Flickr May 26, 2008
This is a test post from 
, a fancy photo sharing thing.
Sen. Clinton WH schedules released today March 19, 2008
The National Archives have released Sen. Clinton’s schedules from when she was First Lady. You can go to the National Archives and view them or you can view that at the Clinton Presidential Library’s website.
I’ve been scanning them and in haven’t looked at all the years. The one thing that stands out is how much information has been redacted because it has been deemed “too personal and and invasion of privacy”. The phone numbers, I understand. But names of who she met with have been blocked out, reasons for the meeting have been blocked out, places for the meetings have been blocked out…you get the drift. And most of the meetings were closed to the press anyway. So you’ll see a lot of:
Private Meeting Map Room CLOSED PRESS
A. Lot.
Another thing I noticed is that there’s a lot more redaction in their first term, than in the second term. The second term seemed like Clinton was just getting interviewed and being given gifts, whereas the first term there’s a lot of policy stuff going on. Clinton also did a grip of interviews, some of them even promoting her book. The one biggest surprise for me is seeing names I had forgotten, remembering old scandals and drama and getting that yuck-feeling of not again, if Clinton becomes president. On the upside, we eventually get the weather forecast for D.C.
So, that’s that for now.
Obama’s speech on race and Rev. Wright March 18, 2008
There’s a lot of analysis out there in the blogosphere and on the MSM sites. For what it’s worth, the speech Sen. Obama gave in Philadelphia this morning is one of those historical making types. People will discuss this speech in the future.
The speech, entitled “A More Perfect Union” focused not only on the racism that has played out in this presidential campaign, but also on the racism that permeates American society. Sen. Obama, relayed history and context to make his points concisely and precisely.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
At this point in the speech, he’s hanging in the balance. The question: Will he throw Rev. Wright under the bus is unanswered. No matter how much the Clinton’s supporters want to whine and blame the Obama campaign for racism, there is no doubt that the Clinton’s are the ones who spent December and January injecting race into the campaign. After spending the summer and fall of 2007 stating that Sen. Obama wasn’t black enough for their black supporters, they decided to tell their white supporters that he’s too black. For many people, South Carolina was the turning point. They either weren’t paying attention or willing to give the Clinton’s the benefit of the doubt.
On one hand, it’s a shame that Sen. Obama even needed to give a speech addressing Rev. Wright’s comments. On February 26th during a Democratic debate, we saw Tim Russert shamelessly press Sen. Obama on Louis Farrakhan’s support.You’ll remember that Louis Farrakhan gave a speech where he said that he liked Obama. Russert, during a debate then pressed (and pressed and pressed) Obama to denounce Farrakhan. The very next day, Sen. John McCain was receive the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee. A right-wing pastor who’s endorsement, John McCain actively sought. As Glenn Greenwald points out, Sen. McCain was never initially pressed to distance himself from Hagee and his comments:
Yesterday, though, the equally fringe, radical and hateful (at least) Rev. John Hagee — a white evangelical who is the pastor of a sprawling “mega-church” in Texas — enthusiastically endorsed John McCain. Did McCain have to jump through the same hoops which Russert and others set up for Obama and “denounce” Hagee’s extremism and “reject” his support? No; quite the opposite. McCain said he was “very honored” to receive this endorsement and, when asked about some of Hagee’s more twisted views, responded: “all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support.”
In fact, the following Sunday on Meet the Press, Tim Russert all but ignored the fact that Hagee had endorsed McCain. On Bill Bennett’s radio show, Sen. McCain did eventually wind up repudiating Hagee’s remarks saying that “they were taken out of context”.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.[snip]
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
There. For the umpteenth millionth time in a week Sen. Obama has condemned the 2 minutes of speech snippets being used to define Rev. Wright’s career. Of course, there are intellectually lazy people who’ll hold on to their chewed up bone of hate and stupidity and repeat, “But why didn’t he leave the church? How can we trust his judgment?”. I’m sorry, but for those people who say that and are Clinton supporters I have to laugh. Loudly. You have a woman married to a man who has consistently cheated on her and we’re supposed to trust her judgment? You have a woman who didn’t bother to read the NIE report, but still went ahead an authorized use of force in Iraq, while trying to deny that thought she was authorizing use of force, despite the fact that the bill was called Authorization for Use of Military Force…and we’re supposed to trust her judgment? You have a woman who then went ahead and voted for more of the same in regards to Iran…and we’re supposed to trust her judgment.
Okay.
One of the best things about Obama’s speech is the fact that he did not throw Wright under the bus. Instead of dumping on the guy like most politicians would have, Obama instead explained him…made him human. Remember, that Rev. Wright not only married the Obama’s, but baptized his children. If the guy were a complete nutjob, do you really think that Sen. Obama would really be running for President of the United States?
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
On the internet, it’s easy to read a line, get outrage and demand heads to roll. I try to wait for context–especially if Fox is pushing a story like they did with this one. I want to see video, read a speech. But for anyone to see a few lines from a person they didn’t know existed yesterday and determine his or her entire career based on that, marks them as mentally stunted. One of the reasons I didn’t initially blog on Ferraro’s “he’s lucky he’s black” statements was because of this. I was assuming it was said in a joking way. I didn’t know that Ferraro said the same thing back in ‘88 in reference to Jesse Jackson. But it came right on the heels of her “it sucks to be a rich, middle-aged, white woman in America” op-ed and her subsequent TV appearances didn’t help.
But you’ll see the double standard there too. Samantha Power, while interviewing overseas about her upcoming book, states that Sen. Clinton is a monster. The Clinton’s campaign immediately calls for Power to be fired from the Obama campaign. Power tendered her resignation immediately. Geraldine Ferraro, who sat on the Clinton’s finance committee, says that Sen. Obama is basically an affirmative action candidate, then says, “I was only speaking for myself, not the campaign.” You know…like Powers was. The Clinton’s campaign first reaction was to blame the Obama campaign “for playing the race card”. Ferraro resigned 3 days later.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
Old people. What are you gonna do?
My grandfather (maternal), a preacher, was a bigot–and not a good man. Scratch that…he made bigots look reasonable. He used every racist term in the book for everyone. Even talking to him right before he died, I remember he asked me about, “That little honkey girl with the gook friend.” Ugh. There was no changing him. When I was little, there wasn’t a black man in my life who didn’t use a slur for white people. I was raised knowing white people as “crackers” and “peckerwoods”. I had no idea those were bad words. When after we moved off base into my grandpa’s (paternal) house. I remember one morning looking out the 3rd story window and seeing white people moving into our black middle-class neighborhood. My father was outside washing his car. I screamed, “Daddy, the peckerwoods are here!” I think I repeated it like 5 times at the top of my voice. My daddy ran up those stairs so fast…he told me that he never wanted to hear me say anything like that again. He didn’t say, “in front of white people”, he said, “ever”. I was 4 years old and after that, I had never heard him use a derogatory term to describe white people.
Then, Obama’s speech did a beautiful thing. It proved that his is about unity. It proved that he understood the way America works. In fact, the next part I’m going to quote, I guarantee will be stolen and woven into Clinton’s upcoming speeches:
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
This is where you realized that anyone who dismisses this speech as empty rhetoric has a lot riding on their own hatred of Obama and their inherent bigotry. There is nothing to refute in this passage. It’s America, right or wrong…and we know it. I’ve been saying it, lots of others have been saying it. The people in the media pretend that it’s really not that bad unless it really, really affects the working class white voter. But there’s something important here: We have never had a leader say it.
I’m 35. I’ve never been particularly in awe of this country as an operational organization. As a piece of geography, I love this place, but in theory…meh. It’s hard. It’s hard to pretend that as a woman everything is hunky-dory. It’s hard to pretend that as a black person everything is hunky-dory. It’s hard to pretend as a liberal, as a Muslim, as one-half of an interacial relationship, as a parent…get what I’m saying. The true-believers, those “America: Love it or Leave it” types don’t get it. They see my skin, my sex and immediately blame me for any problems I have even if they mirror their problems. But that’s okay, because they have their preachers telling them that it is my fault. Not a breakdown in government or leadership, because of “them”.
Those people are waiting for some talking head or preacher to tell them that it’s okay…”Give in into your hate.” They don’t have to listen to Obama because they’ll make up pretend instances of “codewords” despite the fact that this speech wasn’t given to black America, it was given to America. Sen. Obama drew the line. He said, “Here’s where were are. Now you can cross the line and move into the future or you can stay over there and dwell in the past.”
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This is where the spin, the media’s filter comes into play. You saw that on the faces of the chatterboxes after the speech. The white pundits looked morose. They didn’t know how to spin it. The black pundits were thrilled. Impressed. Without expressly pointing out the media, he did call them to task over their gossipy ways and their involvement in talking about nothing, while the important issues that truly affect our lives are ignored:
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
It’s a beautiful speech. I always mention how Sen. Obama’s speech always have me ready to hang a 50′ flag in my front yard and salute it every morning. This speech is so over and beyond that. This speech has me loving all of mankind. Even the cootie-fied haters.
The Big Read March 17, 2008
On Saturday, Los Angeles County Public Library chose Rudolfo Anaya’s book Bless Me, Ultima for their The Big Read book. Saturday was the big kickoff day for the book.
For those unaware, The Big Read in basically a nation-wide book club put on by the National Endowments for the Arts in conjunction with the Institute of Museum and Library Services and in cooperation with Arts Midwest. This is the 3rd year (I think it started in ‘06) for The Big Read and it seems to be catching on. I looked at the map of communities participating and there are a lot more than last year. I’ll definitely have to get the book since I’ve never read this one.
There’s quite a few books on the list, but LA picked Anaya’s book. That’s works for me, since I’ve read all the other books on the list save this one and The Shawl, which I’ve never even heard of before. At any rate, for Los Angeles, there are several events happening at Cal State LA tied into this book:
CSULA Display of Anaya Materials
A collection of author Rudolfo Anaya’s materials, including books and photographs, will be displayed. (Part of The Big Read outreach program with the L.A. County Public Library to coordinate community-wide reading celebrations centered on Anaya’s classic novel, “Bless Me, Ultima.”)
Kick-off event at East Los Angeles Library: (Sat., Mar. 15, 1-5 p.m.) Roberto Cantu to discuss “La Santa Tierra: Land, History, and The Sacred in Bless Me, Ultima by Rodulfo A. Anaya.”
JFK Memorial Library
Call JFK Memorial Library at (323) 343-3950 for more information.
Saturday, March 15, 2008 - Saturday, April 19, 2008 - Exhibit opens during Library hoursTheatrical Adaptation of “Bless Me, Ultima”
Adapted and directed by Professor Theresa Larkin with Alejandra Flores playing the role of Ultima. (Part of The Big Read outreach program with the L.A. County Public Library to coordinate community-wide reading celebrations centered on Rudolfo Anaya’s classic novel, “Bless Me, Ultima.”)
Music Hall
Call the Cal State L.A. Box Office at (323) 343-4118 for more information.
Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:00PMBook Discussion Group
Part of The Big Read outreach program with the L.A. County Public Library to coordinate community-wide reading celebrations centered on Rudolfo Anaya’s classic novel, “Bless Me, Ultima.”
Library North B530
Call JFK Memorial Library at (323) 343-3950 for more information.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:00PM - 1:00PMThe Big Read Finale Lecture
Roberto Cantu, professor of English and Chicano Studies at Cal State L.A., will present a lecture, “Narrative Cycles in Rudolfo A. Anaya’s novels, from Bless Me, Ultima (1972), to The Curse of the ChupaCabra (2006).” (Part of The Big Read outreach program with the L.A. County Public Library to coordinate community-wide reading celebrations.)
King Hall Lecture Hall 2
Call the JFK Memorial Library at (323) 343-3950 for more information.
Thursday, April 17, 2008 6:00PM - 8:00PM
Yeah, I know the hours and they’re not very worker bee-friendly. I hope there are some night-time book discussion events also happening.
Cultivating Livable Communities: Environment, Economy, and Equity March 17, 2008
One more email I got, this one is really short notice:
Los Angeles Marriott Downtown
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:30AM - 10:30AM
Under the umbrella of our Safe and Healthy Communities initiative, the Pat Brown Institute once again examines livable communities, bringing together a panel of experts to discuss a concept that is intrinsically related to democracy, prosperity and quality of life. From gridlock, absence of jobs, and environmental problems to inadequate access to cultural venues for exhibitions and performing arts, livability of a community can be diminished by its inadequate access to resources and services. This panel will assess the notion of ‘livable communities’ and offer roadmaps for achieving them.
This facility is accessible to people with disabilities. Please contact Tarren Alicia Lopez (tlopez@cslanet.calstatela.edu 323.343.3770) no later than Friday, March 14, 2008 to request a sign language interpreter.
For public transportation CLICK HERE
For driving directions CLICK HERE
Poverty Matters presents Jim Hightower March 17, 2008
I got another email:
Poverty Matters
Presents
An Evening with Jim Hightower
Best Selling Author, Fiery and Funny Public Speaker and
National Radio Commentator
Speaking and
Signing his new book
“Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow”
RSVP by clicking here
Monday March 24, 2008
7:30 pm
$10 Admission to benefit Poverty Matters
Location:
Immanuel Presbyterian Church
3300 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90010 (at Berendo - 2 blocks west of Vermont)
Metro Red Line Subway Stop: Wilshire/Vermont
$5 Parking available across the street at UTLA - 3303 Wilshire Blvd.
Media Sponsor 90.7 KPFK Radio
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Hightower is the author of seven books including:
“Theives in High Places: They’ve Stolen Our Country and It’s time to Take It Back”;
”If the Gods Had Wanted Us to Vote: They Would Have Given Us Candidates”
There is Nothing in the Middle of the Road Except Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos
For More information or to volunteer, please e-mail us at povertymatters@yahoo.com
If you cannot attend the event, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to Poverty Matters by clicking here
The City of LA celebrates Women History Month March 17, 2008
I got an email:
Women’s History Month Celebration
A program celebrating the California State Legislative
Month of Recognition
Thursday, March 20, 2008
6:30pm – 8:30pm
Honoring:
Sandra Evers-Manley, Hon. Judy Chu, Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker and Carolyn Webb de MaciasTo RSVP Contact Bobbie Anderson
(213) 744-2111For more information please click here!
Lost Madness March 17, 2008
Today, we hit the Sweet 16 in Lost Madness. Don’t forget to make your picks!
I have some things to do (read my newspaper and have coffee), but when I come back I’ll flesh this out…I’ve gotta say some of those matchups were hard!
******
Okay…so it took a day.
I should probably capture some screen shots, but this bracketing system really made no sense. When we started out, it was in groups: The Oceanic 815 Survivors, “Rescuers” and Deceased Oceanic Survivors*, The Others/Dharma and Other Crucial Players**
So we got matchups like: Sun vs. Jin, Ethan vs. Goodwin or Aaron vs. Vincent.
That’s right. The Washington Post pitted the baby against the damn dog. Now, I’m not a kid person or a dog person, but at least the dog has be integral to the story. The baby…whatever.
Bleech.
It was hard..I mean how the hell do you choose between Sawyer and Hurley? Why didn’t they do match ups like Patchy vs. Libby or Miles vs. Paolo?
At any rate, after the March 11th matchups, there were cries of foul. People in the comment section were mad that some characters were getting more votes.
stef_blazevski wrote:Im done here it’s clear that somebody is cheating a bigg time on the Jack vs Sayid and Kate vs Sawyer poll, Jack got like 700 votes in 20 minutes and Kate like 2000 votes in a two hours.3/16/2008 4:38 AM EDT
|
|
I don’t think there’s “cheating” going on. We tried to do the brackets and when we chose our characters, nothing happened. Usually, there’s a total after each to let you know percentage-wise how many votes that character received. So, we’d vote and nothing would happen. If we went back later, we could vote again. I don’t know if that means our votes counted twice, but that’s my view on this completely unimportant topic.
We learn the Final Four tomorrow (March 19th). It looks like our match ups will be: Sayid vs. Charlie and Ben vs. Desmond. Which is funny since there was a comment posted yesterday:
gadolfo wrote:I predict the final two will be Sahid and Desmond. Cool, the ones who are together on the boat!!3/17/2008 4:57 PM EDT
That is what it’s looking like, though I’m going to vote for Sayid and Ben.
******
*Does that even make sense?
**This last group was bullshit since they added in “Kevin Johnson” before we knew who he was.
Frustration March 15, 2008
Okay…it’s more like anger.
The running thing.
GRRRRRR.
The man sucks.
It’s nearly impossible to get out of the house because of him. Why? Because there are two toddlers here and he’s only awake between 1pm and 4am and most of that time he’s eating, working or dicking around. And dicking around and eating are very important to getting the working part done.
This morning, I got up to go running. The little boy felt a bit hot, so I was going to leave him here. Asked the Mr. if he’d stay up so that I can do this, I’d take the little girl with me. 8:30 rolls around and the man is on the sofa sleeping with baby boy cuddled up. Great. Only problem is that he was really and truly sleeping. I wasn’t going to leave baby boy with sleeping dad, so I got the kid ready and we left.
Got to the park and started walking, so far so good…started running, oh wait…the kids want to look at the swimming pool. Then they wanted to look at the baseball kids, the playground, the ducks, they lake…baby boy started picking friggin’ flowers. Not to mention the entire time Miss Diva whined and begged for stuff. 45 minutes later, I had run a total of 57 seconds. 57 seconds? We spent another 20 minutes at one of the playgrounds and then we came home.
I told him,”Dude, this is not going to work.”
Mumble-grumble, “What? I told you you could leave the boy with me.”
Pfffft. I asked him to get up so that I can go back to the park. “No.”
No.
He won’t even get up for 20 minutes.
Now…remember back when I say I’m surrounded by non-encouraging people? He’s their ringleader. I know this about him. I’ve always known this about him. I’m not asking for a “Good job, honey!” or even daily inquiries on what’s going on. I don’t need, nor want that–in fact, it would probably bug the crap out of me. What I need is for him to be helpful. What I need is for him to get out of my way.
About 6 or 7 years ago, unless it affected him directly, I pretty much stopped telling him my plans because of this, what I dramatically call, sabotage. He’s a perennial roadblock. You’d be amazed at how stuff he had been talking about for years all of a sudden gets Really Important To Get Done NOW when I’m in the middle of something. Actually, you probably have someone in your life like that. I’m lucky in that I can count 9 people I know in my life like that. It sucks when it’s a friend, it’s hard when it’s a relative, it super blows when you’re married to that person.
Well, I’m off to run the “track” I didn’t want in my tiny backyard. I love the part where I try to avoid poking my eye out on the lemon tree, running into the fence, and stepping my plants. I figured that 16 times around equals ~1/4 mile. Hey, he wanted the track for his cars and has used it maybe 9 times in the past year. It’s about time it gets some use.
Why being ‘green’ ain’t that easy March 14, 2008
I have to admit that I’ve been a bit distressed over the trendiness of being green. Visit any progressive-leaning blog/forum and people are laying out their green creds as if that’ll make them cooler on the intertubes. Some blogs even have people listing all the stuff they do to be green. On one hand, it is getting new information out there to wasteful polluters and may even change a few habits. On the other, it reeks of look-at-me-ness that borders on tacky. The one thing these new greenies fail to realize is that a lot of the stuff they do by choice, poor people around the world by necessity. I’m not knocking those people who have changed their habits to be friendlier to this sphere. I just hope there is more thinking involved instead of the bandwagon-hopping I’m witnessing. I always urge people to read the labels, make sure what they’re buying really is “organic” or “natural”. Which is why, when saw the headline: Popular ‘green’ products test positive for toxicant (registration needed) in the newspaper this morning, I called 6 of the products would be listed before I even read the article.
New tests of 100 “natural” and “organic” soaps, shampoos and other consumer products show that nearly half of them contained a cancer-causing chemical that is a byproduct of petrochemicals used in manufacturing.
Many items that tested positive for the carcinogen are well-known brands, including Kiss My Face, Alba, Seventh Generation and Nature’s Gate products, sold in retail stores across the nation.
It amuses me that after all the recalls we’ve had people still believe that the FDA and USDA are on the job keeping us safe. Maybe they don’t realized that back in ‘02 the Bush Administration relaxed the rules for what is “organic” at the behest of multinationals like Phillip-Morris, creating the USDA National Organic Program. (This goes along with rule relaxing for air polluters, dairy farmers and miners in 2001). The NOP even created a “seal of approval”. Personally, I try to stay away from those items unless I can verify. When I look to buy organic, I look for the OCIA seal or the CCOF seal, even though the USDA rules are making those labels go away. Otherwise, I do my research, both have search engines on their websites where you can check out a product to see if it’s “super-certified”. Or, I buy locally from growers and makers I trust.
Some organic company owners said it is deceptive for many products to be called natural when the carcinogenic compound indicates that petrochemicals are used in their manufacture.
No standards govern the words natural or organic for personal care products. But a few companies, including TerrEssentials, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and Sensibility Soaps Inc., which makes the Nourish brand, have certified their products as organic under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food standards.
“It makes it really difficult for us to communicate real organic when our little voice gets lost in this sea of products that are all claiming to meet the [USDA organic] standard when, in fact, they don’t,” said Diana Kaye, co-founder of TerrEssentials, a small Maryland company. All six TerrEssentials soaps and other products tested were free of 1,4-dioxane.
A mere glance at the labels of these products show that they’re not a green as they claim to be, but green enough for that USDA seal. For example, Seventh Generation lists all their ingredients on their website and that was enough to make me never by their products. In my mind, it’s impossible to have a cleaning agent that is purely organic unless it’s a lemon. I use method products. While they’re not organic (certified or otherwise), their products are derived from nature (check the ingredient lists) and the bonus is that their packaging is 100% biodegradable. I like the fact that most of the stuff in a method product is growing in my garden.
Most traditional soaps and shampoos contain 1,4-dioxane. But the discovery that the chemical is present in many housecleaning and personal care products, including some for babies, that are advertised as being natural, organic or “green” comes as somewhat of a surprise.
“For companies to knowingly or even carelessly put a carcinogen into commerce in this day and age is barbaric, I think, particularly products that have the moniker of natural or self-proclaimed ‘organic,’ ” said consumer advocate and author David Steinberg, who directed the study.
Now, this isn’t to be alarmist. Carcinogens have always been in a lot of stuff women use, especially in makeup and hygiene products. That’s old news and one of the main reasons I never got into wearing makeup (the other being that makeup application is a time sucker for me). Still, the past few decades have seen a decrease in these carcinogens and many companies have been making a concerted effort to move away from them, especially once it hits the news that they’re killing their customers. Luckily, there are a lot of natural skin care companies out there that aren’t owned by multinationals and sold at your local big box discounter. You’ll have to order online or go to your local farmer’s market or organic store, but they’re out there. Being a woman of color makes it a little harder, but luckily there are a lot of sisters out there who not only make organic makeup and skin care products, but they blend with skin tones from Nordic to Gobi to Sahara. This holds moreso for those of us in Los Angeles.
But while the article focuses on skin care and household cleaning products, please remember that the food you eat has also been “organic certified” with those relaxed standards. Horizon Organic immediately comes to mind. Horizon used to be a truly organic dairy farm. That is until it was bought by Dean Foods. Since then, the Horizon Organic brand that many people loved and trusted so many years ago, bears no resemblance to what is being sold in stores.
All I’m asking is that you take the time to educate yourself on what you’re putting in and on your body. Sure, it’s easier to watch TV or hope that someone tells you something, but even that’s asking for trouble. Look at all the misguided hoax emails that get passed around daily. Be wary that just because something says “natural” or “organic”, especially if it’s from a multinational, it most likely isn’t. It’s like those Lite and Low-fat labels. Most of those products have more sugars and/or sodium than the regular brand. It’s a balancing act. I don’t think it’s paramount to use organic products to clean your tub, hell some of tubs need to be nuked, but if you do, just make sure you’re getting what you pay for. The companies know that people have been conditioned to believe that using natural products means you have to pay more than if they dump a bunch of man-made chemicals in your stuff. If you’re gonna pay that $1 - $4 more, shouldn’t you get no chemicals?
It’s the Hillary Healthcare Hour! March 13, 2008
As The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve over at TPM said:
Damn, are they running out of money again?
That’s right…the Clinton’s hate you so much they begged for another debate. The Obama campaign, not be outdone said, “I see your Pennsylvania and raise you North Carolina.”
Two more debates.
22 debates total.
That’s ear-bleeding, zombie-turning dullness right there. If Clinton hijacks the debate with her healthcare plan again, I hope someone gongs her ass.
Okay, the only thing that can make this sadder is that the Pennsylvania debate will be brought to us by:
And the CBS debates will be moderated by…are you sitting down?
That’s right,”never trust a fake tan and a smile” is going moderate.
Can you say, “shoot me now” boys and girls? I knew you could.
Keith Olbmerann’s Special Comment. March 12, 2008
I just read Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on Ferraro’s remarks. Some highlights:
And when this despicable statement — ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts, and moronic in the historical context — when it floats outward from the Clinton Campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisors have their candidate do?
Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline… on Jackie Robinson day… about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barock Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of Affirmative Action plan?
[snip]No.
Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.
And she should then call, “regrettable”, words that should make any Democrat retch.
And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to ’stick to the issues,’ and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Senator Obama’s fault.
And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton’s campaign back into the vocabulary… of David Duke.“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.
“Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.
“How’s that?”
And…
This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.
Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.
Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.
Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.
Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee, and insist she will continue to speak.
Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former Congresswoman is speaking with your approval.
You must remedy this.
And you must… reject… and denounce… Geraldine Ferraro.
Yay. Keith spoke up. Rockin’!
Yet, as I read this I got pissed. Not only does it echo my previous post, but this little rant is bullshit, in that the media is complicit. As I posted to the New Hole “blog”:
Now, if only the other chatterboxes at MSNBC could see this point. I get that you all are about ratings and this drama only bumps them, but there should be repercussions. Schuster says something stupid and he’s suspended for two weeks. Buchanan says something stupid/racist almost every other time he’s on the air and he hasn’t beensuspended.
I get indignation. I get this. Heck, I posted something similar on my own blog earlier today…but it’s a little hard to take when you watch the same channel and see that MSNBC/NBC/GE as a whole is involved in this charade. That the people who are supposed to be bringing us unfiltered facts are spinning for their own benefit.
I don’t expect this comment, like so many of my others, to be approved, while the racist/sexist/xenophobic comments of the smaller brained users are approved. Still, I want you all to see that there are people watching and listening. You’re not absolved from this disgusting political climate we dwell in. You, yourselves are also “awash in this filth”.
Then I moseyed on over to Booman Tribune where there’s a post on the comment. Still upset, I posted:
I just read the Special Comment. Yeah, it was good, blah, blah, blah…didn’t say anything I didn’t post on my own blog earlier to day. Still, I’m mad. At MSNBC. At the media in general. This is their doing.
I know there are bigots. Bigots know that with a 24 hr. new cycle and so many 24 hr. news stations, that their bullshit will get amplified, spun, dissected and misdirected. They know that in a month, these pundits will act as if the whole thing was just a misunderstanding and that attacking that person (especially if they’re white) will become out of bounds. That’s why someone like Ferraro feels she can speak that way. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear,some time in late April, their pundits picking up the ball and running away with it, while chastising anyone (especially if they’re black) who dares insults Ferraro.
This is such a steaming load, ya know…When the people of Pennsylvania vote…we’re going to hear about this again. But the facts will be so twisted, it will be back to CrazyLand on TV. If Obama loses whites by anything more than 30%, those same pundits will ask, “Are white voters tired of the Obama campaign injecting race into these contests? Is this a reaction to Ferraro being drummed off the Clinton campaign.” No one’s going to remember Olbermann’s fucking Special Comment. No one’s going respond with the facts. They’ll pretend that the Obama campaign called for Obama’s head and that Clinton graciously responded.
Bleeech.
Liza responded clearly with the reason why I was mad:
It pisses me off that it take a white guy on a cable news show for people like us to be vindicated, but if it is a black woman pointing the obvious, she is just being a divisive and ‘reverse racist’ bitch.
OMG…someone in the liberal blogosphere who gets it! My reply:
I’ve been called that…I’ve gotten the doe eyes, “What racism?”…it’s enough to make me puke. And yes:
It pisses me off that it take a white guy on a cable news show for people like us to be vindicated
That is precisely why I’m steamed. I’ve sat here looking at accepted racism in the liberal blogosphere, had these morons tell me that I’m “being overly-sensitive” or that “maybe the person is having a bad day” or any other such bullshit, but let some white guy on TV tell them that something has crossed a line and it’s like blinders falling off.
And now, all those racists Democrats, and there’s no pretending that they don’t exist, have cover thanks to Ferraro and Clinton. I don’t ever want to hear another Clinton supporter who defended Ferraro’s remarks whine about sexism, real or perceived.
But I’m even more disgusted by people like Tubbs-Jones, Rangel, and Jackson Lee who just sat there and did nothing, said nothing. They could have stood up publicly and said, “This is not right, nor acceptable.”
They said nothing.
I’m an utterly disgusted with Democrats today.
I am done. I wrote a letter to the DNC today about this.
I would like to register my disappointment in the ugly turn the Democratic party has taken these past few weeks. I dmit freely to being an Obama supporter, though Dodd was my first choice.
The only reason I turned to Obama after Iowa was because of the race-baiting tactics from the Clinton’s campaign between July 2007 and Jan. 4, 2008.
That entire time, the party leaders were silent. They stood by why a fellow Senator and Democrat used right-wing talking points, to denigrate a candidate. As a black female, as a Muslim woman, Sen. Clinton’s antics were something I expect from someone like George Allen or Trent Lott.
I had hoped that after news reports mentioned that Bill Clinton has been “talked to” about his Southern Strategy, that we had seen the last of the race-baiting from the Clinton’s. I was wrong.
Geraldine Ferraro’s comments from last month and these past few days were not only out of bounds as Democrats,
but also as a functioning member of society. It pains me that the party I was raised in accepts these sorts of remarks.I’ve sat here for the past 3 days, wondering when a party leader would step in an speak up on behalf of the most loyal bloc of the Democratic party. There was nothing. I sat here the last day searching elected officials websites and local papers throughout this country, looking for something from some elected offical denouncing Ferraro’s remarks, chastising the Clinton’s for not taking a harder stance on her outdated and factually incorrect statements. The silence is deafening.
I receive a lot of requests for money from you guys. When I had money, I gave freely. I volunteer my time and energy to get Democrats elected. I make phone calls, I blog, I email. This is all going to stop as of today. Because today, I am not proud to call myself a Democrat. Today, I am ashamed, as a black person in the United States, to associate with a party where racist statements are simply “disagreed” with.
There’ll probably no more energy expended by me on behalf of the Democratic Party. I will continue to do what I can to get Sen. Obama in the White House. If the party decides to give the nomination to Clinton, then I will sit this year out. We Democrats are faced with the historic option of voting for a woman or a non-white male, come November. I’m unwilling to step into the gutter to vote for the former.
And I repeat myself… March 12, 2008
Can we please get some new black leadership?
Ben Smith at Politico give us this:
A Ferraro flashback
“If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race,” she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.
Here’s the full context:
Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his “radical” views, “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”
Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, “Millions of Americans have a point of view different from” Ferraro’s.
Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, “We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I’m making history.”
AMERCIAblog points out that back on Feb. 27th, Geraldine Ferraro said on FOX:
FERRARO: If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary?
If he were a woman…
GIBSON: You mean if he were John Edwards?
FERRARO: If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in, absolutely not.
GIBSON: Geraldine, are you playing the race card?
FERRARO: No, and that’s the problem. Every time you say the truth - I’m the first person, John, and you know how honest I am, I am the first person who will say in 1984 if my name were Gerard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked as the vice presidential candidate.
And most recently, in the Daily Breeze:
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
As we now know, Ferraro took her talking points to the Daily Breeze on Feb. 28th and made the same statement. For whatever reason, the Daily Breeze decided not to release that interview until recently. I’m sure it has nothing to do with hurting Clinton’s chances on March 4th. </sarcasm> Ferraro has now spent the last 2 days on FOX defending her comments. It is important to note that Ferraro is a FOX political contributor. She feels more than comfortable saying these things there, because that’s the sort of thing they say there.
I mention all this to make it clear that Ferraro does have a pattern of this brand of race-baiting. She can pretend that she’s not a bigot, but her statements make it hard to defend that stance.
That being said, I’m curious that not one of our so-called black leaders are denouncing this statement. Whether they support Obama or not, the statement is the height of intelligence insulting and race-baiting. It’s obvious that this is a dog-whistle fog horn to the supposed racists of Pennsylvania. I only wonder why the Clinton’s didn’t think it wouldn’t have worked in Ohio or Texas.
But there is something we’re not hearing. The silence is louder than the Hillbots psychotically blaming Obama for Ferraro’s statements (after all, how dare he be half-black!) . It’s the silence of all those black men and women we’ve elected for higher offices. It’s the lack of condemnation from people like Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Rep. John Conyers, Mayor Andrew Young, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Charles Rangel etc…Where is Tavis Smiley? Where is Julian Bond? Where is Maya Angelou? They’re all Clinton supporters and they’ve been strangely silent on this. One could only assume that they agree with the Clinton’s race-baiting. Or are they just being good House Negroes?
I do not wonder why the media is complicit in this.
In 2006, Harry Belafonte, who is a singer and has never held an elected office, praised Hugo Chavez. A few days later, Sen. Barack Obama was on some cable talkshow and the host actually asked Obama what his feelings on Belafonte’s statement was. Now follow me here…when that dude shot up Virginia Tech, did they trot out Jackie Chan, Margaret Cho or Sen. Daniel Inouye? White people are always shooting up places or kidnapping people, but you never see a white person on TV being asked to condemn the terrorist and to distance themselves and therefore the entire white race from the psycho.
Let’s do a little exercise. Let’s pick white people’s favorie boogeyman/codeword, Al Sharpton–keeping in mind that he is NOT and Obama surrogate or supporter–had gotten on TV. So Al Sharpton has an interview and says, “If Clinton was a man, she would not be in this position. And if she was a man (of any color) she would not be in this position. She happens to be very lucky to be who she is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
How fast do you think it would take for the Clinton’s campaign to insist that Sen. Obama “reject and denounce” thoses statements. How much time and ink would be spent by pundits and bloggers decrying Sharpton’s injecting of race in the campaign? How many black politicians would have been trotted out on TV to denounce Sharpton? How many times would Stephanie Tubbs-Jones would have had her black ass on TV playing Mammy to Clinton?
Can we please get some new black leadership?
ELECTION ‘08: MSNBC calls Mississippi for Obama March 11, 2008
That was fast. My TV’s been on for 3 minutes.
So…since there were black people and Clinton lost, Mississippi must be added to the contests that don’t count for Clinton.
There’s no numbers, so I guess they’re working off exit polls:
Vote by Party and Race
White Democrats (24%)
Clinton 74%
Obama 24%White Independents (13%)
Clinton 59%
Obama 39%Black Democrats (44%)
Clinton 10%
Obama 90%All Republicans (13%)
Clinton 78%
Obama 22%
So, you can see that even with whites overwhelming voting for Clinton, she still lost in MS. Did you see those Republican numbers? They want her as the nominee so bad.
| Democrats | Polls | County Results | ||||
| Candidate | Votes | % of votes | Delegates won | Projected winner |
| Barack Obama | 247,456 | 60% | 15 |  |
| Hillary Clinton | 153,745 | 37% | 12 | |
Unbelievable March 11, 2008
The things, you say
Your purple prose just gives you away
The things, you say
You’re unbelievable~EMF - Unbelievable
That’s the way I feel about Sen. Clinton and the Clinton’s campaign. That’s not to say that they’re liars (which I know they are), but I find their antics and “purple prose” simply unbelievable.
- I can’t understand how someone who’s had the media lapping up every single word of theirs complain that media doesn’t give them the right kind of attention.
- I don’t understand how someone who made a big stink about Sen. Obama “rejecting” Louis Farrakhan, not only presents a story that wasn’t true, but when one of their own well-known supporters makes a racist statement, she doesn’t “reject” her.
- I will not understand how someone who has spent the last 8 months smearing blacks and Muslims, can fake outrage on 3 week old factual flyers then say that the flyers are “Rovian”.
- I still don’t understand how someone can generate fake outrage at being called a ‘monster’, yet embrace having a national “comedy” sketch show call you a ‘bitch’.
If I didn’t pay attention to politics; didn’t blog, didn’t watch CSPAN, didn’t obsessively check national and local news agencies info and only saw this, I wouldn’t vote for Clinton. A couple of weeks ago, I read a post somewhere that said something like:
Clinton is like that girl on the playground who’d whine that the boys were being mean and ignoring her, but would turn around a kick them in the knees because she knows that boys can’t hit girls.
When I read that–as a woman–I flinched. Mostly because I had seen that girl and I had despised her with all my 8 year old heart. That girl made it harder for girls like me to get a fair shake on the playground. It wasn’t fun playing with the boys when that girl was around. They made sure they didn’t hit her too hard with the dodgeball or tag her out too often. Meanwhile other girls were either treated with kid gloves or hit even harder. I was hit harder.
In reading or hearing Clinton’s female surrogates and female reactions to Sen. Clinton and how the media treats her, I have a sense that we females are divided into these two camps of girls; those who whined and those who played on level with the boys. That is why Clinton can claim hurt and demand a resignation when Powers called her a monster, yet is unwilling to disavow comments made by former vice presidential candidate and Clinton superdelegate Geraldine Ferraro. Who said that Obama is only where he is because he’s black. That Clinton stands by the bigoted rhetoric of one of her more important superdelegates, speaks a lot about her, the type of campaign that is being run and what kind of presidency we’re get if she wins in November.
John McCain, who has no scruples, properly distanced himself from Rep. Steve King’s ugly remarks about Obama. That speaks to a larger issue of Clinton’s character. When David Shuster made his inappropriate remark about Chelsea Clinton, Sen. Obama was asked about it and spoke up for the Clinton’s. That’s despite all their race-baiting and insinuations of the previous months. Sen. Clinton has been eerily silent on Rep. King’s remarks. Not that we should expect more. In fact, the only time Clinton has disavowed a surrogates/endorser’s remarks has been when that person is a black person. Every other person has been given cover for their Clintonian talking points.
Sen. Clinton, your purple prose just gives you away. It’s unbelievable.
UPDATE:
The Clinton’s campaign has now accused the Obama campaign of “playing the race card” over Ferraro’s words. Same shit, different day. Didn’t we watch this movie in January? You know, back when Bill Clinton and their surrogates were dumping all kinds of racist buzzwords on airwaves and crazy-assed bloggers like SusanHu and Michelle Malkin Taylor Marsh were accusing the Obama campaign of playing the race card?
Mammy Maggie Williams memo said:
In January, NBC’s Tim Russert confronted Senator Barack Obama with a four page memo from his campaign characterizing statements they claimed the Clinton Campaign had made about race. Asked in hindsight whether he regretted pushing this story, Senator Obama said :
Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff, get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.”
We agreed then. We agree today. Supporters from both campaigns will get overzealous. Senator Clinton today reiterated that when asked about Geraldine Ferraro’s recent comments:
“I do not agree with that and you know it’s regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this focused on the issues. That’s what this campaign should be about.”
Senator Obama’s campaign staff seems to have forgotten his pledge. We have not. And, we reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people.
But you know…Geraldine Ferraro, who is still running her damn mouth, is still on the Clinton’s campaign’s staff so, they must agree with what she said.
But far from backing off from her initial remark, Ferraro defended it and elaborated on it.
“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”
No…um…I’m NOT going to call her that…no one’s attacking you because you’re white, you’re being attacked because you say bigoted stuff not even in the ballpark of reality.
She also said she is familiar with Axelrod from his work for minority candidates in New York.
“He knows damn well that the best thing to do in a situation like this is to come back and hit with race,” Ferraro said, adding that the response is a sign that the Obama campaign is “worried” about the first-term senator’s lack of experience.
[snip]
“Sexism is a bigger problem,” Ferraro argued. “It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.”
And I guess Geraldine Ferraro is going to make it her life’s work to make sure it’s OK to be racist.
I have just one thing to say to Ferraro:
ELECTION ‘08: Obama campaign challenges Clinton’s claims March 11, 2008
I just woke up the happiest post today. Over at TPM, Greg Sargent has posted a memo the Obama campaign has sent out regarding Sen. Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience. All that bullshit we’ve been listening to for the past 8 months, and we said, ‘Liar!’ he just tagged her on it. All of it. And brutally. I don’t expect our wonderful media to cover it because they want and need the Democratic drama to go on, cause ‘Dammit, people are engaged and that means ratings!’
The Obama campaign has always been quick to respond to criticisms, but more importantly, they’ve shown party loyalty. They don’t or won’t give the GOP ammunition against Clinton should she win the nomination. It’s just not the done thing. The Clinton’s don’t play for the Democrats, they play for themselves. That’s why when they started their “kitchen sink” strategy last week, it didn’t look strong, it didn’t make the campaign’s front look like “a fighter”, it made her look a little crazed and desperate. There’s was nothing strong from the last 3 weeks. And to make it worse, all of her claims were so easily debunked that you wondered just who was fooling who?
From former Clinton White House counsel Greg Craig:
There is no reason to believe…that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis…
Now that’s what most of us have been saying for the past year. One can assume the Obama campaign held back only because they didn’t want to give ammunition to GOP. Meanwhile, The Clinton’s, their surrogates and supporters concern-troll and say, “Well, he’s going to get much worse from the Republicans, so we’re testing him.” Whatever. Apparently, they never bothered to look up any information about Sen. Obama. And too be oh-so-concerned when Sen. Clinton has never had a serious Republican challenger in her short elected career is the height of hilarity.
The memo sent by the Obama campaign, is clear and concise. It hits all her claims of foreign policy experience and does it factually. Here it is:
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.
Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”
News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also att