Senator Harry Reid: ‘I don’t work for Obama’

More at TheHill.com: “Democrats must be “very, very careful” to avoid overreaching and will not rubber-stamp President-elect Obama’s policies, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday.

In an interview with The Hill, Reid said it is essential for Obama and congressional Democrats to work closely with Republicans in the new Congress. He added that 2009 is very different from 1993, the last time Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House.

Back then, Reid said, Democrats had controlled the House for decades and behaved as though the opposition did not exist. This time around, their recent stint in the minority would give them a commitment to bipartisanship.

“Even though we’re one short of 60 [senators in the Democratic Conference], I don’t want to ever have to depend on cloture,” Reid said. “We may have to do that, but it will be with the support of a few Republicans.”

Reid, who lambasted the GOP-led Congress for being a rubber stamp for President Bush, indicated that he will not bow to the Obama administration.

Reid stated, “I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government.”

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.”

Roland Burris Ego On Display In Washington D.C.

More at chicagotribune.com: “WASHINGTON - Roland Burris and Democratic Party leaders headed toward a symbolic showdown at the door of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday as the former Illinois attorney general presses his claim to a disputed seat.

Burris said in an interview Monday evening that he intends to try to walk onto the Senate floor to be sworn in with incoming senators when the Senate convenes Tuesday despite declarations from party leaders that they will prevent the 71-year-old, longtime politician from entering the legislative body's ornate chamber.

The imagery of authorities stopping a graying African-American man at the threshold of political power promises to be a moment of high drama in a controversy that has joined the complicated politics of race with the sensational corruption scandal swirling around Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The governor, undeterred by criminal charges that he sought to sell the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, picked Burris last week.”

-- I can't understand the ego of a man like Roland Burris, who knows damn well he's not going to be confirmed or accepted by the Senate and is just opening up a major can of worms. Burris can't be that stupid, which leads me to think something else is up. What, I don't know.

What bothers me even more is that Burris seems to be doing it in the face of his "good friend" as he put it President-Elect Barack Obama. If he were Obama's good friend, he'd have elected not to be Blagojevich's designated selection. Something's afoot.

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.

Washington Post Gets What Charles Krauthammer Missed: Obama Is American Symbol

A week or so back, I got after conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer for missing the fact that Barack Obama is a symbol of America and what's possible here. I wrote:

You miss what leadership is about. Your column demonstrates that your don't get it. And it shows that you don't know or intellectually understand what kind of role the President of the United States serves. That person is considered this: LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.

Do you understand? Ok. I'll repeat it.

LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.

That means to most people, the SYMBOL of freedom. That is what Senator Obama represents to many. To ho-hum or sigh or cringe at the presentation of this mear fact is to show a true ignorance of the intense desire many people in the World have to rid ourselves of the true mentail illness that is racism.

Charles. The bell's ringing. Time to get with the program.

Now it seems the Washington Post understands. Reporting this in the form of an article, the Post explains that Obama is a person who for others have become a symbol for America.

DNC Youth Council Events At DNC Convention

I found this interesting bit of information over at DemNotes blogsite:

There will be a few events during the week hosted by the Youth Council. On the Monday of the National Convention, the Youth Council will host a press conference about youth issues.

Tuesday will feature a “Youth Voting Panel” with some key national figures discussing youth voting issues.

Wednesday evening, the Youth Council will host a Youth Watch Party in Denver for those unable to access the Pepsi Center.

Thursday, the Youth Council will host a “youth luncheon” featuring key national speakers to be announced.

These events are generally free and open to the public, but folks under age 36 (in other words, not me) can get priority reserved VIP tickets to these events and the acceptance speech at Invesco Field by donating $150 to help cover the costs of these events. If you’re interested (note that higher-level packages are also available for sponsorships), e-mail the Youth Council at: youthcouncil@dnc.org.

DNC Convention: What To Do In Denver - Video

Denver dwellers have made a blogsite and this video to tell tourists what they should do in Denver while they're here for the DNC Convention.

Senator Ted Kennedy Returns To The Senate

Senator Ted Kennedy Returns To The Senate

Senator Ted Kennedy, courageously battling terminal brain cancer, returned to his Senate duties and in the process displayed his uncanny knack for great political timing. Recognizing that his vote would not only break a tie in the overall voting for a bil preventing a six percent cut in Medicare, but perhaps bring some Republicans over to the Democratic Side, Kennedy made the trip to Capitol Hill, and was given a war hero's welcome.

I can't wait to see him at the Democratic National Convention. You just know he's excited to appear before this grand stage.

John Russo | Zennie Interview | Russo On Oakland, Obama VP, Raiders

I met with Oakland's elected City Attorney and my friend John Russo the day after election day to talk about his unopposed win for a third term, how Oakland has changed, Oakland Politics and the District Three Council race, who Senator Obama should pick as his VP, what Russo's is proudest of with the evolution of his office, and the talks between the City of Oakland and the Oakland Raiders.

Russo explains that the talks are between the Raiders and the Oakland / Alameda County Joint Powers Authority and that they're going well. He also confirmed that Raiders Manager of The General Partner Al Davis is not in good health and has not attended all of the meeting. As to the possibility that the Raiders would get a new stadium, he said no, but they're in agreement on the matters of concern to the Raiders.

Given what I know from trying to bring the 2005 Super Bowl to Oakland (we lost to Jacksonville), that means we should expect to see an upgraded Coliseum at some point in the future.

What was surprising news was that the Raiders were the party that initiated the talks, and not the City of Oakland or The County of Alameda. I personally feel that's a signal of the Raiders new willingness to work with the City and stay in Oakland.

Also, we talk about why he ran unopposed and how Oakland's political landscape has changed.

Clinton to Officially Quit Running For President Friday - New York Pushed Clinton To Concede

Hey, I thought she quit running for President yesterday! But it's being reported that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will officially end her run for President of the United States Friday, as Senator Barack Obama's clinched the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.

Reportedly, Senator Clinton was pressured by two groups: the New York political delegation, lead by the legendary Representative Charlie Rangle, who said that Hillary Clinton left the New York group in a kind of confusing position. He also said that Clinton could have been far more generous in her speech. That he said this publicly and has been a supporter of hers spoke volumes. Here's the video:



There's also a feeling with some New Yorkers that Hillary Clinton is being offered a special cabinet position in the Obama Administration, but also a feeling expressed by one person that New Yorkers were "used." This is what I found at the Long Island Nassau Suffolk County New York Political Forum:

Its was all part of a greater agenda to get back to Washington DC. (whether its successful, remains to be seen). Hillary used NYers. We gave her a Senate seat, we gave her lots of money and attention. She did nothing for upstate, nothing for Long Island, and sucked lots of money out of the metro area for her Senate and presidential runs.

What this is all about:
Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

She becomes part of Obama's cabinet, abandons her Senate seat, and moves back to Washington DC fulltime.

So, how does it feel, million dollar donors, successful moneymen, getting f**ked without even being kissed. All that to know a Cabinet secretary.

But, wait....she thinks Obama can't win, so she may still be stuck here. What is plan B?

Charles Barron, Democratic New York City Councilmember and long a New York political player says that Obama should not select Clinton as VP and was also disappointed in Hillary's speech; he favors Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and talks to us about her and other views regarding Obama in this video:

"Factcheck" On Obama and Oil Industry Is Pure Bullshit

My letter to FactCheck.org editor Lori Robertson on Obama and Oil Industry

Title: "Factcheck" On Obama and Oil Industry Is Pure Bullshit

Dear Editor,

I read your writers' article that claims to be a fact check on Senator Barack Obama and the oil industry. This crap you had your writers issue is the biggest -- well near biggest -- bunch of bullshit I've ever read.

If you look at the millions of donors to any political campaign who are employed, say, with bars or restaurants or how about strip clubs, you could say "Senator X has the support of the bar and porn industry" which of course would be total crap because the formal organizations and PACs of those industries may not have even taken a position. Moreover, an employee can and often does take a position opposite that of the company itself. You should know this; if you admit you do, then such a statement automatically negates the legitimacy of your work.

To then "use" -- which is what you've done -- a persons employment as the basis for a smear-job is totally unprofessional and unethical. In point of fact you've proven nothing at all -- except that you have a bias against Senator Obama.

Correct this -- please.

Thanks,

--
Zennie Abraham, Jr.
Chairman and CEO
http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com
Sports Business Simulations
510-387-9809
SBS Online Marketing at http://www.sbson.com

Gov Bill Richardson v. James Carville A Warning To Superdelegates

Gov. Bill Richardson v. James Carville A Warning To Superdelegates

In a timely op-ed in the Monday Washington Post, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson reveals that is call to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to report that he'd endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President was "heated" but did not give more details.

Richardson was writing to report his displeasure with the "personal" attacks Clinton supporter and CNN Commentator James Carville has exacted on him after Richardson endorsed Obama.

In words he did not back away from, Carville compared Richardson to Judas for the act of backing Obama. But in his op-ed, Richardson hit a home-run of a point: neither the Clintons nor their backers and supporters leveled such attacks on Richardson when he opposed Sen. Clinton in the Presidential campaign race.

In all, in my view, this episode has revealed the worst aspects of the Clinton campaign. While Carville says it's personal because of the jobs Richardson had done for President Clinton, the simple fact is that there are a number of elected officials who owe some "debt" to the Clintons. I don't know who has "paid their debt" but it's got to give any Superdelegate in that position pause to see how Richardson was treated by the Clinton Campaign.

This could cause more undeclared Superdelegates to go for Obama over the next few weeks.

Stay tuned.

Congressman Jerry McNerney On Iraq, Presidential Race

At the California State Democratic Convention, Congressman Jerry McNerney took a small bit of time to talk with me about the Iraq War and the Presidential Race. He's an uncommitted Superdelegate and as such I tried to get him to explain who he was leaning to and what his criteria were for selection, but he didn't answer that, preferring to focus instead on his reelection campaign.

Republicans Have More Sex Than Democrats - Playboy And UPI.Com

This is a test of the Sexual Broadcast System...

I'm serious. That's what the study reads and it means that Democrats, with all of the worries of the American World on their shoulders, just aren't as horny as they should be, whereas Republicans, carring only about bombing the enemy, have more time to get sexual.

Look, I'm a Democrat, but the study doesn't speak for me. Playboy commissioned the study, which also reports...

that it was done by pollster Frank Luntz, conducted exclusively for Playboy magazine, and found that 25 percent of all Republicans and 35 percent of all Democrats have had more than 10 sexual partners in their lifetime.

The survey of 900 registered U.S. voters between the ages of 18 and 65, all of whom are very likely to vote in the 2008 presidential election, also found, on average, Republicans say they were 18.4 years old when they first had sex, Independents say 17.6 and Democrats say 17.5, the survey said.

Fifty-five percent of people who attend church every week consider themselves to be "sexually adventurous," while 51 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats have watched pornography with their sexual partners.

Americans belonging to both parties say they are more turned on by intelligence than by physical appearance, yet 23 percent of all Republicans and 24 percent of all Democrats would "definitely" or "probably" say yes to a one-night stand in the oval office with a president they found physically and sexually attractive.

Now if you compare that with the recent (as of this writing) ABC polls showing women preferring Senator Obama over Senator Clinton for president -- even the person who made Clinton cry -- you can draw some obvious conclusions.

Clinton Power Lust - Presidential Run Not First Time Hillary Clinton's Copied Bill; She Considered Arkansas Governor, Too

If you check Clinton's Wikipedia listing at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

You'll find that she considered running for Governor when Bill Clinton didn't -- but the polling tests were not in her favor. Point? It's not the first time she's tried to basically copy and follow Bill: first as governor and now president, with the Senate as a stepping stone. This is certainly a power-hungry couple. The point is, are they really running to improve the country or satisfy a mutual lust for power? I think it's 3 of the first, and 6 of the last.

That's a blog post to write.

I just did.

Hillary Clinton - Iowa Pork: The Other White Meat

Well, that's what it reads if you look at the photo. It features Hillary Clinton flipping burgers while wearing an apron that reads "The Other White Meat" and standing just in front of an under a sign that reads "Iowa Pork."

Man, I can't make this one up!

Hillary Clinton Is "Two-Faced" To National Black Chamber Of Commerce - Clinton Voted Against Bill To Help Blacks With AIDS

Is Hillary Clinton Flip-Flopping Blacks?

Hillary Clinton's painted as two-faced to African Americans.

In a letter that was totally ignored by the mainstream media, Harry Alford, President of The National Black Chamber of Commerce, wrote directly to Senator Hillary Clinton that he was "stunned" that she appeared at Howard University for a debate before an African American audience acting as the champion of approving funding for HIV / AIDS treatment in low income Black communities, when she herself voted against a bill that would have improved monies and help for HIV / AIDS treatment in those same communities.

This is the letter Mr. Alford wrote below. It's a hell of a damning read:

July 11, 2007

The Honorable Hillary Clinton
United States Senate
428 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Clinton:

I watched the June 28th Democratic presidential candidates’ debate at Howard University with great interest, and in particular I wanted to address your comments about HIV/AIDS.

I found it interesting that you chose a presidential debate, held before a largely African American audience, to speak out on the fact that HIV/AIDS funding does not fairly reach African Americans with HIV. I only wish you had voted the same way last year in the United States Senate, when we really needed you.

In fact, as was reported in the Washington Post on August 23, 2006, you led the effort to gut provisions in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006 (S. 2823) which would have fixed the increasingly unfair and outdated formulas that hurt African Americans, particularly in the rural South. The bipartisan remedy to this problem, which would have ensured funding would follow the caseload instead of short-changing African Americans, had been supported by 19 of the 20 Senators on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee – and you were the lone “no” vote.
I was stunned to see you, less than a year later, performing before a black audience as if you had led the fight for these changes instead of being the lone warrior against them. Indeed, due to your efforts, these desperately needed remedies had to be cut from the bill or you would not have allowed the Ryan White program to be renewed.

African Americans have overtaken every other ethnic group to become the face of HIV/AIDS in America, and we all have a duty to ensure that every black American living with HIV/AIDS has equal access to the care and support services needed from the federal Ryan White CARE Act to stay healthy and stay alive.

I am glad that at least now, unlike last year, you recognize that women of color in the South are 26 times more likely to be HIV-positive than white females. But thanks to your determined fight against reforms last year, a large portion of Ryan White CARE Act funding is still set aside for large metropolitan areas, and most of the states in the South will never qualify for it. African Americans make up 19% of the South’s population, but accounted for over 60% of all new AIDS cases in 2003. Eight southern states have had to treat the same number of people with HIV/AIDS as other states which have gotten more funding under the outdated formulas. You blocked the changes we needed to fix that.

In fact, as Congressional action dragged on without resolution last year, three people died in South Carolina among some 300 HIV/AIDS patients sitting on an AIDS Drug Assistance Program waiting list at the time because the state’s Ryan White funding had once again run out too early.

It is distressing to see the person who single-handedly defeated the most recent effort to get equitable HIV/AIDS funding formulas for African Americans appear today as if she is their greatest champion. Sadly, our community has seen far too much pandering in presidential campaigns and far too little getting delivered that will make a difference for all of us, no matter where we live.

African Americans with HIV/AIDS need visionary leaders with innovative ideas. We need someone who will finally win the fight to make health care funding follow the need in this country, instead of leaving entire communities out in the cold. We don’t need ever-changing candidates who know how to pander, but don’t know how to lead.

I respectfully ask that you bolster your newfound enthusiasm for correcting the growing disparities in HIV/AIDS funding by actively working to undo the damage of your efforts last year. If you’re truly seeking to lead, please introduce new legislation that would ensure that the Title I funding formulas in the Ryan White CARE Act follow the HIV/AIDS caseload with no more unfair set-asides and end the injustice that has cost lives and harmed the nation’s integrity.

Sincerely,

Harry Alford
President/CEO

cc: The Honorable Barack Obama

With all of this, one wonders why Senator Clinton gets as much support from the Black community as she does. Perhaps it's because people -- in general -- just don't know what's going on.

Barack Obama, African Americans, Clinton, and Black Fear Of Success

The way Rev. Al Sharpton's treated Senator Barack Obama earlier this year reminds me of something that happened to me in Oakland, and it's a sign of how we as African Americans fear social success and breaking the glass ceiling. Indeed, given that Barack could be our next President, you'd think there would be an automatic Black voting block.

Instead some of us are backing Hillary Clinton, but don't believe for a moment that it's because of Hillary Clinton -- it's because some of us are scared of seeing the reality of a Black person in charge of America. Let me explain.

In 1998, I worked for the City of Oakland, and then-Mayor Jerry Brown, fresh from his election victory, was moving into City Hall, I was to be transfered over from my office in the Mayor's Office, to ...somewhere.

Then-Oakland City Manager Robert Bobb personally asked me to talk with then-Economic Development Director Bill Claggett, with whom I did not entirely get along with at the time. But I did have lunch with him and he told me that he thought I talked like I knew everything. To which I said it wasn't that I did, but many people -- himself included -- were not used to hearing someone Black speak well.

At that point, I didn't want to go over to Economic Development

When I told Robert Robb what happened, his reaction was that he expected Glaggett to say that. "Oakland," he said, "Is a crabbarrel town. You know what I mean? You? Bright. Young. Articulate. Black. They can't stand that. They want to pull you down."

Because Bobb said that, I went to Economic Development -- simply because he knew what the problem was and how stupid some of the people were being. The same can be said for Reverend Al -- well the stupid part that is.

One big reason some of us African Americans have been slow to overcome the chains of the past and also willing to back Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama is that people like Reverend Al won't let us take them off. That's certainly not my problem as I'm a stauch supporter of Senator Obama for President, but that's not what I'm writing about here. I'm writing about those Blacks who actually fear Barack's success. Those who think he can't win because he's Black -- like them.

And for every one of us who does overcome that mentality and the chains that come with it, like Barack Obama, there's someone like Reverend Al, right there to put them back on again -- or at least try to. According to an article in the New York Post , Sharpton doens't like Obama and is jealous of his success. Or he was at the time the article was written.



Now Sharpton knows that if anyone can help him achieve his agenda, it's Barack Obama, but the possibility of success was not desirable to him as long as he had to deal with someone who's able to be something that Sharpton doesn't see himself as: bright, smart, and attractive.

So, Sharpton says Barack's "not Black" knowing all the time that slavery is not a measure of Blackness and never was. There were "free" Blacks even during Slavery. He also knows that many of us have some measure of "White blood," -- whatever that means as I tend to think in terms that are more specific to region and not skin color -- and that's certainly true for Barack. Big deal. It's how society regards us, and everyone sees Barack Obama as Black, including himself.

I've gotten the same slings and arrows from not just Blacks, but people like Bill Claggett, who's White, that Barack Obama's getting today. Fortunately, America's waking-up to the stupidity of people like Claggett and Sharpton, and in such a way that Sharpton's childish attitude could wind up hurting his friend and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. More and more people are responding to Senator Obama as an individual who's a born leader and one who's capable of bridging gaps in society. Barack can win the presidency.

But such an outcome seems to be an issue to a "Crabbarel" like Reverend Al. As long as Blacks remain second class citizens and there's room for his "victimization" approach, and he's on top, that's all. It's all about Reverend Al, no matter how much it hurts other Blacks like me or Senator Obama.

He's just trying to pull us down.

Havard Professor Derrick Bell has explained these problems well. Bell once said that he got into a cab on the way to the airport, when the cabbie, who's African American, asked him what he did. "I'm a professor at Harvard," he said. "Oh, " responded the cab driver, It's folks like you who make it harder for the rest of us."

What the cab driver meant, and Bell understood, was that his position as a professor at Harvard was a sign that other African Americans could achieve that status, and that Bell's success made it harder for the cab driver to see his Blackness as a block to achivement.

Some of us who are Black may look at Barack the same way as the cabbie looked at Professor Bell, but it's wrong. We should see Barack as a role model and someone who can win the nomination, should win the nomination, and in doing so break that glass ceiling. Indeed, you'd think intelligent African Americans like Stanley Crouch would know this, but even he can't help tugging that mental chain. Crouch stupidly -- that's what it is -- said that Barack wasn't Black because he didn't have the background of slavery.

That's just plain dumb. It is.

To be frank, if Barack were Italian or Asian, people who identify themselves as Italian or Asian would speak of him with pride, not fear. We're the only set of people with the tendency to express fear of success, and that should be a major concern to everyone in America, regardless of race, creed, or color.

If we as a major part of American Culture can't feel good about ourselves, then we harm the ability of the country itself to improve. We've got to take off our mental chains and follow Barack, without fear.

June 17th USA Today / Gallup Poll Rigged - Redone To Place Clinton Ahead

Question: Why are you a Democrat? Click for answers here.

OK. Get this. Just get this. Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama was tied -- that's right, tied -- with Senator Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic Presidential race in the then latest USA Today / Gallup Poll. Now, USA Today / Gallup didn't do a poll in May, and certainly not two weeks apart, but this new one says that Senator Clinton has a large lead.

What?

The critical eye would have a question. I've got several. But the bottom line is the second round of polling was rigged. Why? Because someone didn't like the outcome and doesn't want Senator Barack Obama to win, so they immediately ordered another poll and worked to obtain results they wanted to see.

The poll effort was rigged. That's right, rigged.

You can't even find the poll on the Gallup website. How in the hell can you explain the supposed "double-digit lead" Senator Clinton has, but then she's behind in South Carolina? That observation about the black vote being the reason is pure bull shit.

Don't believe it because there's no proof for it.

This is what the USA Today's "Gallup Guru" , Frank Newport, reported in his blog - the smoking gun, in part, is here:

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Clinton, Obama, immigration and Russian attitudes

New polling data from several survey organizations – including pending data from Gallup -- make it clear that Sen. Hillary Clinton is maintaining or strengthening her lead for the presidential nomination over Sen. Barack Obama among Democrats. Our early June USA Today/Gallup poll showed the two tied, as discussed here and here. But that finding apparently did not signify a significant change in the structure of the race. The latest polls from the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal/NBC show Clinton in her accustomed role as leader when Democrats are asked whom they want to be their party’s nominee. It looks as if the June 1-3 USA Today/Gallup poll either picked up a short term change, or as noted here, was a function of unusual sampling which happened to pick up Democrats who were more pro-Obama than the underlying population.

We have a Gallup poll now in the field, with results to be reported early next week. Preliminary indications are that this poll will find Clinton back in her typical leadership position as she has been for the most part this year.

What? In other words, Whoops! We can't believe the outcome, so we've got to talk to a new set of people and get the outcome we want. We can't -- just can't -- be forced to report that Senator Obama is tied with Senator Clinton.

What the Gallup Guru does not explain is why they did a new poll so close after the first one, and without having done a poll two weeks before?

I'll tell you why. Because USA Today and CNN are reporting these polls and don't want Senator Barack Obama to win the Democratic race for the White House.

They don't want a president who happens to be Black, and so they're trying to engineer a win for Senator Clinton. First, CNN consistently focuses on the race issue, then reports any small seemingly negative information about Senator Obama. Any positive information is either downplayed or avoided altogether, or rigged, as in the case of this polling process.

I think the USA Today, CNN, and Gallup all should appologize to Senator Barack Obama. I seriously doubt Frank Newport just decided to do a new poll -- the USA Today paid him to do a new poll because they didn't like the outcome of the first one.

That's crass. Noam Chomsky was right in his classic work "Manufacturing Consent" -- the old media (USA Today) is trying to manipulate the public.

They have to explain the South Carolina poll as well as why the Mason-Dixon pollsters shared their error data, where the USA Today / Gallup Poll people did not. One can argue that the latest USA Today Gallup Poll has a huge margin of error considering the games they play with these polls. This is totally irresponsible on the part of USA Today and Gallup.

Why Are You A Democrat? - Democrats Give Their Reasons

I asked this question to Democrats attending a Democratic Party fundraiser in San Francisco earlier this year. I got a variety of responses but all seem to center around the theme of equality and social justice.

I was so inspired in part by this and by the support for Barack Obama that I purchased the music from Buffalo Springfield "For What It's Worth" and used it as the back music for this two minute video. Take a look. Why are you a Democrat?

Institutional Racism: Fox News Can't Tell One Black Person From Another

This is stupid, and is a great example of why diversity in society is so important. Fox News showed a clip of Representative John Conyers but reporting that he's indicted Representative Bill Jefferson. Here's a video on the error by TPMtv..: