Bill Clinton actually gave one of his fire-and-brimstone speeches like the one he gave for Hillary Clinton at the California State Democratic Convention. This means he feels it, and he's serious when he says he's behind Barack.
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Barack Obama Endorsed For President By Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton actually gave one of his fire-and-brimstone speeches like the one he gave for Hillary Clinton at the California State Democratic Convention. This means he feels it, and he's serious when he says he's behind Barack.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The Anti-Surprise
All day, we had been hearing rumors that Barack Obama would make an appearance at the convention tonight. So when he strolled out onto the stage, I can't say I was really surprised. Please, thrilled, excited, yes. Surprised? No.
The excitement and energy of Obama's appearance was exactly what this convention night needed, though. While Bill Clinton and John Kerry made very good speeches tonight and the overall energy in the hall was good, the Biden speech was a bit of a low point. Yes, he was strong on the issues, but he sort of lost the crowd when he went into foreign policy territory, only regaining them when he started doing what VPs are supposed to do: hit at the other candidate. The end of his speech did not create the sort of raucous convention hall environment that we certainly saw last night. Having Obama arrive, however, put the mildly energetic crowd into a frenzy and left everyone nigh foaming at the mouth for tomorrow night. Invesco should be a roaring good time.
The excitement and energy of Obama's appearance was exactly what this convention night needed, though. While Bill Clinton and John Kerry made very good speeches tonight and the overall energy in the hall was good, the Biden speech was a bit of a low point. Yes, he was strong on the issues, but he sort of lost the crowd when he went into foreign policy territory, only regaining them when he started doing what VPs are supposed to do: hit at the other candidate. The end of his speech did not create the sort of raucous convention hall environment that we certainly saw last night. Having Obama arrive, however, put the mildly energetic crowd into a frenzy and left everyone nigh foaming at the mouth for tomorrow night. Invesco should be a roaring good time.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
DNC Convention - Third Day In Denver; At Specialty Media Center
As I write this, I'm sitting at something called The Specialty Media Center, sponsored and ran by Microsoft. It's a simple affair, with tables chairs and a computer setup in the back. There are two couch stations with plasma screen televisions tuned to CNN. It's a great place to upload videos or -- as I'm doing -- install this blog report.
Right now, it's 12:25. I'm about to upload a video featuring Cornell West and Tavis Smiley -- in fact, I'll do that now -- then will go to a hotel to get a lost credit card and then Walgreens and then Pepsi Center. I'm also worry about one of our group who's basically flown off-course dramatically and hurtfully.
It's the drama you didn't expect and don't want.
But that aside, this convention is a blast. It's the combination of the Super Bowl and The Olympics at once. Over the past three days, two of them active, I've met more movers and shakers than I can shake a stick at: Ed Gordon, Cornell West, Steve Doocy, Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr., Steve Westy, Jamal Anserson, Protesters, and the list goes on.
Last night you may have see the Michelle Obama speech, and the wonderful exchange between she and her daughters, and Barack. The convention's buzzing about that.
Today, it's Hillary's turn.
Right now, it's 12:25. I'm about to upload a video featuring Cornell West and Tavis Smiley -- in fact, I'll do that now -- then will go to a hotel to get a lost credit card and then Walgreens and then Pepsi Center. I'm also worry about one of our group who's basically flown off-course dramatically and hurtfully.
It's the drama you didn't expect and don't want.
But that aside, this convention is a blast. It's the combination of the Super Bowl and The Olympics at once. Over the past three days, two of them active, I've met more movers and shakers than I can shake a stick at: Ed Gordon, Cornell West, Steve Doocy, Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr., Steve Westy, Jamal Anserson, Protesters, and the list goes on.
Last night you may have see the Michelle Obama speech, and the wonderful exchange between she and her daughters, and Barack. The convention's buzzing about that.
Today, it's Hillary's turn.
Rep. Jim Clyburn On The Clinton Legacy & Black America
At the Yahoo! Politico morning breakfast, I could think of no better person to talk to about the matter of the Clinton Legacy and Black America, than Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. Clyburn said that the speeches by both Clintons and Senator Obama would define their legacies.
Monday, August 25, 2008
News happens all over Denver during the DNC
While waiting for a cab to get to the action from one of the media hotels this morning, I met Wallace Williams, a long time Democratic Organizer who has campaigned with former President Bill Clinton in Mississippi, among his other extensive achievements.
Wallace cites President Clinton's speech as one of the key points of the entire convention. President Clinton has a nearly unmatched ability to connect with certain constituencies that are considered key to assembling a winning coalition of voters in November. He's looking for the former president to "hit it out of the park" during his time on the podium. Clinton and Obama have often been compared in terms of presence, charisma, and the talent that allows them to correct with a crowd in a way that makes many people in a crowd each feel that they are the personal target of the speech.
Williams sees Biden as an excellent choice for the Vice President. Asked if perhaps the choice of a candidate thought to be stronger in areas that Obama might lack experience, he dismissed the notion that it represents any sort of problem. Biden is a formidable campaigner with a great track record, his skill set and experience blend will with Obama's own and srenghten the ticket in the synergistic way that the voters have a right to expect from a modern presidential ticket.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
History favors McCain: Saddleback retrospective
McCain did talking points at the Saddleback forum, and he's been a known name since before becoming a household word during the Keating 5 scandal. Talking points worked for the Bush-Cheney campaign, so perhaps McCain did "win" the contest at Saddleback, as some pundits are espousing.
And McCain has decades of name recognition going for him, clearly.
Obama relied on candid answers during his Saddleback appearance, which may impress people more now that we've seen the result of 8 years with a talking point president that put the economy in a tailspin (not just for today but for whoever ends up paying for Bush's war,) but obviously many find it easier to be comfortable with the talking points style of politics.
When Bush ran against Kerry, the talking point approach was reinforced by unabashed attack politics, albeit largely handled by surrogates. It worked. The term "swiftboated" as a way to describe the effect of the lies on Kerry's outcome on election day is as recognizable in the lexicon as the overuse of a "-gate" suffix for something that brings down a major figure.
So the question becomes:
Will those who prefer talking point prepared and vetted by a politician's handlers turn out to vote in larger numbers in November, or will those who prefer a President they can believe, and trust?
People knew, back when Bill Clinton ran, that they couldn't actually trust what he said, based on "didn't inhale." They understood it to be a socially acceptable answer, but not the unvarnished truth. In fact, we expect our leaders to conceal certain things from us in the name of national security, so it was curiously reassuring. That "didn't inhale" response may have been the pivotal point in electing a man with only state-level experience to the Oval Office. Then, late in his term, President Clinton began quibbling over what terms such as "sexual relations" and "is" meant... and we got George W. Bush as the country reacted to Clinton's disingenuous, political responses when the subject was personal.
So, will celebrity, attack politics and talking points win? Despite my own preferences, and hopes, it will take a lot of people showing up on election day and expressing their true desire for a candid, honest form of politics to make that happen - and like it or not, history favors McCain. Still, I'll advocate on behalf of the outsider, Obama, and vote for him in November.
I don't blame all Republicans for the state of the economy and the debt we're facing. I might've been suckered by the doctored intelligence reports, myself, when it came time to vote on various Iraq issues, and I surely believed Colin Powell, who soldiered on dutifully for his Commander In Chief in front of the United Nations and the world. We goofed, frankly -- yet this remains the one place I want to live and raise my family.
I just think under the leadership we've had since 2000 that we've gone down bad paths, and I'm ready for a pragmatic, candid, visionary leader to take the U.S.A. in a new direction.
That, my friends, is the audacity of hope.
And McCain has decades of name recognition going for him, clearly.Obama relied on candid answers during his Saddleback appearance, which may impress people more now that we've seen the result of 8 years with a talking point president that put the economy in a tailspin (not just for today but for whoever ends up paying for Bush's war,) but obviously many find it easier to be comfortable with the talking points style of politics.
When Bush ran against Kerry, the talking point approach was reinforced by unabashed attack politics, albeit largely handled by surrogates. It worked. The term "swiftboated" as a way to describe the effect of the lies on Kerry's outcome on election day is as recognizable in the lexicon as the overuse of a "-gate" suffix for something that brings down a major figure.
So the question becomes:
Will those who prefer talking point prepared and vetted by a politician's handlers turn out to vote in larger numbers in November, or will those who prefer a President they can believe, and trust?
People knew, back when Bill Clinton ran, that they couldn't actually trust what he said, based on "didn't inhale." They understood it to be a socially acceptable answer, but not the unvarnished truth. In fact, we expect our leaders to conceal certain things from us in the name of national security, so it was curiously reassuring. That "didn't inhale" response may have been the pivotal point in electing a man with only state-level experience to the Oval Office. Then, late in his term, President Clinton began quibbling over what terms such as "sexual relations" and "is" meant... and we got George W. Bush as the country reacted to Clinton's disingenuous, political responses when the subject was personal.
So, will celebrity, attack politics and talking points win? Despite my own preferences, and hopes, it will take a lot of people showing up on election day and expressing their true desire for a candid, honest form of politics to make that happen - and like it or not, history favors McCain. Still, I'll advocate on behalf of the outsider, Obama, and vote for him in November.
I don't blame all Republicans for the state of the economy and the debt we're facing. I might've been suckered by the doctored intelligence reports, myself, when it came time to vote on various Iraq issues, and I surely believed Colin Powell, who soldiered on dutifully for his Commander In Chief in front of the United Nations and the world. We goofed, frankly -- yet this remains the one place I want to live and raise my family.
I just think under the leadership we've had since 2000 that we've gone down bad paths, and I'm ready for a pragmatic, candid, visionary leader to take the U.S.A. in a new direction.
That, my friends, is the audacity of hope.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Clinton Should Not Be In Nomination: Ignore P.U.M.A
Hillary Clinton Should Not Be In Nomination: Ignore P.U.M.A
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's name should not be put in nomination for the Democratic Presidential Nominee at the DNC Convention for several reasons. But before I state them, let me explain that I have supported the idea of an Obama / Clinton ticket for some time. But these reasons have caused me to be less enthusiastic about that, and to reject the idea of her name in the nomination process.
1) Senator Clinton lost the primary. For reasons that have been explored in depth, Senator Clinton lost the primary delegate race to Senator Barack Obama, and Senator Obama gained more popular votes than Senator Clinton.
2) I did not like the way Senator Clinton conducted herself after the end of the primary. At first, she was working for party unity, but did not rein in some of her supporters and did not have her husband former President Clinton fall in line and support Senator Obama 100 percent.
It's as if they were really cool as long as they though they had a chance for Hillary to be Vice President, but fell off the wagon when it seemed that was not going to be the case.
3) Senator Clinton did not rein in her former campaign spokesperson Howard Wolfson, who incorrectly stated that she would have won the Iowa Primary if Senator John Edwards had revealed his affair with Rielle Hunter then, instead of last week. But the fact is that after Edwards dropped about 80 percent of his delegates went to Obama and his staff was pressuring him to back Obama, which he did.
There's an idea that the number of anti-Obama Hillary people out there is equal in number to the pro-Obama Hillary people. That's really not true at all. We not only saw that was the case during the votes at the DNC Rules Committee meeting, but in a deep look at organizations like "Party Unity My Ass" or "P.U.M.A".
First, P.U.M.A's founder Darragh Murphy (pictured) has been a supporter of Senator John McCain, giving him $500. It's clear that when she has the money, she will back a Republican candidate. Her claim of posting a lawn sign for Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick aside, because it's a lawn sign and not cash, Murphy only contributed $250 more for a Democratic Candidate, Hillary Clinton, than for McCain.
The other person who's aligned with the P.U.M.A people is Will Brewer, who has a tendency of aligning himself with questionable people who are also in P.U.M.A.
For ezample there's Andy Martin and Webster Tarpley. Martin is the person who started the "Obama is Muslim" smear campaign. Tarpley is not a Democrat at all, but a Lyndon LaRouche supporter.
And Martin said to be an alledged Antisemite according to David Weigel .
(A charge Martin says is false and defaming in the same blog account.)
Brewer is also aligned with Harriet Christian, who showed her racism for the World to see in the now famous video clip included in my video commentary.
P.U.M.A is painted to be larger than it is. It only has a $50,000 budget as Murphy has reported on Hardball, not several million, and there's no evidence to claim over 2 million supporters. A P.U.M.A conference held on August 8th, 9th, and 10th, showed that only about 40 people came (count the number of name tags on the table then consider the size of the table an the people standing who have name-tags), even though they planned to draw over 250 people. When they did not meet that mark, the conference was booted from the original Marriot hotel and had to be moved to the Country Inn near Dulles Airport. (P.U.M.A. conference photo below from Rumproast)
Why -- as small as they are -- do we hear from groups like P.U.M.A? Because the mainstream media: the newspapers and the big three tv news networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC), and CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, have a vested interest in making the political race look like it's not a "done deal" and thus get you to watch more often.
So, they give people from P.U.M.A a platform, but the reality is that they're a divisive group that's not even part of the Democratic Party and has no business at the DNC Convention. They are to be ignored so we can get on with the business of growing the Democratic Party to victory in November.
Monday, June 30, 2008
On Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
This is my video blog on the need for Bill Clinton to be part of the Obama for America campaign effort. I feel that Obama can't win without President Clinton's support. But then the Clinton's have some image repair work to do and helping Barack's the best way to do it.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
What would a hope monger do?
Imagine a hope-monger came across the following in a search log:
"michelle obama" promiscuous
So obviously somebody is looking for dirt. All a hope monger has to do is describe the tactic in a blog entry, and include a few keywords, and suddenly there is both more awareness -- good press -- and just "more to sort through" for those who seek to attack the Obamas.
And the word promiscuous can have little or nothing to do with sexuality, obviously.
Promiscuous, for instance, is a song recorded by Nelly Furtado and Timbaland for Furtado's third album, Loose, in 2006.
It can also mean consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals, even confused, as in: "Throngs promiscuous strew the level green" (Alexander Pope)
Sometimes there's the looser meaning, "not selective" of a single class or person, as in: "Clinton was criticized for his promiscuous solicitation of campaign money." which was obviously intended to echo the crisis near the end of Bill Clinton's Presidency while discussing an unrelated topic.
Now... folks are obviously "panning the stream" to find evidence of deviance, or perversity, or anything of a sexual nature to use to cast aspersions on Michelle Obama.
This is your chance to be a hope monger, and add to the degree of difficulty for the smear mongers and those who seek to use divide and conquer political tactics a la Karl Rove. The more these words appear, the more the power of the search engines is diluted, and the more time the folks taking that approach spend reading what amazing people Senator Barack and Michelle Obama are.
"michelle obama" promiscuous
So obviously somebody is looking for dirt. All a hope monger has to do is describe the tactic in a blog entry, and include a few keywords, and suddenly there is both more awareness -- good press -- and just "more to sort through" for those who seek to attack the Obamas.
And the word promiscuous can have little or nothing to do with sexuality, obviously.
Promiscuous, for instance, is a song recorded by Nelly Furtado and Timbaland for Furtado's third album, Loose, in 2006.
It can also mean consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals, even confused, as in: "Throngs promiscuous strew the level green" (Alexander Pope)
Sometimes there's the looser meaning, "not selective" of a single class or person, as in: "Clinton was criticized for his promiscuous solicitation of campaign money." which was obviously intended to echo the crisis near the end of Bill Clinton's Presidency while discussing an unrelated topic.
Now... folks are obviously "panning the stream" to find evidence of deviance, or perversity, or anything of a sexual nature to use to cast aspersions on Michelle Obama.
This is your chance to be a hope monger, and add to the degree of difficulty for the smear mongers and those who seek to use divide and conquer political tactics a la Karl Rove. The more these words appear, the more the power of the search engines is diluted, and the more time the folks taking that approach spend reading what amazing people Senator Barack and Michelle Obama are.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
BET"s Bob Johnson Asks Jim Clyburn To Push For Obama Clinton Ticket, But Bill Clinton Cursed Clyburm!
I've got Fox News -- yes, Fox News, and specifically "Studio B with Shepard Smith" -- on now, and Smith's reporting that BET's Bob Johnson, an outspoken supporter of Hillary Clinton, has asked via letter to the office of South Carolina's Congressman Jim Clyburn, for Clyburn to push for an Obama / Clinton ticket.
Here's the problem.
Just a over a month ago, former President Bill Clinton, Hil's hubby and that famously tempermental campaigner, lost it with Clyburn and according to the Wall Street Journal cursed at him, thus pushing Clyburn to be even more outspoken in his opposition to the campaign tactics of the Clintons, and to eventually endorse Senator Obama for President.
So why the hell would Clyburn want to walk down the road of essentially helping the Clintons? And Clinton supporters flooding Clyburn's office with racist hate-calls certainly doesn't help at all.
Both Bill and Hillary have to learn to be humble here. As I just wrote, their Populaometer's at an all time low. Time to appologize to Clyburn and fall behind Senator Obama.
Here's the problem.
Just a over a month ago, former President Bill Clinton, Hil's hubby and that famously tempermental campaigner, lost it with Clyburn and according to the Wall Street Journal cursed at him, thus pushing Clyburn to be even more outspoken in his opposition to the campaign tactics of the Clintons, and to eventually endorse Senator Obama for President.
So why the hell would Clyburn want to walk down the road of essentially helping the Clintons? And Clinton supporters flooding Clyburn's office with racist hate-calls certainly doesn't help at all.
Both Bill and Hillary have to learn to be humble here. As I just wrote, their Populaometer's at an all time low. Time to appologize to Clyburn and fall behind Senator Obama.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Hillary Clinton Off Deep End: Blames Obama For Her RFK Assassination Gaffe
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton simply must either get out of the presidential race or be forced out. Just three days after her gaffe heard 'round the World, Clinton expressed the total nerve to blame Senator Barack Obama and his staff -- himself who was the unfortunate "target" of her not-too-hidden idea that the possibility of his assassination in June was a good reason to stay in the race -- is now blaming Obama for her sick comments.
This after Obama accepted her apology without fanfare.
No kidding. Clinton's charge is that Obama and staff -- rather than the NY Post or Keith Olbermann at NBC -- ran with this story and fanned its flames. Wow.
Instead of letting her appology stand, Clinton and her staff have decided to act like a wounded animal backed into a corner, and are now lashing out recklessly. The one best way to end this really is for uncommitted Superdelegates to come out and give Obama the 49 delegates he needs as of this writing to close this campaign.
Enough is enough.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary Is 44 Website Blind To Clinton RFK Assassination GaffeGate Scandal
Yes, I'm calling it GaffeGate because you've got to wonder who walked into Senator Clinton's head and stole her brain! That's the only way she could have even let the now famous words escape her mouth:
But while the whole world is scratching its collective head over Senator Clinton's open connection of Bobby Kennedy's assassination to present day, and by reference Senator Obama and when she would get out of the presidential race, the pro-Clinton website "Hillary Is 44" acts like the matter never happened.
Wild.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
But while the whole world is scratching its collective head over Senator Clinton's open connection of Bobby Kennedy's assassination to present day, and by reference Senator Obama and when she would get out of the presidential race, the pro-Clinton website "Hillary Is 44" acts like the matter never happened.
Wild.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Bill Clinton Argues With West Virginian Voter Over Health Care - Video
Well, here's Bill Clinton fighting again and this time with a West Virginia voter who turned out to be an Obama supporter and who dared take on the former President at a rally yesterday. Clinton always seems like he's itching for a fight in situations where his speech is interrupted by a heckler, and where Senator Obama just goes right on talking, Bill stops his entire speech to enter a confrontation.
I used to think this was part of some weird strategy but now I think it's just Bill being a meany. See, President Clinton's done a lot for a lot of people and so he has to -- to a degree -- run on his Presidency all over again and almost as if he's running for a third term. In his mind we should remember all that he has done and we should think of Senator Clinton as by extension to his administration. And more to the point, we all should be grateful.
But all are not. Well, it's not so much that as people do remember that Bill and Hillary didn't succeed in passing health care reform and then did kind of give up on it. But Bill's having none of that. Coupled with the face of losing to Senator Obama for the Presidential Race and a drying well of donors -- or more to the point, seeing his wife lose the race and money -- Bill had to lash out at someone. And so he did:
But it's not what they need at this time. Of course, as an Obama supporter myself I watch with glee, but also with some sadness because I thought Senator Clinton would make a great VP choice, but now I'm reconsidering. Not sold on Jim Webb - yet.
I used to think this was part of some weird strategy but now I think it's just Bill being a meany. See, President Clinton's done a lot for a lot of people and so he has to -- to a degree -- run on his Presidency all over again and almost as if he's running for a third term. In his mind we should remember all that he has done and we should think of Senator Clinton as by extension to his administration. And more to the point, we all should be grateful.
But all are not. Well, it's not so much that as people do remember that Bill and Hillary didn't succeed in passing health care reform and then did kind of give up on it. But Bill's having none of that. Coupled with the face of losing to Senator Obama for the Presidential Race and a drying well of donors -- or more to the point, seeing his wife lose the race and money -- Bill had to lash out at someone. And so he did:
But it's not what they need at this time. Of course, as an Obama supporter myself I watch with glee, but also with some sadness because I thought Senator Clinton would make a great VP choice, but now I'm reconsidering. Not sold on Jim Webb - yet.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Barack Obama , Rev Wright and My Iron Man Suit
I thank the SF Chronicle's Editorial Page editor John Diaz for the chance to write the essay below that appears in the Sunday May 4th edition of "Sunday Insight" and is below this video:
I've been a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama for president for 17 months, and one large reason is that he's like me. We share the same Aug. 4 birthday, and have walked similar paths of racial discovery.
Both of us have carved out our niche as individuals able to walk in different circles and still be ourselves. That's not easy; it comes as those around you tell you what they think your "place" in life should be. It's no wonder that I felt violated by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's National Press Club speech, as much as Obama did.
Wright made me put on my Iron Man suit again.
My Iron Man suit is a carefully constructed armor I created when I was a 6-year-old boy on the predominantly black South Side of Chicago to protect me from the other kids in the neighborhood. See, to them, I was not "black" - I talked "white" and was "smart." I didn't fight or play basketball - and didn't want to - but those were the prerequisites for popularity at the time.
The suit was my knowledge of everything from politics to Chicago architecture to airplanes and cars and "Star Trek." My suit allowed me to tune out those who said "you need to act black to be black."
The Iron Man suit was also used to protect me from anyone white who thought I should fit a common black stereotype. My Iron Man suit has "Repulsor Rays" I use to shoot "protons" of knowledge to prove I was smarter than anyone else in the room. I used the suit to judge anyone as being less intelligent than me if they didn't have a diverse base of friends - if all they had were, for example, white friends.
But a funny thing happened as I grew up. American culture changed such that I needed my suit less and less. More people accepted me as an individual. American pop culture became more diverse. There were more interracial relationships, and no one seemed to care. The guy who runs American Express was black - still is.
But the best thing was that no one was telling me my place; I'd successfully defined it and society - through generational change - kind of "caught up" to me. Or so I thought.
One problem remains, and Barack's dealing with it. In being the first African American who's one step closer to the Most Powerful Job in The World than any black person before him, Obama is faced not just with doing something "blacks don't do" but with upsetting people who wish he would know "his place."
This "placeism" that Barack and I have had to battle with has come back in the face of Wright and yes, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who worked to remind us that whatever we do, we're still just black.
Both represent the old generation. Hey, so does my mom, and I love her to death. She has struggled for years to get me to take off the suit, and finally gave up.
Mom totally understood Wright's anger, but knows why I have the suit, too.
I don't think Wright's outcry came from a desire to show up Barack, but to scream "Hey. I'm black and proud! You're not going to define me!"
What I didn't like - and got into an argument with my mom about - was that Wright didn't think about success for African Americans of the younger generation like Barack or myself; Wright was consumed with his anger.
And in expressing his anger - in his choice to show his "blackness" and insult Barack's integrity - he made me put my suit on. I think mom realized where I was coming from before I went into full suit mode. She's on my side now.
I resent anyone telling me what kind of black person I should be. I will turn away if one says that I'm the only black person in the room. I don't like it when someone works to wreck the success of a black person just because that person's not "stereotypically black." In my view, that's what Wright did and he owes Obama, and me, an apology.
I've been a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama for president for 17 months, and one large reason is that he's like me. We share the same Aug. 4 birthday, and have walked similar paths of racial discovery.
Both of us have carved out our niche as individuals able to walk in different circles and still be ourselves. That's not easy; it comes as those around you tell you what they think your "place" in life should be. It's no wonder that I felt violated by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's National Press Club speech, as much as Obama did.
Wright made me put on my Iron Man suit again.
My Iron Man suit is a carefully constructed armor I created when I was a 6-year-old boy on the predominantly black South Side of Chicago to protect me from the other kids in the neighborhood. See, to them, I was not "black" - I talked "white" and was "smart." I didn't fight or play basketball - and didn't want to - but those were the prerequisites for popularity at the time.
The suit was my knowledge of everything from politics to Chicago architecture to airplanes and cars and "Star Trek." My suit allowed me to tune out those who said "you need to act black to be black."
The Iron Man suit was also used to protect me from anyone white who thought I should fit a common black stereotype. My Iron Man suit has "Repulsor Rays" I use to shoot "protons" of knowledge to prove I was smarter than anyone else in the room. I used the suit to judge anyone as being less intelligent than me if they didn't have a diverse base of friends - if all they had were, for example, white friends.
But a funny thing happened as I grew up. American culture changed such that I needed my suit less and less. More people accepted me as an individual. American pop culture became more diverse. There were more interracial relationships, and no one seemed to care. The guy who runs American Express was black - still is.
But the best thing was that no one was telling me my place; I'd successfully defined it and society - through generational change - kind of "caught up" to me. Or so I thought.
One problem remains, and Barack's dealing with it. In being the first African American who's one step closer to the Most Powerful Job in The World than any black person before him, Obama is faced not just with doing something "blacks don't do" but with upsetting people who wish he would know "his place."
This "placeism" that Barack and I have had to battle with has come back in the face of Wright and yes, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who worked to remind us that whatever we do, we're still just black.
Both represent the old generation. Hey, so does my mom, and I love her to death. She has struggled for years to get me to take off the suit, and finally gave up.
Mom totally understood Wright's anger, but knows why I have the suit, too.
I don't think Wright's outcry came from a desire to show up Barack, but to scream "Hey. I'm black and proud! You're not going to define me!"
What I didn't like - and got into an argument with my mom about - was that Wright didn't think about success for African Americans of the younger generation like Barack or myself; Wright was consumed with his anger.
And in expressing his anger - in his choice to show his "blackness" and insult Barack's integrity - he made me put my suit on. I think mom realized where I was coming from before I went into full suit mode. She's on my side now.
I resent anyone telling me what kind of black person I should be. I will turn away if one says that I'm the only black person in the room. I don't like it when someone works to wreck the success of a black person just because that person's not "stereotypically black." In my view, that's what Wright did and he owes Obama, and me, an apology.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
INDIANA INSULTED BY KANTOR - HE DID SAY THEY ARE "SHIT"
Ok, I've went back and forth on this one, but the official word on the street is, yes, Clinton campaign advisor and then (1993) campaign head Mickey Kantor did insult the people of Indiana in the movie "The War Room", and while we can't -- I certainly can't -- make out the whisper, it's clear that he did call them "shit."
This was revealed in the Washington Post today and before that the story spread like wildfire in the brush of the Internet and then finally hit the mainstream media, though for some irresponsible reason CNN's not mentioned the matter, which just goes to show what lengths they'll go to to protect Senator Clinton.
This was revealed in the Washington Post today and before that the story spread like wildfire in the brush of the Internet and then finally hit the mainstream media, though for some irresponsible reason CNN's not mentioned the matter, which just goes to show what lengths they'll go to to protect Senator Clinton.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Clinton Aide Kantor Video Was Doctored - Kantor Did Not Make Statement
I just listened to the video that was the source of the first video out and around the Internet which said that Mickey Kantor called Indiana people "White Niggers".
After further review, he did not say it.
Here's the actual video from the movie "The War Room":
Mickey is saying that "they're shitty," and it seems he's referring to pollsters, and not people in Indiana. Then he does say "How would you like to be, but then the rest is not even audible. It would have to be doctored to have one be able to hear him say the words "White Nigger."
As far as I'm concerned, Mickey is owed an apology by bloggers like me. Sorry Mickey.
After further review, he did not say it.
Here's the actual video from the movie "The War Room":
Mickey is saying that "they're shitty," and it seems he's referring to pollsters, and not people in Indiana. Then he does say "How would you like to be, but then the rest is not even audible. It would have to be doctored to have one be able to hear him say the words "White Nigger."
As far as I'm concerned, Mickey is owed an apology by bloggers like me. Sorry Mickey.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Hillary Clinton Lies Again! ABC's Jack Tapper Exposes Iraq Lie
ABC News; Jack Tapper has a online space called "Political Punch" and where Tapper reveals yet another Clinton lie. This one on who spoke out against the Iraq War first after 2005, his first Senate year. She says she did, but Tapper shows that Obama did. Read on..
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."
Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."
**
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.
Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."
"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."
Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
**
That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline would be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.
The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush’s rationale for the Iraq invasion. ’I didn’t see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn’t think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.'"
Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said a representative of the hospital.
The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy, and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."
This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted that she "misspoke."
- jpt
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."
Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."
**
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.
Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."
"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."
Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
**
That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline would be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.
The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush’s rationale for the Iraq invasion. ’I didn’t see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn’t think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.'"
Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said a representative of the hospital.
The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy, and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."
This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted that she "misspoke."
- jpt
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Clinton Swift-Boats Herself: Clinton Lies, Mistruths Nasty Pattern
Clinton Lies And Mistruths Are Nasty Pattern: Health Care and NC
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just two weeks from a nasty storm of criticism on the heels of the disclosure that she lied about a trip to Bosnia she made as First Lady, faces a brand new problem of truth regarding an area that was her strength, health care. Then, just today as well, it was disclosed that Clinton is telling lies about Senator Obama's committment to North Carolina.
The Clinton Lies just keep coming.
According to the New York Times, Senator Clinton has crossed the country on her campaign tour, recounting a story of an Ohio woman who was denied health care for an illness that eventually took her life. Well, it turns out that the woman was not only not refused care, but had health insurance as well.
Bloggers are calling this a lie.
And CNN has the story on it's "Ballot Bowl" telecast:
Now the problem with the video is that Senator Clinton tells this story with a great deal of detail, and that the entire CNN segment makes Senator Clinton look bad, even as the CNN anchor's try to "balance" it out.
While this does not seem to count as a "lie" it certainly points to a lack of fact-checking on the campaign's part. They don't follow the Obama rule, which seems to be to talk in general terms and use the names of the people you know -- and make sure you know them.
What this story does is totally wreck whatever credibility Clinton and her staff had. Bloggers are already referring to this as "a lie" because of Clinton's Bosnia error, and it comes at the same day that Clinton is accused of lying about Barack Obama in North Carolina.
Eventually, no one will believe anything Clinton says at all.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Factor military duty into criticism, Mr. Limbaugh. Did you volunteer, Mr. O'Reilly?
Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as Jeremiah Wright, received five (5) military service deferments, four for being a student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968.In 1961, amid an increasingly turbulent time in this country, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," Wright gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the recently integrated U.S. Marine Corps. Remember, it was not until the spring of 1968 that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. All men may have been created equal, but in the U.S. in the 60s there was little assuring they would be afforded equal rights in most places.
Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?
How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many.
While words do count, as Lawrence Korb and Ian Moss point out in the April 3rd piece in the Chicago Trib after looking into Jeremiah Wright's history, so do actions.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
President Bill Clinton Hugged By Hot Blonde In Mosh-Pit After Speech
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/04/president-bill-clinton-hugged-by-hot.html - President Bill Clinton came to the California State Democratic Convention on Sunday, March 30th to give a speech in support of his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton as she works to add more Superdelegates to her side. After an excellent speech, President Clinton came down to the floor to greet the crowd.
As I went over to get a video of his action, and as he made his way toward where I was standing, a Blonde woman bulled past me and got to a place where she was right in front of him and proceeded to give him a hard, long (considering the time), and passionate hug. I have no idea who she was as by the time she did this, I was being pushed by a growing crowd of people behind me who were trying to get closer to Clinton. It was a wild scene.
But the whole sight of the Blonde made me think of the Monica Lewinsky matter. Not because of the hug -- I am sure that happens a lot -- but the way she hugged him, and his response, which was that he not only didn't turn away, but seemed more than a bit "pleased" by the event.
Now, the woman called for her husband "Eric" who was no where to be seen and could not have easily got in to see Bill as it was totally slammed. So maybe she's just an excited fan?
I also note that they continued to talk after the hug. Well check out the video for yourself.
Were it not for Bill's reputation and the fact that he's married to the Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, the video may not be such a big deal. But I can't change history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)