom about Obama that is worthy of the Politico. That’s fine, since that seems to be what political analysts on the TeeVee do. Carville blathers about how Obama is thin on the issues, isn’t performing well as of late, etc.

What CNN doesn’t mention is that Carville is also sending out fundraising solicitations for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President and is an advisor for her campaign.

This is crazy. It’s just crazy. When CNN commentator Bay Buchanan took over the Tancredo campaign, she resigned from the network. This isn’t exactly the same situation, but the lines are thin. Carville isn’t getting money from Clinton, but there are other ways of compensation in politics and everyone knows that.

Not to be outdone, Kos jumped in. First, of course, he reminded people of his importance by pointing out that he worked on Dean’s failed Presidential bid. Then he claimed that ordinary Americans have no idea who James Carville is.

Pull out the waders, folks. It starts to get deep.

Kos: “The Carville/CNN ethics dilemma”

Bullshit. When I was a consultant for the Dean campaign, I had a big-ass disclaimer, where the most expensive ad on Daily Kos is placed, disclosing my role. Sure, in his cocktail party circuit, everyone knows Carville is a Hillary partisan, but that can’t be assumed for the general public.

But the biggest culprit here is CNN, which should put up that disclaimer whether Carville agrees to it or not. It’s their responsibility to ensure they remain a “trusted name in news”, and refusing their audience full disclaimers of their guests conflicts of interest is beyond the pale.

Yeah, like no one recognizes Carville’s massive shiny dome. And he is such a humble person that he is quite easily mixed up with any number of people. Yes, it is unlikely that anyone outside of the cocktail party circuit recognizes James Carville. Sure, Kos, whatever you say. Since you are so important. But I assure you, when you describe yourself and use the words big ass in the same sentence, I find you entirely credible.

But what about the message Carville delivered? Was it accurate? Was it partisan? According to most of the people that watched the forum, James Carville was not only correct in his observations of Obama, he nailed it. The well-respected Ezra Klein stated that Obama appeared overwhelmed.

Ezra Klein: “A Lack of Audacity: How Obama’s health care plan resembles the candidate himself”

The first stumble of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign came last March, at the SEIU health care forum in Las Vegas, Nevada. Until then, the Illinois senator’s explosive charisma, preternatural ease on the stump, and inspirational back story had dominated the coverage, pushing down vague concerns about his inexperience and the precise ratio of sizzle to steak. But standing on the podium, Obama seemed, for the first time, unprepared and overwhelmed. He stammered before the surprisingly tenacious grilling of 23-year-old Morgan Miller, who asked, simply, why his web site had more specificity on lead poisoning than health reform. After lamely questioning whether she had visited his campaign or Senate web site, Obama pleaded, sensibly, for more time. “Keep in mind,” he said, “that our campaign now is, I think, a little over eight weeks old … If we have another forum in a couple of months and it’s still not there, I’ll be in trouble.”

If Carville and Klein are not good enough political observers, perhaps the reviews Here, Here and Here will serve as satisfactory unbiased observers of fact.

Despite all of these observations, it was decided that James Carville and Paul Begala had to go. Even Bill Richardson’s campaign got into the act. Richardson’s spokesperson, Tom Reynolds told CNN:

A Clinton Friend’s Role Sets Off Intense Criticism of CNN and a Re-examination

“What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection.”

With pressure mounting, CNN president Jonathan Klein made a decision that under the circumstances he apparently felt he must. From the way the decision was reached, the chattering masses concluded that CNN was doing the ethical thing.

“He’s not on the Hillary payroll, but he’s on the Hillary bandwagon, and that should be disclosed as much as we can,” Mr. Klein said. “I wasn’t comfortable with it myself as I watched it.

“He has disclosed all of this previously and repeatedly on our air,” he continued. “He happened not to last night, and it’s an unfortunate omission.”

CNN was redeemed. Or so one would think.

While watching a recent installment of CNN’s Sound Off, I listened to CNN’s recently hired contributor Roland Martin. Mr. Martin comes across as an affable gentleman with a long resume designed to impress people. But once he starts speaking, it is clear that he is hardly an unbiased examiner of facts. He has a specific agenda, and it is evident that CNN has given him a platform from which to preach his point of view.

It is important to begin by disclosing that Roland Martin is a member of Reverend James Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church where he is a fellow congregate with Jesse Jackson Jr. It should also be pointed out that Mr. Martin is a firm supporter of Senator Obama. Of course, CNN doesn’t disclose Mr. Martin’s affiliations. We are left to rely upon “resume” information to judge Mr. Martin instead of the FACTS that clearly demonstrate that he has alliances and an axe to grind.

During this show, Martin made it clear that he believes that we need to move on from the Wright and Farrakhan controversy and get back to discussing the issues. Ok…. but in explaining why we should return to “discussing the issues,” his real agenda is revealed. According to Martin, the Trinity United Church of Christ has been given a bum rap.

Controversy [Roland Martin]

The church did not give Minister Farrakhan an award. The Trumpet magazine which used to be a part of the church. It is no longer a part of the church although according to Reverend Otis Moss III they do provide him with some financial assistance. The magazine gave him the award. The church didn’t vote to give Minister Farrakhan an award, the magazine did.

Is this twisted logic from Martin? Does he expect us to believe that everything is “cool” now that Wright has “retired” from the church and that a new pastor has taken over just in time to turn the page? And that these events occurred at the same time that Obama has been scrutinized for his associations?

We are to be assured that everything is “cool” now because Wright isn’t there any more and Obama wasn’t there when Wright said those horrible things? Uh huh… yep, that sure is a good reason to move on. NOT!

Let us examine this Trumpet controversy and then gauge the credibility of Martin’s argument. The most amazing thing about Trumpet Newsmagazine is that it appears to have been disappeared from the Web. All links of which I am aware lead to a page that has NOTHING to do with the magazine. That is no small feat, even for the most Web savvy. Web pages don’t just disappear. There has to be a deliberate action to scrub the information, and the people performing the “scrubs” have to know what they are doing. And in this case it appears that they have done their homework well because nothing exists that I can find. Isn’t it convenient that this would happen at the exact same time that Senator Obama is under increased scrutiny because of his association with his church and his pastor?

Fortunately, not all traces of Trumpet Newsmagazine have been disappeared. For example, we have the original mission statement of the magazine heralded on the Trinity Church’s Web site:

Trumpet Mission Statement

In fulfilling our church motto, “Unashamedly Black, unapologetically Christian” and the mission of the pastor to educate, nurture and empower the people of God, the Trinity Trumpet is committed to honoring our African roots and traditions, to giving voice to our deepening faith in God and to serving the ethnic diversity in the global Christian community as well as those outside the church by highlighting journalistic issues that impact, address and speak to our shared human experiences and beliefs in a racially oppressive society.

So what this does tell us is that Roland Martin was misleading us when he said that Trumpet Magazine was not affiliated with the Trinity United Church of Christ. It may not be now but it sure was until very recently. Could it be that Trinity decided that since there was so much controversy and even an IRS investigation into them that they should probably make all the traces of this go away? Or did they decide that the general public, already repulsed by Wright’s racist and anti-American rants, would go over the edge to learn that in the last issue Wright added another title to his resume: BIGOT.

In referring to the Italian people in general Wright, in the same issue that praised Louis Farrakhan, called the whole of the Italian people “garlic noses.”

Garlic noses

“(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him,” Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. “The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.

“From the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. …” Wright wrote.

Not exactly the words of praise one would expect from a pastor. If Wright were Shakespeare, he might have said: “I come to give Caesar a breath mint, not to praise him.” Seriously, this is outright bigotry and such bigotry doesn’t develop overnight. It isn’t a five-minute outburst that occurs incidentally once every 20 years. It is a deep-seated resentment that one has carefully cultured for years. His bigotry isn’t something that someone accidentally just happened to catch on tape some Sunday. And it is clear that the Trinity Church financed the written vehicle for Wright to spread his gospel of bigotry, hatred and racism even if they have disappeared all traces of the evidence for now.

But back to Roland Martin… It is clear that he is an advocate for Wright and Obama. And it is also clear that he is very willing to distort the truth to make it seem like his guys are just fine. But who else is Roland Martin? What makes him tick? Just what other strong beliefs does he have that his viewers should be aware of?

One of the more controversial beliefs that Roland Martin espouses is his solidarity with Reverend James Meeks that homosexuality is an “evil sickness.” In fact Martin takes Reverend Al Sharpton to task for his attempts to make the “black” clergy more accepting of homosexuals.

Faith - not social pressures - must govern church on issue of homosexuality

What leaders of this effort must come to understand is that the fundamental issue is that gays and lesbians want to be accepted and embraced by the church, and not acknowledge that they are engaged, in the eyes of the church, in sinful behavior. This, regardless of what Sharpton or anyone else has to say, is the reason there will never be a happy medium on this issue.

~snip~

As individuals, gays and lesbians - those claiming to be born this way and others who say they have evolved to live a homosexual lifestyle - are naturally going to want to live their life as they see fit. And yes, the last thing they want to do is sit in a church and listen to someone from the pulpit castigate their way of life. I get that.

But someone who is living with a member of the opposite sex while not married also doesn’t want to hear that being preached. And surely the man or woman cheating on their spouse prefers not to hear their behavior cast as being sinful and unGodly.

So Roland Martin believes that homosexuality is both sinful and ungodly. How absolutely fundamental of him. Martin firmly holds this belief. And like the members of Wright’s church, he isn’t apologetic.

That isn’t being homophobic. It’s being a Christian. And no one should have to apologize for that.

Besides being a homophobe, oh sorry… I mean Christian, just who is Mr. Roland Martin? Well one thing about Roland Martin is obviously true. He is intensely focused on “black” issues for “black” Americans. He seems to share the afrocentric belief system of people like Reverend James Meeks and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And we are expected to accept that it is just a happy accident of fate that he shares the same beliefs as Jesse Jackson Jr. and Barack Obama.

In his resume, Mr. Martin claims to have been the former founding news editor for Savoy magazine. This magazine aspired to be a “black Vanity Fair.” New Savoy Magazine Goes on “Hiatus” The first issue featured an article on Barack and Michelle Obama. But it wasn’t financed well from the start and ceased publication. Another of Mr. Martin’s business adventures is much more revealing because this one is still in publication. Martin was the former founding editor of BlackAmericaWeb.com, another black-focused news source. In fact an interesting article appeared in their most recent issue concerning the controversy surrounding Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright. True to form, they decided that rather than take a stance about Obama and Wright’s positions, they would instead attack Hillary.

To counter the statement that Hillary made in Philadelphia Tuesday concerning the Wright controversy, BlackAmericaweb put out a distorted article featuring the pastor of the church the Clintons belonged to when Bill Clinton was President.

Clinton’s Pastor During White House Days: Whites ‘Would Do Well to Listen’ to Rev. Wright

The pastor of the Washington, D.C., church attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton during their days in the White House says whites in America can learn from listening to the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s retired pastor, who has been criticized recently for statements about race and American foreign policy.

The Clintons are no longer members of Foundry UMC, but have deep roots in the denomination.

According to an article published in the Christian Science Monitor, Sen. Clinton’s mother Dorothy Rodham taught Sunday school at First United Methodist Church in their hometown of Park Ridge, Illinois. That’s also the church where a young Hillary began to grow spiritually and participate in community service.

In Arkansas, Bill and Hillary Clinton affiliated with the First United Methodist Church, Little Rock. According to published reports, the Clintons maintain their membership at that church.

And yes, if what was stated in this article was true it would seem to damage Hillary in some respect. Because if her spiritual advisor feels this way, then she must have some credibility problems since she claims to be very spiritual. But that is the rub to this. Because this story is only half true. And the part that isn’t true is the most important part. But fortunately there are other sources of information to get at the truth, which our media has apparently developed a severe allergic reaction to.

The view from Clinton’s former church

But the senior minister at Clinton’s former church — who took over the pulpit there after the former first lady left — has come out in defense of Barack Obama’s provocative former pastor, chastising white Americans for succumbing to fear in their reaction to his fiery sermons. Read more….

Clinton has not returned to services at Foundry since 2001, her spokesman said, but both Bill Clinton and his wife have thanked Foundry for providing a refuge during the most difficult hours of his administration — particularly his impeachment trial at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

While the Foundry pastor who closely counseled the Clintons retired soon after they left the church, his successor has stood in solidarity with Obama’s pastor since controversy first erupted over videotapes of incendiary sermons delivered by Wright. One widely played clip shows Wright sermonising against racism and urging parishioners to sing “God damn America”.

Notice the words in bold? They completely contradict the headline from BlackAmericaweb, that publication of which Roland Martin was the founding editor. This helps determine the legitimacy of his credentials despite how impressive they appear at first glance.

But just in case you got the mistaken impression that journalism was alive and well in other parts of the world this article goes on to distort what really took place and who was involved.

The Clintons bid a highly personal farewell to Foundry in 2001, reading from the Bible and delivering a ermon as a family. The former president suggested they would remain active in the church, telling the congregation that “this is not really a goodbye, but the beginning of a new chapter of our lives with Foundry”.

Asked yesterday whether the New York senator would consider returning to Foundry in light of Snyder’s support for Obama’s pastor, a spokesman for Clinton distanced her from the church.

“I think not being a member of or attending a service there for the past seven years speaks for itself and renders the hypothetical moot,” Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide, said in an email response to Guardian America.

Again, the bolded words highlight the inaccuracy. Because you see, it was Bill Clinton alone that delivered an address to the Foundry church at the end of his Presidency. And he very specifically thanked the pastors there who helped him and the Clinton family during their darkest hours.

Remarks at the Foundry United Methodist Church - Bill Clinton - Transcript

Especially, I would like to thank Reverend Wogaman for being my pastor and friend, my counselor and teacher. Most of you know that for more than 2 years now, he and two other minister friends of mine have shared the burden of meeting with me on a weekly basis. It has been an immense blessing to me and to my service as President.

Rev. Wogaman also serves as a spiritual counselor to the President, along with Rev. Gordon MacDonald and Rev. Tony Campolo.

That clears that up quite nicely.

So where does that leave us? Clearly it has been demonstrated that Roland Martin is a known associate with people that are very close to the Obama campaign and that he has a propensity to distort the facts in such a light that is beneficial to his candidate. So where is the outrage? Why aren’t Stoller and Kos writing about this clearly unethical decision by CNN to put an Obama partisan on the payroll with no disclosure at all? None. Zip. Nada. Just where is Bill Richardson’s outrage? Or is he too busy counting his thirty pieces of silver to care about something so trite as ethics and fairness? Yes it seems quite obvious that the people that were so adamant about causing Carville and Begala to lose their jobs don’t really care about ethics at all. But if I am wrong let them prove me wrong, and join with me in demanding that CNN fire Roland Martin immediately. It’s the ethical thing to do.

Now an event like this shouldn’t cause any alarm with anyone. Politicians regularly spend some of their free time recharging their political batteries by immersing them selves in spiritual matters. Obama is surely not alone there. But most politicians don’t hang out with “men of god” who regularly call the mayor of their city a “slave master”, call other pastors and politicians “house niggers” and white people that don’t vote for him “racists.” But then again, you might not know Obama’s other spiritual advisor, supporter and superdelegate: State Senator Reverend James Meeks.

Harsh Words

Per pulpit video from July 5 Rev. James Meeks states, “We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated.”

“Is it fair to compare Mayor Daley, him and the governor, to slave masters?” CBS 2’s Mike Flannery asked.

“They do the same thing. They preside over systems where they have the control of the lives of African-American and Hispanic people,” Meeks replied.

Who does this sound an awful lot like? That’s right, another Obama “spiritual advisor” Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The racist bigot that blames 9/11 on America, that believes we should be singing God Damn America, that says the USA is just like Al Qaeda and the guy that blames all the ills of the world on white people.

Notice a pattern here?

“You got some preachers that are House Niggers. You got some elected officials that are House Niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man,” Meeks said in the sermon tape.

In his interview with Flannery on Friday, Meeks said, “The word nigger is not in the African-American community a bad word.
It’s a term of endearment. And I don’t see it as derogatory or defensive, offensive.”

“That is an insult. You weren’t using that term as a term of endearment,” Flannery said.

“And no one will be offended, except an individual that it applies to,” Meeks said.

So according to Obama’s spiritual advisor the word nigger is a “term of endearment.” Then does that mean that a House Nigger is an especial term of endearment, something a little more elevated than say, a lawn jockey? Because the way I heard him say it, it sure didn’t sound like he was praising anyone. Don’t believe me?

Watch for yourself:

Does he sound like he is paying anyone a compliment here? Is protecting the white man something that Meeks thinks is a good thing? If he is anything like Jeremiah Wright he sure doesn’t. But a close association with Obama shouldn’t be used as the only reason to condemn someone. Let’s allow James Meeks to speak for himself and determine for ourselves whether he is in any way prejudiced or bigoted like Jeremiah Wright.

Meeks for Governor

“Come on with me white churches … Call me and tell me to run for governor,” Meeks said. “White people who believe in Jesus, call me and tell me to run for governor”

Meeks is an Illinois senator in the 15th District. He is counting on an anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage platform to appeal to conservative white Christians.

“If I do run and there are two people in the race who both are not standing for morality, if I don’t have every white Christian vote in the state of Illinois, I will stand on top of the Sears Tower and call every one of ya’ll racist,” Meeks said from his pulpit.

So he is going to call all white people that don’t vote for him racists? How quaint. Where have we heard that before?

And just what is Reverend Meeks’ association with Barack Obama? According to his campaign they barely know one another. And of course we hear the same standard line about Obama denouncing the racist talk of this person he barely knows. Blah blah blah. We’ve all heard the drill before. It would seem that as frequently as one of Obama’s associates turns out to be a bigot and a racist that they would have a more creative explanation by now. Like maybe we are just bamboozled. Yeah, that makes sense. Okie doke!

But once you slice through the typical lie from the Obama campaign you find out that not only are Meeks and Obama friends, they have other friends in common. In fact one of their mutual friends is directly involved in the day to day activities of Obama’s campaign. Guess who? His initials are JJJ. Yes indeed, the person I am referring to is Jesse Jackson Jr., the national Co-Chair for the Obama campaign. It seems JJJ and Meeks have been close friends for a very long time. And JJJ is a member in good standing with Meek’s church. So he apparently agrees with what Meeks says. At least there is no evidence that he believes otherwise. In fact the evidence about JJJ is quite telling. He doesn’t hide his contempt for white people very well.

“The natural reminder here is O.J. [Simpson] — how does an African American candidate attack a white woman?” said Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr.

Yes, he said these words right after Obama won the Democratic caucus in Iowa. An unusual choice of a phrase don’t you think? Especially since his guy won. But just in case we failed to understand what JJJ meant when he uttered those words, he uttered a few more not barely a week later that clarified it for us.

Clinton didn’t cry for Katrina

In an appearance today on MSNBC, Jackson said that Clinton’s “tears” — none actually fell from her eyes — are something that “we’re still analyzing within the Barack Obama campaign.” “Those tears also have to be analyzed,” Jackson said. “They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama.”

You see, JJJ isn’t shy about playing the race card. And why not, his pastor and good friend James Meeks plays the race card from the pulpit. And that other close associate that Meeks and Obama share in common? Well, you have probably already guessed but it is none other than that jailed indicted political fixer and slumlord Tony Rezko. In fact of all the politicians with ties to Rezko and all the money Rezko donated to politicians, State Senator James Meeks ranks 14th in the list of politicians receiving the most money from this political pariah. 14th out of who knows how many politicians (The Cash Cow). The question to be asked, which I have been unable to find the answer to, is whether or not Meeks gave the money back or donated it to charity? And if it was to charity, was it to his own church where he uses the pulpit to call white people that don’t support him racists?

So it has been clearly determined that James Meeks is a bigot and a racist and has close ties to Barack Obama. But what has yet to be discussed are his other beliefs and activities that are a little out of the mainstream norm. For instance: James Meeks is known to be vehemently anti-gay.

2nd Obama-linked pastor under fire for racist talk

Meeks is also notorious for his strong anti-homosexual platform, which is in contrast to Obama who has been campaigning for the “gay” vote. Meeks has routinely voted against pro-homosexual legislation and has been quoted during sermons referring to same-sex attraction “an evil sickness.”

And how does the Obama campaign distance itself from Meeks on this? It’s very simple. At first they ignore it. Then they pretend as if Obama is the most forceful advocate for LGBT issues in the country. And finally, just to make sure they haven’t offended anyone, they invite a “reformed” gay singer to campaign with them in South Carolina. Of course I am referring to Donnie “I’m cured now” McClurkin.

Obama’s gospel mistake

Adding fuel to this fire was Obama’s reply to questions about the concert. He haughtily told a reporter from the gay news magazine the Advocate, “If there’s somebody out there who’s been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is.”

In 2004, during his U.S. Senate run, Obama campaigned at Chicago’s Salem Baptist Church, whose leader, Rev. James Meeks, called same-sexuality “an evil sickness.” That was quickly forgotten, overshadowed by Obama’s eloquent speeches on hard-core Democratic issues, gay rights included, to turn-away crowds that treated him, as more than one commentator has noted, “like a rock star.”

Now a gospel star may have driven a wedge between Obama and his gay supporters and roiled others as well. For, by putting McClurkin in the spotlight, Obama has broken black America’s 11th Commandment: “Don’t talk about it in front of the white people!”

But it was McClurkin who dominated the event, claiming before an audience of about 2,000 Sunday in Columbia, S.C.: “I don’t speak against the homosexuals. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality. No matter what blog you read, let me tell you, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature!”

Did it work? Was Meeks appeased that Obama had someone campaigning for him that had rejected homosexuality? Again, we may never know because Meeks, like many Obama supporters, has effectively been muted. But if there is any indication as to what type of person Meeks is and how strongly his beliefs are we need only to look toward his church where they have an unusual habit of taking things to the extreme. And what better subjects to promote their twisted view of morality than teenagers who are looking for adult guidance to begin with.

Something I was not aware of until I began writing this was the growing practice among some evangelical churches to celebrate Halloween in their own way, by scaring the hell out of children. Salem (ironically appropriately titled) Baptist Church where Meeks is the head pastor decided to create their own “Nights of Terror” where essentially they have a Christian version of a haunted House. At Salem Baptist they frighten the youth by informing them that: “YOU HAVE DIED AND GONE STRAIGHT TO HELL!”

Meeks sends kids to ‘hell’

In one scene, a girl was lying on a gurney where a masked man in surgical scrubs pretended to perform an abortion. A toilet was sitting nearby apparently to collect the aborted fetus.

A fenced-in cell housed a few denizens of “hell,” including a pedophile trolling the Internet for a young victim, a meditating Buddhist, and two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals.

So according to this church that Obama had to attend and pray with Meeks on the night after he won the Democratic primary, the way to a child’s soul is by scaring them. The threats of hellfire and damnation revisited. Abortion under any circumstance is a direct ticket to hell. If you happen to have a different religion that practices self responsibility, humility and peace, you are going to hell too. And if you are gay you are definitely going to hell. But at least they will let you keep your glitter.

And the church, just what does it think about all of this? Do they consider their actions controversial? As it turns out, yes they do. They are quite aware that some of the things they do are not within the norm. But like all religious zealots they have a perfect excuse: The Bible.

Comer knows some of the parts of Salem’s “hell” will be controversial but says he and Salem’s senior pastor, the Rev. James Meeks, who could not be reached for comment, are confident they can back up their vision of hell with Scripture.

Just why is it do you suppose that Obama has strong ties to so many controversial figures? Isn’t he supposed to “represent” the new politics of hope? Isn’t he supposed to be the post partisan, post racial candidate? If so, then why is he so closely associated with so many people that are clearly partisan and vehemently racial? Do you think that this is just some odd coincidence? That somehow a random alignment of the stars caused all these people to intersect the life of Senator Obama for so many years? That he had nothing to do with cultivating these long standing enduring relationships? Because that is exactly what someone would have to believe in order not to see how Obama’s acquaintance with people like Wright and Rezko and now Meeks are not accidental associations, but rather carefully calculated relationships designed to forge alliances with people of similar mind who share the same goals.

The question is: Are they your goals too?

1. Obama Co-Chair Jesse Jackson Jr. is THREATENING superdelegates (”Jesse Jackson Jr. Threatens Colleagues as Pandemonium Breaks Out Over Lewis“). Rep. Jackson is threatening to harm their own reelections!

   “Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position” in the future, he added. … (A.P./Google News)

2. Obama is buying superdelegates with his “big money reach.” A comparison:

         Obama: $694,000 (40% of his superdelegates)
         Clinton: $194,000 (12% of her superdelegates)

3. Although Obama’s campaign and the MSM have pushed the story that Rep. John Lewis, the legendary Civil Rights hero, has switched from Clinton to Obama, his staff says that that is not true. But Lewis is under unbelievable pressure, and he is the victim of vicious robo-calls (and Missouri’s Rep. Cleaver is also getting nasty pressure):
   

   [Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus] says some — such as John Lewis — have become the victims of “robo-calls.” In Lewis’ case, the calls said “very, very derogatory things about him.”

   [Cleaver says] “I had a person in my district send out a newsletter, for which I know he didn’t pay, distributed primarily in the African-American community, in which he suggested that I had been paid by Sen. Clinton to support her. I don’t know if there’s anyone who [is African American] who hasn’t taken some grief for supporting Sen. Clinton.”

For more, see Taylor’s story, in which she astutely observes:

Vote for Barack Obama, or you just might “find some young primary challenger” stepping in to take your job. It’s hard to know where to start, but considering Jesse Jackson Jr. has done this sort of race baiting before for the Obama campaign, I cannot say that I’m surprised. There is, however, something so offensive about his threat that it smacks of the same type of hierarchical control African Americans, especially John Lewis, have always fought against, only this time it’s a black man in the position of power telling people how they must use their vote or else.

Here’s more from National Public Radio, via Taylor Marsh’s “Clyburn, Superdelegates and Robo-Call Threats” — and Taylor rightfully calls this “swiftboating” (particularly the last quote below):

Cleaver says he hasn’t faced lobbying from other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but that he and colleagues in the group, such as Jesse Jackson Jr., joke about his support of Clinton.

“We’ll go back and forth and back and forth. He says to me, ‘Cleaver, let’s say we’re at the convention in Denver and everything is all tied up and it all boils down to you, you have the last superdelegate vote. Do you want to go down in history as denying the first African American a seat in the Oval Office?’ And it’s a powerful question.

“I always answer the question by saying, ‘Loyalty trumps everything,’” including race, Cleaver says.

Cleaver notes that some members of Congress who support Clinton are experiencing threats — not from fellow members but when they return home.

They have been told that they would face opposition in their next election if they do not support Obama, and Cleaver says some — such as John Lewis — have become the victims of “robo-calls.” In Lewis’ case, the calls said “very, very derogatory things about him.”

Cleaver, too, has experienced some troubles.

“I had a person in my district send out a newsletter, for which I know he didn’t pay, distributed primarily in the African-American community, in which he suggested that I had been paid by Sen. Clinton to support her. I don’t know if there’s anyone who [is African American]

Taylor Marsh nails it:

Seeing Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri pressured by Jackson, with Cleaver’s response: “There’s nothing going on right now that would cause me to” change his support from Clinton, brought me back to growing up in Missouri. This is a state with quite a bit of history regarding race. It’s a troubled past, like much of the country. The veiled threat coming from Jackson hits that dangerous strain in Missouri politics, which few native Missourians will miss. Others beyond the Show Me state will sense it too.

Never in a million years would I vote for Hillary Clinton only because she’s a woman. She happens to be the most competent person in the field of candidates. Jackson’s suggestion that his colleagues switch their votes to vote for the African American, or face the threat of a primary challenge, is not only anti-democratic, but racist. It’s not the first time the race card has been played by the Obama campaign. They sent out a memo in South Carolina pushing it. But not until things got tight did they overtly threaten African American lawmakers directly.

It’s understandable that a lawmaker vote his constituents’ will. However, what the Obama campaign has done through Jesse Jackson Jr.’s audacious threat is make race the reason to do so. It’s a deadly decision.

Be sure to read all of Taylor’s well-vetted, highly detailed article, “Clyburn, Superdelegates and Robo-Call Threats.”

And here’s a poignant story that Rep. Cleaver tells to illustrate his point about loyalty to his chosen candidate, Sen. Clinton — for which he is being chided by many Black Caucus members — in the midst of the unbelievable pressure on him to fold and support Obama, via NPR:

Cleaver relates a story to illustrate his point.

During this year’s State of the Union speech, Cleaver was sitting with his friend and colleague, Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee.

Cooper got up to leave temporarily and asked Cleaver to hold his seat. An African diplomat saw the empty seat and asked Cleaver if he could sit in it. Cleaver responded that he was holding the seat for someone.

When Cooper — who is white — returned, Cleaver told him, “I was holding a seat for you, but a black man came along, and I didn’t know him well, didn’t know him at all. … Should I give this seat to a black man because he’s black? Or should I hold the seat for my friend, someone who lives down the hall from me, who I work with every day?”

Cooper responded: “I get the point.’”

“For me, that’s the way life is. You don’t abandon your friends,” Cleaver says.