LEFT OF DAYTON

THE FOX IN THE CHICKEN COOP/WHITHER THE “BAILOUT”??

November 22, 2008
Leave a Comment

Speculation and suspicion about what political position the “most liberal” Senator, now President Elect Barack Obama, will assume once he arrives in office abounds. I understand the need to “hit the ground running”, especially considering the dire circumstances of the economy. At the same time, from this distant post,it starting to look like  the new administration is going to epitomize the line out of the old Who song, Won’t Get Fooled Again…”meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”
Hillary at State, Gates still guarding the coop at Defense. OMG. Really?
One unrepentant hawk, Gates, and saber rattling Hillary.
k, maybe Obama can focus them on HIS vision. Maybe.
With those two  he risks alienating the left even more on policy toward Iraq & Afghanistan.
He wants to stay; she’s never regretted her vote [“thought the prez was going to use diplomacy….]

And for the  Treasury post  we have the president of the New York Fed, Timothy F Geithner, from the District Bank most linked to Wall Street. Partnered with Current Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed chairman Bernake, Geithner has been one of the architects of the current Bailout fiasco.
How well has THAT worked??? Trying to save the Monopoly Capitalist system before main street totally collapses has proven to be a task beyond the capabilities of our current technicians.

I don’t pretend to have answers but a couple of things seem clear. “saving” the big 3 looks to me like a better bet than giving Billions to banks so they can buy other banks, pay off dividends and golden parachutes and hold half million dollar weekend junkets.

Dayton’s economy is so far down the tank [the view from this post on Main Street] that another blow coming in the form of closing local GM facilities, may be one that it takes years [if ever] to recover from. With some three million direct &  related jobs on the line nationally,  the fallout in cities with GM plants and suppliers will absolutely be devastating.

And oh yes, the “big 3” did it to themselves, anyone with a brain can see that. There are cars in Japan that get 50 miles to the gallon of gas. Detroit, with the help of DEMOCRAT legislators like the recently deposed John Dingell, has resisted higher fuel & emission  standards, further digging itself in the hole as it produced various SUV behemoths that just increased USA dependence on foreign oil.

Maybe some form of nationalization is what we need.
Dump the guys who so very stupidly flew to Washington in separate corporate jets.
Implement a “Manhattan Project”  for cars?
Because giving the fox access to the chicken coop is NOT working

Some pertinent viewpoints:

Honeymoon: Left Cuts Obama Slack for Now

By: Ryan Grim and Glenn Thrush
November 21, 2008 02:41 PM EST
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15845.html>
_____________________________________________

Dingell Loses to Waxman and Auto Stocks Dive
Call It What It Is: Corruption

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on November 21, 2008
AlterNet
<http://www.alternet.org/story/107974/>

Advertisements

This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama’s White House

November 20, 2008
Leave a Comment

My worst fears about the forthcoming Obama Presidency seem to be coming true. Readers will recall my skepticism during the primaries vis a vis Obama’s rhetoric about the middle east and his willingness to use “bomb” diplomacy in places like Pakistan and Afghanistsan.  I really really hoped that he was going to be a different kind of democrat, that his early anti-war stance was really about “change”, that we were not re-electing the Democratic Leadership Council [DLC]. Reading the article reprinted from the weblog Alternet that is posted below made me very depressed. Is there really a new direction in national politics or is this really just more of the same?

This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama’s White House


By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
Posted on November 20, 2008, Printed on November 20, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/107666/
U.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts will be fruit of a tree with many roots. Among them: his personal politics and views, the disastrous realities his administration will inherit, and, of course, unpredictable future crises. But the best immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, it is not looking good. (more…)

WHY DO WOMEN GIVE JOHN McCAIN A ZERO???

June 10, 2008
Leave a Comment

“If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.”  —John McCain

Despite his media generated image as a “maverick”, John McCain is anything but. His historical record as a legislator, while showing some slight deviation from the basic conservative Republican philosophy, has been of a social and economic right winger.

McCain’s political philosophy is fundamentally anti-choice and comes from an anti-self empowered woman perspective. It is unfortunate that some women who supported Hilary Clinton now are saying that they will vote for McCain due to her loss in the democratic primaries to Barack Obama. Ms Clinton put up a strenuous campaign advocating positions that are at the heart of progressive feminist political perspective, and for that she is to be commended. However, for any of her supporters to argue for a pro McCain candidacy is to turn their backs on all the reasons they held so important in her campaign as they related to women issues.

As Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films. creator of numerous progressive video shorts about McCain, points out…”We’re talking about a man who has voted anti-choice 123 out of 128 times. A man who wouldn’t require prescription coverage for birth control. A man who voted against allocating $100 million to preventative health services that would have reduced unintended and teen pregnancies. A man who could irreparably damage women’s rights in our country unless we get the word out about him now.”

McCain has consistently received a ZERO rating from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL [National Abortion Rights Action League]

Access the Website THE REAL JOHN McCAIN AT THIS URL>>

http://therealmccain.com/?utm_source=rgemail

John McCain is no friend of feminism….


Whiners, Poor Losers and Why Hillary Shouldn’t Be Barack’s VP/By Dave Lindorff

June 4, 2008
Leave a Comment

Whiners, Poor Losers and Why Hillary Shouldn’t Be Barack’s VP

By Dave Lindorff

It’s kind of bizarre reading about supposed “feminists” who are reportedly claiming they’ll vote for McCain rather than Obama, now that “their” candidate, Hillary Clinton, is out of the running for the presidential nomination.

First of all, John McCain is clearly the candidate of the anti-abortion crowd, but that’s not the half of it. He’s also the candidate who says Anthony Scalia, John Roberts and Sam Alito are his kind of judges. We’re talking here about guys (yeah, guys) who think a woman’s place is in the home, and who only recently ruled that if she’s discriminated against on the job, and doesn’t learn about it for a decade or more, a woman can’t do anything about it, because the original offense of underpaying her happened more than 180 days ago. McCain is also the guy who, after his wife suffered a serious car crash and became disabled, dumped her for a younger, richer woman. A feminist’s dream, this guy.

And how about Hillary Clinton? When she was supposedly getting her “White House experience”—you know, the “co-presidency” she was supposedly part of during the eight years her husband was president and she was First Lady—she and Bill oversaw the “end of welfare as we know it.” What that fine piece of legislation did was limit people to five years on the dole. That’s for life. It doesn’t matter what misfortune befalls you later on.

Now many single women left to raise kids by fathers who either ditch them or who never stepped up to the plate as fathers in the first place, have a hard time, between lack of adequate child care facilities and discrimination on the job, keeping the rent paid and food on the table. Many of them need government assistance well beyond that five years—a period of time not long enough to even get one kid into full-time school, much less two or three. That didn’t matter to Hillary, the great champion of women. She and Bill were busy triangulating and figuring out how to keep their White House position, and that meant selling out poor people, and especially poor women with kids. Welfare had to go.

Even on abortion rights, Clinton has been a waffler. In 2000, running for Senate in New York, she said she would be a staunch defender of the right to choose. But by 2004, she was saying abortion was a “tragic” choice, and was supporting parental notification laws for minors seeking abortion—a position she continues to hold. But abortion isn’t a “tragic choice” for everyone. For some women—rape and incest victims, or women who are victims of abuse come readily to mind—abortion may be a blessed relief. For some, it may be no more tragic than an appendectomy—and it should be no harder to get, or to pay for than one either. There is a reason why the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) voted unanimously to endorse Obama, who has said abortion rights are about more than just women’s right to control their own bodies, but are about basic issues of equality.

What the cries of “McCain, McCain!” by disappointed Clinton backers really represent is an example of sour grapes, as well as of a certain perhaps hidden element of racism. It is as if blacks, had Obama been the loser in this nomination battle, were to say, “That’s it, we’re voting for McCain!”

Obviously, African-American candidates have had to endure this problem for years. When their candidate, whether it was Jesse Jackson, or Shirley Chisolm, or Ted Kennedy, was defeated, they have had to look to their broader interests and decide whether to vote Republican, sit out the election, or just shrug and vote for the winning Democrat. Consistently, they have chosen the third option, disappointment after disappointment.

Blacks are supposed to stick with the Democrats, no matter what. Clinton backers, however, don’t feel handcuffed in this way. Some of them, apparently, feel free to abandon all their liberal principles and vote for a right-wing, anti-abortion, fundamentalist Christian-coddling warmonger if they don’t get the candidate they want from the Democrats.

If these grousers and poor losers in the Clinton camp thought honestly about it for even a moment, they’d realize that had Clinton won the most delegates, and if African-American and liberal, educated white backers of Obama, in response, were to adopt their position and bolt to McCain, Clinton would be a historical asterisk, with no chance of being elected.

In the end, I suspect that most of the whining and the threats to switch to McCain represent only a small, if vocal, minority. The truth is, in the course of 54 primaries, Obama won a majority of female voters—a point rarely made in media reports on this contest. The same can be said of those “white—hard working white” voters who supposedly went for Hillary Clinton in states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. In fact, numerically speaking, Obama won more of those white, working class voters than did either John Kerry or Al Gore before him. Meanwhile, many of those male voters who voted for Hillary Clinton are probably people who were going to vote Republican in the fall anyhow. There was an organized campaign, after all, by Republican activists, to throw the election to Clinton, who was seen as being easier to defeat in the fall than Obama. That effort almost certainly gave Clinton her narrow win in Indiana, and padded her margins in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

As for Clinton’s fallback position of trying to make herself the vice-presidential candidate on a “dream” Obama-Clinton ticket, Obama would have to be crazy to go for it. Clinton brings nothing but disaster to the Obama campaign. He doesn’t need her to win New York, New Jersey or California, all of which he will win by a landslide without her in November. He doesn’t need her for Illinois (her home state, whatever efforts she made to try to pretend she was a rural Pennsylvanian during that state’s primary). She certainly doesn’t help him in the south, with the possible exception of Florida. She doesn’t bring any “balance” to the ticket, given that both senators have almost identical voting records on domestic issues. And as for the swing states—Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, etc.—she may do more damage than good, given the number of independents and Republicans who have been drawn to Obama, but who have negative feelings about the Clintons. Moreover, with the right vice-presidential candidate—and it’s not Clinton—Obama may even have a shot at not just Virginia, but also North Carolina and even Mississippi—states where the percentage of black voters is high enough that, with an energized black voter turnout, the liberal Democratic vote could be enough to turn the trick.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has all along been about entitlement. She began her race for the White House acting as though it was a coronation—something she deserved after enduring eight years in the White House as second fiddle to husband Bill. Now, having been defeated, she’s acting like she deserves second fiddle. But the truth is, Clinton, by her shabby appeals to racist voters, by her resort to red-baiting of her opponent, and finally by her refusal to denounce and apologize for her shameless and calculating backing for the invasion of Iraq, has rendered her unfit for a spot on the Democratic ticket.

Obama can do much better than that. Yes he can.
____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net


LANNY DAVIS, CLINTON APOLOGIST, BAKED AND FILLETED

May 28, 2008
Leave a Comment

Burned out by the Clinton-Obama primary battle ? I have to admit to feeling more than a bit fatigued, and I think of myself as a political junkie, type AAA. Regular readers will note an absence of posts over the last few weeks, mostly due to the above mentioned campaign fatigue,

I am just as suspicious of Barack Obama’s connections to the power elite as I am Ms Clinton, and have re-posted several well written articles regarding those connections on this blog. However, as time wear on , Ms Clinton’s rhetoric, and that of her husband, has grown increasingly shrill, and most regrettably, seemingly coming out of a Karl Rove Republican playbook. Maybe individually the remarks can be parsed and explained, but the low road, once taken, is hard to get off of.You can only bring up “white voters”, parrot bogus gas tax relief schemes [in agreement with McCain…] and imply entitlement so many times before the veneer of respectability wears off. If he wins, I sincerely hope Obama does not give into sharing his presidency with the Clinton’s…

One of the most obstinate and tenacious defenders of Clinton has been one Lanny Davis, who, armed with more “facts” than any three other interviewees, ardently believes that Clinton can make no mistakes . Nothing she says could possibly be interpreted as anything but righteous She is the perfect, entitled Democratic party nominee.
My opinion of this pugnacious and rude huckster….very low.

The article posted below is somewhat long and detailed, but it clearly lays out the fallacies in Davis’s wishful fantasies.

Adventures in Lannyland

Lanny Davis, annotated:

Here are two important neutral principles that should guide the Democratic National Committee’s Rules Committee when it meets May 31 to decide whether to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations — and, if so, how to allocate them between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

One principle is based in law, the second in pragmatic politics. Both principles result in the same solution: in some rough approximation, honoring the results expressed by almost 600,000 Michigan Democrats and more than 1.7 million Florida Democrats, who turned out in record numbers though they were told their votes didn’t count, were not responsible for the rules violations, and don’t want to be disenfranchised.

Record numbers? Not in Michigan. According to the Michigan Bureau of Elections, the record for participation in a Democratic Presidential Primary came in 1972, when 1,588,073 Michigan Democrats cast ballots. That is nearly one million more ballots than were cast this year. (On the other hand, had Michigan held an “official” primary, and had the voters had behaved approximately as they did in Indiana, Wisconsin, and Ohio, about 2,000,000 voters would have cast ballots, easily breaking the record).

The legal principle supporting that solution is pretty simple. In U.S. contract law, the party breaching a contract usually has the right to “cure” the violation during the term of the contract. But if the other party stands in the way of that cure, the breaching party cannot be further sanctioned — and certainly, as a matter of fairness, the party preventing the cure should not stand to benefit.

If the breach in question is Michigan’s decision to advance the date of its primary beyond what the DNC permitted, it would seem that the parties to that dispute are (i) the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP), and (ii) the DNC. Therefore, if the MDP sought to cure the breach (that is, hold a do-over election), the principle that Davis articulates would suggest that the “breaching party” — a.k.a. the MDP — could not be further sanctioned.

It is unclear, however, what any of this has to do with the Clinton and Obama campaigns. At best it is an argument for seating Michigan’s delegates. It isn’t an argument about how to seat them. (more…)


The All-White Elephant in the Room/By FRANK RICH

May 8, 2008
Leave a Comment

The New York Times


May 4, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

The All-White Elephant in the Room

BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

Since then, Mr. McCain has been shocked to learn that his clerical ally has made many other outrageous statements. Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”

Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptiveholy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.

None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

When Rudy Giuliani, still a viable candidate, successfully courted Pat Robertson for an endorsement last year, few replayed Mr. Robertson’s greatest past insanities. Among them is his best-selling 1991 tome, “The New World Order,” which peddled some of the same old dark conspiracy theories about “European bankers” (who just happened to be named Warburg, Schiff and Rothschild) that Mr. Farrakhan has trafficked in. Nor was Mr. Giuliani ever seriously pressed to explain why his cronies on the payroll at Giuliani Partners included a priest barred from the ministry by his Long Island diocese in 2002 following allegations of sexual abuse. Much as Mr. Wright officiated at the Obamas’ wedding, so this priest officiated at (one of) Mr. Giuliani’s. Did you even hear about it?

There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.

A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”

An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.

This year Mr. McCain has called for a respectful (i.e., non-race-baiting) campaign and has gone so far as to criticize (ineffectually) North Carolina’s Republican Party for running a Wright-demonizing ad in that state’s current primary. Mr. McCain has been posing (awkwardly) with black people in his tour of “forgotten” America. Speaking of Katrina in New Orleans, he promised that “never again” would a federal recovery effort be botched on so grand a scale.

This is all surely sincere, and a big improvement over Mitt Romney’s dreams of his father marching with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Up to a point. Here, too, there’s a double standard. Mr. McCain is graded on a curve because the G.O.P. bar is set so low. But at a time when the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows that President Bush is an even greater drag on his popularity than Mr. Wright is on Mr. Obama’s, Mr. McCain’s New Orleans visit is more about the self-interested politics of distancing himself from Mr. Bush than the recalibration of policy.

Mr. McCain took his party’s stingier line on Katrina aid and twice opposed an independent commission to investigate the failed government response. Asked on his tour what should happen to the Ninth Ward now, he called for “a conversation” about whether anyone should “rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is.” Whatever, whenever, never mind.

For all this primary season’s obsession with the single (and declining) demographic of white working-class men in Rust Belt states, America is changing rapidly across all racial, generational and ethnic lines. The Census Bureau announced last week that half the country’s population growth since 2000 is due to Hispanics, another group understandably alienated from the G.O.P.

Anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority nation in three to four decades. Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nation’s perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.


WAS [IS] REV JEREMIAH WRIGHT REALLY THAT WRONG??

May 2, 2008
Leave a Comment

Apparently I am missing something in the brouhaha over Rev Jeremiah Wright and Senator Barack Obama.

I read and reread the Chicago Tribune transcript of his comments at the National Press Club.
I watched his speech to the NAACP in Detroit. Watched major parts of it again on various “news” channels.
Watched members of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party fall all over themselves on various cable and network news shows trying to either distance themselves from or engage in attacks on Obama and Wright that were straight out the Republican play book.
Witnessed liberals being liberals; falling prey to an incipient McCarthyism. Hillary is disgusting in this respect.
Even normally rational NY Times columnist Bob Herbert denounced Wright in his column. Eric Alterman, author of Why I Am a Liberal and chief protagonist at Media Matters,fell prey in critiquing Maureen Dowd’s Times column:”
It’s his Farrakhan-like fantasies that make this preacher beyond the pale, not his feelings about the candidate”…
Didn’t see, but clearly imagined John McCain [alias Bush’s 3rd term] chortling in his scotch over the disarray within the Democratic race.
Got very disgusted.

You see, I just don’t get it.

Please, pray tell [sic] What specifically did Jeremiah Wright say that so freaked these people out??
Damned if I can figure it out.

His speech on Sunday was an old fashioned stem winder, a grandiose display of chutzpah, rhetoric and facts.
He detailed the works that his church had been involved in over tha last three decades. With Aids, with self help programs, with school scholarships and so much more.

He explained the Louis Farrakhan connection for what it is, a TWENTY YEAR OLD comment. He never endorsed the Nation of Islam or any policy of racial separation, but he did rightfully point out that in fact, the Nation, and its leader, are very serious forces in the Black community. What other African-American organization can, or has, put ONE MILLION people on the streets of Washington DC in the last twenty years?? That’s a LOT of people.

And AID as a government plot? This is NOT NEWS. I heard this same view expressed 10-15 years ago from African American acquaintances.
According to the London [ UK] Guardian:

Almost half of all African-Americans believe that HIV, the virus that causes Aids, is man-made, more than a quarter believe it was produced in a government laboratory and one in eight think it was created and spread by the CIA, according to a study released by Rand Corporation and the University of Oregon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/26/aids.usa

From the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6DC1038F931A25756C0A964958260
The Education Forum: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3034.html

The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot :http://www.whale.to/b/cantwell19.html

And it is impossible to ignore the fact of the notorious Tuskegee syphilis experimentation carried out by our governmentfrom 1932 to 1972 on 399 black Men in the later stages of syphilis affliction. FORTY YEARS! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html]

Maybe. just maybe, there might be some basis for the fears

And Terrorism by the USA as a causative factor in 9/11???

In the latest iteration of US sponsored terrorism we need go no further than the current conflict in Iraq. Do the words Abu Grihab or Rendition bring any pleasant thought to mind? I didn’t think so.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. From the late 1800s through WWII the US military invaded one Central and South American country after another, with the end result almost always being that we ended up supporting a brutal dictatorship. In Argentina, in Chile, in Paraguay and many other countries. In the Philippines we looked the other way crimes committed by the dictator Ferdiand Marcos in part because of our need for the military bases in the Islands that were essential to the Vietnam war effort. In South Africa … wretched, racist South Africa…the US supported a brutal apartheid regime for over 30 years..

And Saudi Arabia….please, don’t get me started on the medieval mores of Bush pals the House of Saud.

Did the American people bring this on? No we did not. But acting in our name, one successive government after another, usually acting on behalf of the Corporations who are most often the beneficiaries, whether its united Fruit in South America or US financial institutions in South Africa, in part, DID. And, we the voters, we elected those people who did…

The problem is not with Rev Wright, self important grandstander though he may be. It lies with the inability of the candidates to see the truth behind the rhetorical flourishes. It lies with the Democratic candidates pandering to a neo con firestorm of fear. Rather than take the substantive issues raised by the Reverend in context we are smitten with sound bite after sound bite, always OUT of context and perversely annotated to a page in Karl Rove’s Republican Play book of Fear Mongering

And the bit about being at Obama’s White House door on January 21st…that’s Democracy. If the will of the people is embodied in a president, it is incumbent on that people to ensure that the holder of that office act on BEHALF of the people, and that, my friends, means holding his feet to the political fire. Trust, but verify.


http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n2_misa.html
http://www.easternct.edu/personal/faculty/pocock/milact.htm
http://mondediplo.com/1998/12/05safr


What we are talking about here is American Imperialism and how the empire has sought to enforce its will and prerogatives.

Now, Rev Wright did not call it that. I did. But nonetheless, the fact remains that we, the USA of A, land of Liberty, of fields of amber grain on the fluted plain, are not seen very favorably by much of the “Third” world. We are NOT loved. And it is not the least bit surprising that a conclusion could be reached that, at the very least, some of the chickens HAVE, in fact, come home to roost. That, dear reader, is also a reality.
Pew Research: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/6/arab-and-muslim-perceptions-of-the-united-states
Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/publication/8934/perceptions_of_us_public_diplomacy.html

And, amid all the controversy. the WORDS spoken by Rev Wright are too easily overlooked…

Transcript of Rev Wright’s speech before the National Press Club on Monday April 28, 2008.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-wrighttranscript-04282008,0,3593201.story

Read. Then ask your self, how wrong was Rev Wright???


Why Clinton Embellishes/the Mask Revealed

April 7, 2008
Leave a Comment

From “Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-clinton-embellishes.html
“Sunday, April 06, 2008
We have three examples from recent days of Clinton’s modifications of the truth.

Why do they matter? One might say that many politicians are prone to factual distortions.

What is of particular importance is not only that Clinton distorts the truth, but when she does–and why.

Clinton, as many who know her well and have studied her life closely have indicated, from Dee Dee Myers to Carl Bernstein, has a fundamental difficulty in revealing herself. She is seen by even those who are closest to her as perpetually standing behind a guise, ever prepared for the attack, a characteristic regarded as at times poignant, and at other times Nixonian in its manifestations.

We know from biographies of Clinton, including Bernstein’s astute and perceptive “A Woman in Charge” that Clinton’s suffered from a harsh and judgmental father, and that this relationship had a deep and significant shaping influence.

On the one hand, it prepared her (indeed, over-prepared her) for quick response, for an all-too-ready response to attack. Yet it also created, beneath the increasingly agile guises and forms of protection, a more fundamental experience of self–that despite the greatest efforts, the most agile displays, of never being quite good enough to measure up to his judgment. This left her, as it leaves many in such circumstances, with a rueful admiration of and attachment to a seeming strength and sureness that she could never have; and underneath the formidably developed masks of intellect and defensive pretense, a fundamental fear of, in her true self, uncovered, falling short. Many have noted this quality in Clinton, and have drawn it back to this familial source.

As a consequence, beneath the feigned hardness, the feigned casualness, and beneath the years of powerfully developed yet defensively driven skills, there is a tragic, deep and, for a President, highly consequential flaw–one that is most likely to be relevant in those “3 a.m. moments” that she has so readily and repeatedly invoked.

One cannot respond with balance and wisdom from a guise. One’s own judgment is critically affected by what one feels they must display (and truly cannot), and by what they believe that they must hide.

From such a position, the “other”–be it a colleague, opponent, or one’s view of the “public” at large, is critically distorted. The other is not regarded as a fellow equal, with whom we are shouldering difficult tasks together, in order to determine a better future, but a threatening judge, to be managed and feared; whose response must be calculated to be met with the proper guise–one which must be quickly changed–or covered–if there is a danger that, beneath the mask, one will be found out.

What Clinton shares with other talented, tragic figures is a mistrust of humanity’s judgment, and, as a result, an inability to meet them with the full, uncovered gaze of a developed and accepted self. The truth, within such an uncertain experience of self and the judgment of others, is often felt to be not enough.

This is what Obama, in this revolutionary moment, to a greater extent, has. This is what people are connecting with. And, in 3 a.m. moments, this is what we need.

Cite:
Head of State


Photograph of Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright Surfaces

March 27, 2008
Leave a Comment

bill-clinton-rev-jeremiah-wright.jpg

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and President Bill Clinton at a prayer breakfast at the White House in September 1998.

During one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton, he addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.

Among those in attendance, was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who is seen shaking hands with Mr. Clinton in a photograph provided today by the Obama campaign. Mr. Wright’s relationship with Senator Barack Obama, as his longtime pastor, has been the subject of considerable controversy in recent days because of incendiary excerpts of sermons Mr. Wright gave at their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago. (more…)


Looming Threat for Dems: People Against the War Prefer McCain as President

March 12, 2008
Leave a Comment
“…But when the question is which candidate will do best handling the war, McCain wins every time….What could change the outcome is a strategy that faces up to the irrational facts. That might mean starting right now to shift the focus from war to economy. It might mean re-framing the war as an economic issue…”

AlterNet

By Ira Chernus, AlterNet
Posted on March 12, 2008, Printed on March 12, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/79351/

We don’t know who will carry the Democrats’ banner onto the political battlefield this fall. But we do know the kind of attack the Dems will face. The McCain campaign has little in its arsenal beyond two words: “No Surrender” — no surrender anywhere, but especially in Iraq. Its strategy is merely to hurl that phrase over and over again, in every form imaginable.

Can it work, with public opinion still so firmly against the war? Frank Rich, a liberal stalwart of the New York Times op-ed page, doubts it. He claims that “the mere mention of Iraq is dangerous to Mr. McCain. … It will be a slam-dunk for Democrats to argue that it’s long past time for the Iraqis to stand up on a sensible timetable that will allow the Americans to stand down.”

But when the issue is war and peace, Democrats should be as wary as George Tenet about predicting a “slam dunk.” Frank Rich, like so many others, assumes that voters who are against the war will choose the candidate who is against the war. Ah, if only our fellow citizens were indeed so logical, how much easier it would be to forecast elections — and what a different nation this would be. (more…)


Next Page »

About author

61 Y/O VIET VET WORKING FROM THE LEFT OF CENTER

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds