Wednesday, April 30, 2008

D.C. Nonprofit With Clinton ties all over it behind deceptive North Carolina Robo-Calls

From Facing South:

FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE: D.C. nonprofit aimed at women voters behind deceptive N.C. robo-calls
By Chris Kromm

Who's behind the mysterious "robo-calls" that have spread misleading voter information and sown confusion and frustration among North Carolina residents over the last week?

Facing South has confirmed the source of the calls, and the mastermind is Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based nonprofit which aims to boost voting among "unmarried women voters."

What's more, Facing South has learned that the firestorm Women's Voices has ignited in North Carolina isn't the group's first brush with controversy. Women's Voices' questionable tactics have spawned thousands of voter complaints in at least 11 states and brought harsh condemnation from some election officials for their secrecy, misleading nature and likely violations of election law.

First, a quick recap: As we covered yesterday, N.C. residents have reported receiving peculiar automated calls from someone claiming to be "Lamont Williams." The caller says that a "voter registration packet" is coming in the mail, and the recipient can sign it and mail it back to be registered to vote. No other information is provided.

The call is deceptive because the deadline has already passed for mail-in registrations for North Carolina's May 6 primary. Also, many who have received the calls -- like Kevin Farmer in Durham, who made a tape of the call that is available here -- are already registered. The call's suggestion that they're not registered has caused widespread confusion and drawn hundreds of complaints, including many from African-American voters who received the calls.

In case you don't get it...Hillpatine can't win Black votes, so now she's trying to SUPPRESS THEM.

More from the story:

Now Women's Voices is plunging North Carolina into the same confusion. State officials tell Facing South they are still receiving calls from frustrated and confused voters, wondering why "Lamont Williams" is offering to send them a "voter registration packet" after the deadline for mail-in registration for the primaries has passed.

In correspondence with North Carolina election officials, Women's Voices founder and President Page Gardner merely said that the disruptive timing was an "unfortunate coincidence" -- a strange alibi for a group with their level of resources and sophistication.

There are other questions about Women's Voices' outreach efforts. Although the group purports to be targeting "unmarried women," their calls and mailings don't fit the profile. Kevin Farmer in Durham, who first recorded the call, is a white male. Many of the recipients are African-American; Rev. Nelson Johnson, who is a married, male and African-American, reported that his house was called four times by the mysterious "Lamont Williams."

And as Farmer asks, "Why are they using a guy for the calls if the target audience is single women?"

Some have also questioned the ties between Women's Voices operatives and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Gardner, for example, contributed $2,500 to Clinton's HILLPAC on May 4, 2006, and in March 2005 she donated a total of $4,200 to Clinton, according to The Center for Responsive Politics' She has not contributed to the Obama campaign, according to the database.

Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns" for Clinton.

Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to Podesta also donated $1,000 to Barack Obama in July 2004, but that was well before Obama announced his candidacy for president.

"The reports from other states are very disturbing, especially the pattern of mass confusion among targeted voters on the eve of a state's primary," Democracy North Carolina's Bob Hall tells Facing South. "These are highly skilled political operatives -- something doesn't add up. Maybe it's all well-intended and explainable. At this moment, our first priority is to stop the robo-calls and prevent the chaos and potential disenfranchisement caused by this group sending 276,000 packets of registration forms into North Carolina a few days before a heated primary election. We need their immediate cooperation."

Before you say, you tinfoil hat wearer you, I got this information from Talking Points Memo/Cafe Talk:

Benefit of the doubt? Not this time. Please take a look at the group's (Women's Voices/Women Vote) Directors/Leadership Team.

1. John Podesta -- Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton 98-01.
2. Mimi Mager -- Member Clinton-Gore Transition team.
3. Michael Lux -- Clinton Gore Alumni Association ( (CGA) is member-driven organization that seeks to maintain an ongoing network among those former political appointees of the Clinton-Gore Administration, the national '92 and '96 campaigns and Democratic Party activists around the country.
4. Joe Goode -- the Senior Analyst on company CEO Stan Greenberg's work for the Clinton for President campaign in 1992.

Some more info found out at Facing South in the comments of this post:
And look who their legal counsel is.

"[t}here's more to [Holly] Schadler and her law firm than a list of corporate pigs and polluters. Schadler, a former Sierra Club official, is an operator for the Clinton White House. She, along with Robert Bauer and Judith Corley--two other partners at Perkins Coie--incorporated the Back to Business Committee, set up in 1994 by Lynn Cutler and Ann Lewis (Democratic Party operators) to defend Bill and Hillary.

So gee, I wonder who is behind these calls. Nice legal advice, Holly Schadler.

And guess who was on the board at late as 2007?

Chief Handkerchief Head and Clinton Campaign ManagerMAGGIE WILLIAMS.

Yeah, and I'M the one wearing the tinfoil hat?

Ain't enough 'coincidences' in the Western World.

Extensive discussion about this over at DailyKos.

Obama Breaks With Dr. Jeremiah Wright

Barack Obama broke with his former pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, in a press conference yesterday.

Here's a link to the story at

For me, I believe it was a hard thing for Obama to do, but Wright's abysmal performance at The National Press Club pretty much gave him no other choice.

The thing for me is...the THREE EVENTS

I believe that the Moyers interview was real, true and authentic Wright.

I believe that the NAACP Speech was real, true and authentic Wright.

He clowned during that Q&A. He showed his ass. Why are folks not willing to admit that? I don't even want to get into any of the ' is it the truth?' mess. You and I both know it's HOW you present your point that matters as much as what you say. If he couldn't do any better, that would be one thing. But, we had two examples of him 'doing better' and 'being authentic' for me not to believe that the NPC event was a purposeful attack on Obama.

Every question he got, he could have answered a different way that wasn't inauthentic. Take the patriotism question..instead of his smartass ' How long did Dick Cheney serve?' answer, what he could have said was:

I sat in front of the tv, with my family, watching John Kennedy's inaugural speech. The President spoke to me and I took his call to service to heart. So much so that I LEFT COLLEGE, with one semester to go, and ENLISTED IN THE MARINES. I served X tours of duty, between 2 Different Branches of the Armed Services. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, gets FIVE deferrments, and I'M the one whose patriotism is questioned? Please explain that to me.

Now, you tell me, which one is better? Both 'flipped it back' to the audience, but one is like, ' up yours' and the other one challenges you to think.

The entire Q&A was like that.

Now, if I was seriously wearing the tinfoil hat, one would have to wonder about him being invited by a known and avowed Hillary Clinton supporter. But, only if I were seriously wearing the tinfoil hat.



As first reported in Erroll Louis' column in the NYDaily News yesterday, Clinton backer Barbara Reynolds 'organized' Wright's appearance at The National Press Club.

Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?
Tuesday, April 29th 2008, 4:00 AM

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.

Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.

A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).

It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.

On a blog linked to her Web site- Reynolds said in a February post: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency.

The same post criticized Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time."

In another blog entry, Reynolds gives an ever-sharper critique of Obama: "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."

I don't know if Reynolds' eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren't returned yesterday - but it's safe to say she didn't see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.

It's hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question.

Wright has, unquestionably, been caricatured and vilified unfairly. The feeding programs, prison outreach and other social services he has built over more than 30 years are commendable, and his reading of the Judeo-Christian tradition as an epic story of people trying to escape slavery is far more right than wrong - and not something to be caricatured or compressed into a 10-second sound bite.

But Wright should have known - and his friend and ally Reynolds, a media professional, surely knew - that bickering with the press can only harm Wright and, by extension, Obama.

I hope that wasn't their goal.

Call me a tinfoil hat wearer is you must, I do not care. Spread the word. Maybe it's 'coincidence'....ok.

Uh huh.

While you look sideways at me, just remember this....all the stuff Louis talks about with regards to Obama in his column...has ' disappeared' from Reynolds' site.

Double uh huh.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

About this 'Electability' Memo....

Hat tip: reader at JJP

One very interesting poll came out yesterday. The new Rasmussen Poll.

Here is the eye-popper:

Among African-American voters, Obama dominates but Clinton attracts just 59% support



A Democrat, who, 6 months out, garners 59% of the most loyal base of the Democratic Party.

White 'Progressives' have been running around talking about ' unifying the party'. From this column at

And, should Senator Clinton secure the nomination as the result of a floor fight at the convention (which her campaign admits is her only path to the nomination), that will only further promote the perception that this nomination is being stolen from America's first African American candidate with a real shot. If it goes that far, to the convention, there is only two months to repair the breach. A daunting task, indeed.

Everyone I've discussed this with who is white basically says the same thing -- wounds will heal, African Americans will come back.

This is in a word, DELUSIONAL.

You can take me at my word. Take Jim Clyburn at his word. Or, you can dismiss the chorus, growing across the Black Blogosphere, which is once again, being the canary in the mine on this issue.

I'll only state my own position:

I will not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, vote for Hillary Clinton.

There was, once upon a time, when I would have held my nose and considered it. That time has long since passed.

I will NEVER become a 'complicit accomplice' in her race-baiting tactics by giving her my vote.

For me, it's about any future Black politician with aspirations higher than a gerrymandered Congressional Seat.

If she is allowed to STEAL this nomination from Obama, based upon a foundation of Dogwhistle Racial Politics, then she will be giving the blueprint by which ANY future Black politician will be taken out.

I'm not having any parts of that under any circumstances.

IF I voted for her AFTER SHE STEALS IT, then I, and every other Black voter who votes for her, would be saying that Black folk belong PERMANENTLY IN THE BACK OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BUS.

I'm not having any parts of that either.

She is getting FIFTY-NINE PERCENT of the BASE of the Democratic Party.

And people actually are under the delusion that number would INCREASE AFTER SHE STEALS THE NOMINATION FROM OBAMA?

You must have lost your natural minds.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

If Clinton can't run a campaign, can she run the White House?

If Clinton can't run a campaign, can she run the White House?
By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — Despite Hillary Clinton's big win in Pennsylvania last week, the story of her campaign is often one of mismanagement and missed opportunities, and it raises questions about how she'd organize and run the White House.

"There's a certain style to the campaign, and it shows what we might expect in a Clinton presidency: a lot of viewpoints and a messiness," said James McCann, a political science professor at Purdue University in Indiana.

Whether that's a good or bad trait is in the eye of the analyst. McCann called it "policymaking through trial and error," similar to how Bill Clinton ran his administration, which to many was a big success.

But her campaign tumbled from riches to rags to rebounds — and now to hanging on for dear life. It wasn't supposed to be that way.

Not many months ago, Clinton was the consensus front-runner, with a 30-point lead in national polls, $118 million raised in 2007 and the backing of most Democratic power brokers.

Today she trails Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in convention delegates, campaign cash and the popular vote.

How'd that happen?

Obama proved to be a phenomenal opponent — that's surely one answer. But some critics see Clinton's campaign as a runaway truck that careened from primary to primary in search of a structure that works.

From the time the former first lady announced her White House bid 15 months ago, her strategy was driven by three ideas: Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee so everyone should jump on her bandwagon; she had a seasoned team adept at finding and appealing to wide varieties of voters; and she could outraise and outspend all rivals.

"The bottom line is that she went in with a set of assumptions that proved to be false," said John Geer, the editor of the Journal of Politics.

The notion that she was the inevitable winner left a lot of activists cold.

"You got the sense that her attitude was, 'I'm the nominee, so what else are you going to do?''' said Gordon Fischer, a former Iowa Democratic Party chairman.

As the Des Moines lawyer tried to decide on a candidate last year, Clinton would call him occasionally, but when he said that he wanted to go out on a campaign bus for a day, he said, "No one ever got back to me."

Obama's campaign did. Fischer spent a day going to a barbecue with 15 people and six other events. He signed up with Obama in late September.

"No rookie candidate can claim inevitability," said California political strategist Bob Mulholland. "Only a president can."

Clinton's second stumble was trusting advisers who not only bickered openly, but also seemed to lack the strategic vision that a presidential campaign requires.

Until recently, Clinton's top strategist was Washington pollster Mark Penn, the author of last year's book "Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes."

However, 2008 has become the year of the big trend.

Since October, the AP-Ipsos poll has found that roughly 70 percent of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, thanks largely to frustration over Iraq and the economy. Americans want big change, not micro-measures.

Compounding Clinton's problem was Penn, who's widely perceived as arrogant and awkward with people. "He has the social skills of a mollusk," said William Curry, a former counselor to Bill Clinton.

Kathy Sullivan, a former New Hampshire party chairwoman, agreed: "Every time I saw him on TV, I thought he was losing us voters."

Penn didn't respond to requests for comment.

As the campaign progressed in 2008, Clinton faced a third problem: Her team had expected her to sew up the nomination on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday. It burned through more than $118 million trying to make that happen, spending so furiously that Clinton even lent herself $5 million at the end of January.

But when Obama fought her to a draw that day, Clinton seemed to have no Plan B.

Campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, a longtime loyalist who'd never run a campaign before, left after Super Tuesday. She was replaced by Maggie Williams, another longtime loyalist who'd never run a campaign.

Meanwhile, Obama ran off 11 straight victories in February, most in races Clinton barely contested, which is how he rolled up his lead in delegates.

Rest of article is HERE.

Obama came out of nowhere, beginning with nothing, to build a campaign organization that saw this as a 50 State Race. She blew through 170 million dollars, didn't see what the mood of the country was, and disregarded entire swaths of this country....and OBAMA is the one who isn't 'Ready on Day One?'

Friday, April 25, 2008

L.Douglas Wilder Offers Obama Encouragement and Warnings


Obama Gets Encouragement and Warning From Wilder
Heidi Przybyla
Thu Apr 24, 9:01 AM ET

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Doug Wilder, the nation's first elected black governor, has both encouragement and a warning for Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

The encouragement is that Obama is approaching the race issue the right way, and the nation is ready to elect a black president. The warning is that it may not be as ready as polls suggest.

``Let's not kid ourselves again, the issue of race will not disappear; but I don't think it will predominate,'' the former Virginia governor said in an interview at his office in Richmond, where he is now mayor. At the same time, he said, even if Obama is the nominee and heads into the fall with an apparent lead, the election ``will be closer than any polls will suggest.''

Wilder, 77, is an authority in the matter. In 1989, he won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the overwhelmingly white onetime cradle of the Confederacy. Polls taken just before Election Day had put him ahead of his Republican competitor by as much as 10 percentage points; he won by less than half a percentage point.

Wilder said he believes Obama has done a good job so far in blunting the race issue. ``Obama, by not running as an African- American, has been able to show that race is coincidental to his being,'' rather than the centerpiece of his campaign, he said.

The message Obama, 46, sends to voters is ```I'm not being dominated by any groups,''' Wilder said. ``That includes African- Americans.''

`Ingrained Difficulty'

Wilder said he isn't surprised that Obama has run behind New York Senator Hillary Clinton among white voters in some states. Obama has faced more ``ingrained difficulty'' as a black candidate than Clinton has as a woman, Wilder said.

Bias against Clinton, 60, may have more to do with specific incidents that have reinforced stereotypes, he said. ``Hillary's reactions to things conjure up images that are not necessarily the healthiest in terms of hissy fits or reactions because of emotions, like the crying and the weeping and then forgetting somewhat that she did that,'' he said.

In Pennsylvania's April 22 Democratic primary, Obama lost by 10 points to Clinton, as white Democrats voted for her by a 65- to-35 percent margin. In exit polls, 19 percent of Pennsylvania Democratic voters said race was important in making their choice.


``He's struggling with them in terms of the nomination,'' Wilder said. ``I don't think that struggle will emanate through the general election because they have far more in common with him than they do with the Republican candidate.''

Rest of article at the link above.

I appreciate Wilder's words of support towards Obama.

Sean Bell's Killers ACQUITTED

Just saw this on CNN. Sean Bell's killers have been acquitted. Bell was at his bachelor party, the morning of his wedding, when he was shot dead in a hail of bulletts from 3 NYPD Officers. He and the men in the car with him were all unarmed. A total of 50 bulletts were shot at the car with Bell and his friends inside.

Your ' Just-us' System at work.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

James Clyburn Speaks Plain Truths About the Clintons and the Black Community

From the

April 24, 2008, 7:53 pm
Black Leader in House Denounces Bill Clinton’s Remarks
By Mark Leibovich

The third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and one of the country’s most influential African-American leaders sharply criticized former President Bill Clinton this afternoon for what he called Mr. Clinton’s “bizarre” conduct during the Democratic primary campaign.

Representative James E. Clyburn, an undeclared superdelegate from South Carolina who is the Democratic whip in the House, said that “black people are incensed over all of this,” referring to statements that Mr. Clinton had made in the course of the heated race between his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama.

Mr. Clinton was widely criticized by black leaders after he equated the eventual victory of Mr. Obama in South Carolina in January to that of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988 – a parallel that many took as an attempt to diminish Mr. Obama’s success in the campaign. In a radio interview in Philadelphia on Monday, Mr. Clinton defended his remarks and said the Obama campaign had “played the race card on me” by making an issue of those comments.

In an interview with The New York Times late Thursday, Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Clinton’s conduct in this campaign had caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him. “When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Rest of article at link above.



April 24th, 2008
Top House Democrat denounces Clinton campaign tactics
Posted by: Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON - “Scurrilous” and “disingenuous” were among the words a top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives used on Thursday to describe Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics in her bid to defeat Barack Obama for their party’s presidential nomination.

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

Obama holds a sizable lead in delegates won in state-nominating contests which could be hard for her to overcome.

The purported theory is that an Obama defeat in November against Republican presidential candidate John McCain would let Clinton make another presidential bid in four years, Clyburn said.

Rest of article at link above.

Some folks want him to endorse Obama. I don't know....maybe he should.

Flipping the Script: WHY Can't Hillary ' Tonya Harding' Clinton CLOSE THE DEAL?

We've heard, ad infintum, the BS about why Obama can't 'close the deal'.

But, why can't Hillary " Tonya Harding" Clinton Close the deal?

As John Cole so aptly puts it:

Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?

I'd like to know the answer to that myself.

We talk about electability. With the exception of New Hampshire, every state that Obama's gone into, his numbers have gone UP from where he began....and Hillary ' Tonya Harding' Clinton's have gone DOWN (thanks Keith Olbermann for that tip). ...and OBAMA is unelectable?


And, I'll put it out the hell would SHE get back the DEMOCRATIC BASE - Black Folk - if she STEALS THIS? How come nobody asks THAT question? Don't be under any delusions...Blue States are Blue because of Blue CITIES...and Blue Cities are Blue because of BLACK FOLK. Try being a Democrat running for President trying to win Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and contest Florida and Virginia WITHOUT THE BLACK VOTE. I'd love to see that jujitsu.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

This spoke to, I bring it to you

Sometimes, I come across things that are just so on point and speak to me, I would like to share them.

This is a reply from the blog on The Field:

Michelle, on April 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm Said:

It is spectacularly obvious to me that system-level racism/white supremacy is playing a core role in the dynamics of the Democratic nomination process. This is not a surprise, since this nation itself is built on white supremacy (literally and otherwise).

I am not talking about “those people” (white working class people who all other white people like to project the collective racism onto). I am talking about the larger dynamics and groups, including the media and including the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party, in particular its uncommitted superdelegates and any other party leadership passively or actively allowing this insanity, is supporting and encouraging systemic racism/white supremacy.

The Party allows its Black frontrunner to essentially fend for himself while the campaign of a white “Democrat” (who sometimes acts like a Republican), obviously gliding around on white privilege, continually moves the goalposts of what he has to “prove” to show himself *worthy* of being the nominee. Because in the underlying logics of white supremacy, she is automatically by default worthy in her whiteness, and he is by default suspect and less-than and unworthy, and he has to prove otherwise by insane standards.

And of course Clinton’s campaign and its supporters are supporting and encouraging systemic racism/white supremacy in various ways, including but not limited to when they push the line that white working class voters are more important than Black voters (because even though they don’t say the second part out loud, it is obvious in its implications).

All these efforts to make Senator Obama show that he is not foreign, not dangerous, not angry …. all these efforts to tie him to scary dangerous symbolically shadow figures (in addition to the demonization of Dr. Wright, it’s ooooh Weatherguy scary, “do we really know Obama,” etc)– systemic racism/white supremacy in action. And of course the more obvious stuff that everyone has also heard about. Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro and all that.

The dynamics of the Democratic nomination “struggle” are systemic racism/white supremacy at work. I hold the Democratic Party just as responsible as any other part of it, if not more.

This situation vividly demonstrates the way that racism/white supremacy functions to protect the corruption and sickness in this country from any hint of substantial change.

I don’t say any of this because I want to argue about it — I really seriously do not. I also do not want to argue about the words I use — I choose racism and white supremacy and white privilege very deliberately, because they are the closest words I have to accurately describe what I see right in front of me.

This is what I see, it is clear as day right in front of me. I have seen it over and over and over in this campaign (and in the history and operation of this nation) and it’s just that today, I’m tired in a particular way.

Nothing I am saying here is new or insightful. Truly. I’m just tired.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The NYTimes on the Pennsylvania Primary

Pennsylvania Results

From the Official Pennsylvania State Department of Elections:

99.34% precincts reporting.

Candidate Votes Percent
1,237,696 54.3%
1,043,174 45.7%



From The Field, comparing Obama's numbers in Ohio to Pennsylvania:

We’ll know more in the morning but it seems like the margin in Pennsylvania will be between 8 and 10 percentage points, which means:

Clinton’s margin among all voters in Ohio (10.5 percent) diminished by the time she got to Pennsylvania.

The margin among registered Democrats (a 14 percent lead in Ohio) diminished by at least 39 percent in Pennsylvania.

Among white registered Democrats (70 percent of them in Ohio) - the demographic that the pastor-bashing and bitter-posturing was aimed at - Senator Clinton lost 24 percent (down to 53 percent in Pennsylvania).

Among African-American registered Democrats (14 percent of them in Ohio) she lost 42 percent of her previous support (down to 8 percent in Pennsylvania).

All the posturing and negativity didn’t gain her a single yard.

In fact, Senator Clinton lost ground in every one of those key foundations of her former base vote.

Whether or not the commercial media spins it that way - in her campaign’s lexicon - “doesn’t matter.”

And ye shall know the dumbest and slowest - and intentionally dishonest - political reporters, pundits, bloggers (and former presidential candidates and spouses) by those that argue otherwise.

From The New York Times (which endorsed Clinton for President):

April 23, 2008
The Low Road to Victory

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.

No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.

After seven years of George W. Bush’s failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign — about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

29 N. Carolina legislators endorse Obama

From McClatchy:

29 N. Carolina legislators endorse Obama
By Barbare Barrett | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2008

RALEIGH, N.C. — U.S. Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of 29 North Carolina state legislators on Tuesday, a significant boost to his candidacy ahead of the state's May 6 primary.

Led by Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand and former Speaker of the House Dan Blue of Raleigh, the lawmakers repeated the same lines as others who have endorsed Obama — that the Illinois senator can bring people together and ignite change across the country.

Blue also challenged the Clinton campaign to remain positive in North Carolina, saying he had seen nothing but negativity so far in Pennsylvania.

"I hope this is not what we can should expect to come to North Carolina in the next two weeks," Blue said. "Tired old political tactics aren't going to bring about the kind of change we need."

Blue and Rand said their support comes in part because they think Obama will help Democrats win other offices in the state and because he has committed to win in North Carolina in November's general election.

Rand praised Obama for speaking directly. "He won't just tell everyone what they want to hear," Rand said. "He'll tell people what they need to hear."

He said the group will raise money and stump for Obama if they are asked. And he praised Obama's ability to raise millions of dollars in part on the strength of $100 donations.

"We're prepared to do whatever. I mean, I'll give him a hundred," Rand said.

This is a good thing, because it helps Obama with his fight in North Carolina. This show of support can't be seen as anything other than a positive.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Obama's Financials for March 2008

From DailyKos:

From the report:

6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period 38,833,089.54
7. Total Receipts This Period 42,832,120.65
8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 81,665,210.19
9. Total Disbursements This Period 30,591,210.20
10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 51,073,999.99
11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee 0.00

Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee 662,784.55

Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 0.00
14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) 233,823,864.26
15. NET Operating Expenditures 183,654,584.56

Obama has raised $233 Million, mostly from small donors.

Where is Hillary " Tonya Harding" Clinton's financial report?


From The Raw Story

Clinton aides said late Sunday she would report raising about $20 million in March and that she had more than $8 million for the primary available at the beginning of April.

Overall, Obama had $51 million in the bank at the end of March, with nearly $9 million of that available only for the general election.

Republican John McCain's report showed he raised $15.2 million and had $11.6 million in the bank. The Arizona senator's March figures were his best fundraising performance of the campaign.

UPDATE #2 - Reading a DailyKos Diary on this topic, and I'm gonna say it...her numbers are fishy. I will update it when all the smoke clears and the truth about her financial state is obvious.

UPDATE #3 - Seems as if she has $15 million in debt. Remember the $5 million loan to herself...and here, her filings show another $10 million in debt.

UPDATE #4- The media's take on Hillpatine's debt.

The numbers are very interesting.

Hillary " Tonya Harding" Clinton Slams


Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser
Posted April 18, 2008 06:30 PM (EST)

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

" endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Listen to the audio below:

Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.

The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power."

Clinton's criticism followed MoveOn's endorsement of Obama in early February. The group was initially established in 1999 to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach President Bill Clinton, and now claims 3.2 million members.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio, and elaborated on Clinton's charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: "There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses, and it is a fact that while we have won 4 of the 5 largest primaries, where participation is greatest, Senator Obama has done better in caucuses than we have." About Clinton's remarks suggesting dismay over high Democratic activist turnout, Wolfson said, "I'll let my statement stand as is."

In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.

The disclosure of Clinton's statement disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.

This story was developed in cooperation with OffTheBus to which reporter Celeste Fremon is a regular contributor.


There are those who believed Hillpatine released this because this is a Sister Souljah moment for her, and that she think she can gain blue collar voters by disrespecting the liberal actvist wing of the Democratic Party. I don't believe this. First of all,these blue collar workers don't give a rat's ass about Second of all, she has to get the nomination in order to disrespect part of the Democratic base to appeal to General Election voters. So, that would be bad form for her to do it now.

No, I believe this was leaked for The Superdelegates. This was to remind them, once again, of yet another constituency whose support Hillpatine has dismissed. Another building bloc of the Democratic Party that she has disrespected, and that they would be fools to believe would actually work for her if she STOLE this from Obama. Just as they are delusional to believe that there would be an excited Black turnout for Hillpatine; not going to happen. Not after this campaign.

No. Whomever put this tape out of Hillpatine wanted to remind the Superdelegates of the bodies and dollars and activism that contributes. To think that they would just 'suck it up' and work for Hillpatine......presposterous, and they know it. The leakers of this want to remind the SuperDelegates that for all the smearing of Obama as a 'roll of the dice', Hillpatine is no sure thing, especially when you can't count on some of the most loyal base of the Democratic Party to turn out for her.

Mass arrests claim by Zimbabwe opposition

Mass arrests claim by Zimbabwe opposition

(CNN) -- Zimbabwe's opposition party Sunday said dozens of its members have been detained as authorities try to block the party's challenge to a recount of votes that could crush their claimed victory over President Robert Mugabe.

The arrests began last Tuesday as the MDC staged a strike to protest the government's refusal to acknowledge their victory claim, Movement for Democratic Change lawyer Andrew Makoni told CNN.

Zimbabwe election officials on Saturday began a partial recount of last month's vote despite opposition efforts to halt the move on the grounds that the original results have yet to be released.

Among those arrested were two recently-elected members of parliament, two officials with the MDC's information office and a freelance journalist who was talking to them, Makoni said.

Innocent Matibiri and Luke Tamborinyoka, two officers in the MDC secretariat's information department, were arrested while chatting outside a shopping center in the capital city Harare on Tuesday.

Zimbabwean freelance journalist Frank Chikowore was arrested with them, Makoni said.

Police charged the three with setting a commuter bus on fire last Tuesday, charges Markoni called "far fetched since they were nowhere near the burning bus."

He suggested the bus caught fire because of an electrical problem and not because it was torched.

Others were arrested on charges of placing blockades on roads to prevent people from traveling to their jobs on Tuesday, he said. Makoni said that while some of the MDC members have been released from custody, between 50 and 60 remained locked up Sunday.

The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission still has not released results of the presidential race three weeks after the election.

The MDC has lost repeated appeals to the High Court to force the commission to announce what the opposition believes would be a victory for MDC presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai over longtime leader Mugabe.

Instead, the election commission has begun a recount in 23 voting districts where Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has said there were counting irregularities.

Electoral officials did announce parliamentary results that showed the opposition winning the majority of seats, but the ongoing recount could reverse that margin.

I saw this headline over at, and I have to say that I'm not surprised. I'm quite sad, really. I knew that Mugabe would never give over power easily, and Zimbabwe will be pushed to the brink.

Related Article:

Human Wave Flees Violence in Zimbabwe

Saturday, April 19, 2008

ONN Report Offers Most Honest Analysis of Election Season Yet :)

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

See, i'm not all gloom and doom. Only when it involves Hillary Clinton, when I think about the direction of the Country, or when it comes to the Republicans & their smear machine. They can suck the life and the hope out of just about anything.


May 6th, could be the end of the hostage standoff (Hillary Clinton holding the nation hostage that is), as I had predicted several weeks ago. Whether she gives up then or not may not matter. If she loses both N. Carolina and Indiana on the same night it could be a crushing blow in terms of momentum and could send a message to Superdelegates to make a decisive move to avoid a disaster at the Convention. It would take a very strange miracle for her to win after that. For Clinton to stay in the race after that point can only be seen as attempt to do harm to Obama in the General Election. Of course, she has already done this...but after May 6th, it will be as clear as day. But Obama has to somehow win Indiana... a daunting task after the massive Swiftboat attacks.

Hillary The Beast Clinton will easily win West Virginia and Kentucky after her racist campaign efforts and her fearmongering aimed at White blue collar voters. Obama may come back & do well in Oregon (still an unknown...Oregon seemed like a lock for Obama a couple of months ago...but that was before the Swiftboating & race baiting kicked into high gear). The Caucus States of South Dakota and Montana are numerically insignificant either way (Sorry Montana & S. Dakota, lol). Clinton may actually win those Caucuses due to the changing dynamics of the past 6 weeks. But Obama's delegate lead should be big enough to blunt a Clinton win in Puerto Rico.

If I were Obama... I would publicly offer Clinton a 45%-55% split on Michigan and Florida. That would be hard for her to refuse. That would probably earn Obama the nomination outright. It would put Clinton in an awkward & almost impossible position. If she says no... she looks like an ass to the World and all of her arguments would be shot to Hell. If she accepts, she allows Obama to have a clear victory, and all of her arguments would be shot to Hell.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Pope Benedict XVI Apologizes to Sex Abuse Victims

I'm watching this on CNN, but it seems as if the Pope met with some sexual abuse victims of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that this is going to change what happened overnight, but speaking up about the abuse, meeting the victims, has to be a positive step for the church.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Obama’s Fading “Hope“: America May Be Too Sick To Elect a Black Man For President

Obama appears to be damaged goods, and may be done. You could probably stick a fork in him at this point. Or does he have enough miracles left to overcome the nations attempt to swiftboat his campaign? And yes…this has now become more of a national effort. Everyone seems to be getting in on the act.

That's one of the many reasons why I lost interest in this circus filled election season.

Hillary's race baiting campaign has done serious damage to Obama and his hopes for the nomination, especially in the context of the General Election. Even if Obama somehow stops the bleeding enough to win the nomination, the General (s)election will be a different story. Obama will have to garner a broader range of support in the General Election as compared to the Democratic nomination contest...and it's going to be a steeper hill for him to climb in the General to accomplish that mission.

Clinton has taken race, Rev. Wright, etc...& has tied it around Obama's neck with a ball & chain. It is going to weigh on him not only for the remainder of his campaign...but for the rest of his political career. Obama was naive to think that his attempts to run a race neutral campaign would somehow stop Whites from attacking him using race, ethnicity, and religion as weapons. They simply couldn’t resist. Obama was essentially put in a situation where he had to apologize for being Black. And people wonder why I hate being a Black man? I don’t know of any other ethnic group in this Country that has to apologize to the wider society for their race…..or has to apologize for comments made by other members of their ethnic group, the way that Obama had to. These developments have been breathtaking, although not surprising to me considering we live in one of the most racist Countries in the World. But this is why I had to step back from politics…the madness was becoming too absurd to tolerate.

I never thought that either Clinton or Obama were very electable from the beginning.... and now they are even more unelectable... That is especially the case for Obama.
Everything that I had predicted earlier on seems to be materializing. The media has duped Democrats (by steering voters like sheep) into nominating two marginal candidates....and by playing up issues of race, etc. And it has been all about ratings for the networks the whole time (from the time that the Obama/Clinton matchup was first introduced and played up as a possibility 2 & 1/2 to 3 years ago until today).

An example of the damage done to Obama can be seen in polling data...and it is showing in a big way. Whether it holds or not remains to be seen...but the negative results seem to be holding a month after the Rev. Wright nonsense. Obama had been leading by wide margins in Indiana on a consistent basis over several weeks. But after the negative racist gutter politics of Clinton.... the poll in Indiana has flipped the opposite way...with Clinton now enjoying a nice lead; although Obama has been able to improve his standing in Indiana in the last few days. There was an initial swing of about 15-20 points from Obama to Clinton within the span of two weeks. As if that’s not bad enough, new polling from Puerto Rico shows that Clinton enjoys a healthy double digit lead there as well. I was a little surprised by the Puerto Rico poll considering the rocky relationship between the Clinton administration and the island in the late 1990’s.

But Hillary’s support among blue collar White voters in Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania says a lot about the impact of playing on the fears of White Americans, xenophobic Whites in particular. Hillary always had race as a built-in advantage.

At the end of the day... I don't believe that Obama is electable in a General Election....and he probably won't win. He may not even win the Democratic nomination now that Florida and Michigan are probably out of the picture (at least for now). This will leave the decision to the so-called Superdelegates. Losing the nomination may be an act of mercy for Obama and his followers. Some polling is beginning to show that voters would support McCain over Obama...and Clinton over McCain in key matchups (again...Hillary Clinton’s dirty racist campaign has started to pay off). Clinton is likely to finish strong in the remaining contests on the back of her race baiting & scorched earth campaign...and this may make the Supercrooks... or the "Superdelegates" doubt Obama's chances.

To put it plainly....America is too sick to elect a Black candidate to the Presidency of the United States. Sick meaning- too racist, xenophobic, ignorant about politics & basic civics, ignorant about Democracy, nationalistic, controlled by fear, manipulated by the media, uninformed about other cultures & the experiences of others within the borders of this Country...let alone in Countries thousands of miles away, blind about religion.... Etc. And this is essentially why I am noticing that the vultures are starting to gather for Barack Obama…waiting for a nice meal from the political remains of a man who started out with grand hopes but was soon consumed by the disease that is American Politics….a disease fed by a twisted social culture. In some ways, America is as sick today as it was 40 and 50 years ago. And Hope was never going to change that in my opinion. This is why I always said that Obama needed more than Hope to win the nomination and a General Election… I knew that he would face this racist onslaught. He needed a kick ass, cut throat campaign staff that wouldn’t take any bull……but this is something that Obama doesn’t seem to have unfortunately. To say that David Axelrod has been a wimp may be an understatement.

In the end, race & how comfortable voters personally would feel having a beer or having dinner with a particular candidate may prove more important than the candidates positions on actual issues. In American elections... this personal "feel good" test tends to carry the day over all else. This is what American elections have come down to....and it has been this way for quite some time. Whites will always be more comfortable with candidates who look like them, despite the fact that they may actually have more in common as Americans with the minority candidate (the guy who is barely a millionaire…and a fairly new member of that group). This phenomenon is part of the reason why George W. Bush still won re-election despite losing 3 straight debates to the cosmopolitan guy from the Northeast. Rural White Americans preferred George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan because of how well these men wore their boots and their cowboy hats...more than any plan they offered or policy that they supported. We are seeing a similar situation with Obama, and his ethnicity highlights this phenomenon that much more.

Americans consistently vote against their own best interests, even in election years when they claim to want change. If you recall….2004 was a “change” election year…but when it came down to voting, Americans chose the same cast of characters….largely out of fear and because of the impulse to choose the familiar. The same thing is happening in this election cycle. Americans will likely choose what is familiar and “safe”. Choosing something different requires voters to put in more work….requires them to think more…requires them to have a grasp of the issues. But for many voters, this is too hard, and they look for any excuse to pull back and retreat to their old patterns of choosing the most familiar. This is how issues like Gay marriage, guns (I am pro-gun by the way), religion, immigration, war, race and class, often trump more pressing everyday issues that all voters should be concerned with. This is partly what Obama was getting at when he made the comments about small town America. But he wasn’t blunt enough with his comments. If he could have gotten away with it, what he should have mentioned was the fact that race and racial prejudice are working against him in many parts of rural America, and rural Pennsylvania and Indiana especially. That’s what he wanted to say but couldn’t. Xenophobia and racism are huge issues in this campaign. And the fear mongering from Clinton and McCain are a testament to that fact. If these were not big issues, then Clinton & the Conservatives would not be working so hard to highlight and exploit racial & social differences for political advantage.

It is amazing how the media has been able to twist Obama’s comments around to have a completely different meaning or connotation than what was intended. Hillary Clinton is allowed to tell one bold faced lie after another with very few lasting consequences, yet Obama is vilified repeatedly for telling the truth. Obama is attacked relentlessly for comments that he didn’t even make regarding his former Pastor, or for comments made by the obscure Louis Farrakhan (support that Obama never sought & comments that he probably didn’t know about ahead of time) yet the media does nothing to hold John McCain accountable for actually seeking and accepting the endorsement of a known bigot and religious hate monger John Hagee. This is why I get the urge to strangle those who say there is no media bias in favor of these rich white candidates. Clinton in particular has had the media advantage from the beginning, long before she even declared her candidacy.

The media tries to create its own reality in order to boost ratings. They desperately want the Obama comments to be overblown into a huge new controversy. Even though a CNN Poll out today showed that 76% of viewers did not find Obama’s comments offensive at all. A majority were actually in agreement with Sen. Obama. Yet the corporate media continues to twist his words and then overplay those twisted words, hoping to influence voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana and elsewhere who may not keep up with the daily news and who would therefore be ripe candidates for this kind of manipulation. Meanwhile, while this manufactured news is being promoted, the media seems to ignore actual confirmed news surrounding Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn, and his support of a Columbian Trade deal, while she is in Pennsylvania slamming such deals. It’s the same kind of disingenuous behavior that we saw from Clinton in Ohio and that we have seen throughout her campaign.

What really bothers me is the assertion by Clinton and McCain that Obama is some sort of elitist and is out of touch. This is coming from a woman who reported making over $100 million dollars, and has been the biggest recipient of corporate lobbying money out of all of the candidates. This is also the same woman who has been in the White House, in Governors mansions and in corporate board rooms for upwards of 35 years straight. This is the same woman who defended corporations against consumers and even defended a wife beater in a brutal domestic violence case when she was a hotshot attorney, as a way to promote her career. And now she claims to be a feminist. Give us a break Hillary! And John McCain is not far behind. His entire campaign is virtually run by lobbyists. But Obama is the elitist? A man who started out in a job that paid about $15,000 a year and wasn’t born into wealth. A man raised by a single mother. A man who lived on Food Stamps as a kid and doesn’t know what it feels like to have $100 million.

If that’s not bad enough, Hillary is now claiming to be Annie Oakley…a pro-gun politician. Unfortunately Americans have a very short memory and will fall for that unmitigated foolishness. Those of us who have been paying attention know about the war on guns that the Clintons waged in the 1990’s. Now she wants gullible voters to believe that she is actually pro-gun. It’s another chameleon act by Clinton…. changing her colors to fit the current environment. We saw the same nonsense with NAFTA. And there have been similar embellishments in terms of her foreign policy (3am crisis) experience….which all turned out to be a very large bucket of Bull.

The media circus of the past 2 months has taken both Democratic Party candidates off of more meaningful topics, such as what they plan to do to save social security, what they plan to do about healthcare, what they plan to do about climate change and the environment, what they plan to do about energy independence & getting gas prices under control, what they plan to do to create jobs and to make the U.S. more competitive in the new global economy, what they plan to do about the cost of living and stagnant wages, what they plan to do about corruption in Washington D.C., what they plan to do to repair U.S. relations with the rest of the World, what they plan to do about the growing racial and social class rift (the new emerging caste system in this Country), what they plan to do about the cost of higher education and out of control student loan burdens, and the list goes on & on. I have not heard anything over the past several weeks about substantive policies and plans of the respective candidates. I have only been bombarded with replay after replay of the latest trivial comments from one of the 3 Senators.

We have entered an era where we can now count on good people to be swift boated, no matter how good their message might be. The new tradition calls for election seasons that are turned into pure entertainment. Americans, fed by the corporate media machine, sit around to see who has made the latest gaffe, rather than seeking meaningful substantive information. This is why the American electorate tends to be less informed than voters in other Democracies. We are becoming a "gaffe" and 10 second soundbite culture. This, in part, is what will decide elections from here on out. Meanwhile, the same cast of characters will win elections over and over again, and nothing will change for ordinary Americans. The Well of American politics is now permanently contaminated. If JFK were to run for the office of President today, even he would be swift boated. So we as a nation are in this perpetual funk, and I don’t see how the cycle will be broken. As long as the nation has a corrupt Two- Party system that is controlled by big money, a largely disengaged uninformed public, and a corporate media that controls & shapes almost all public opinion, then nothing significant will change in the lives of ordinary Americans. Fear, ignorance, racism and xenophobia will continue to rule the day. Only a reformed, regulated political system with a real multi-party Democracy (more than 2 major Parties) will be able to change the status quo. Americans make up one of the most ill-informed and manipulated electorates of any modern nation on the planet, which is why we will be dealing with this kind of nonsense for the foreseeable future.

The Obama experiment, so far, is proving that despite all of the Senators attempts to run a race neutral campaign and to represent a new generation of minority politicians who want to transcend skin color, White America still could not resist using race as a weapon against him. Thus America is once again failing to move beyond its racist past. This will insure that America will remain one of the Neanderthals in the community of nations. Technologically and economically strong…sure. But socially, it is still too sick to move ahead…still stuck 2-3 generations behind.

I'm quickly moving towards a "shelter in place" bunker mentality.... more of a survivalist mode... gathering everything that I need for "SHTF Day" (whenever that day comes)...when the House burns down. That includes clinging to my guns, just like Whites in small town America. I am realizing that I can do nothing to stop the inevitable demise of this country.... that an Empire descending from grace is just a natural thing...and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. I can do nothing to impact (not in a meaningful or significant way) the politics of this Country... especially in a Country where there is no real Democracy to speak of. Yes, my cynicism has returned….in fact, it never went anywhere. I have always been cynical and skeptical. This Country has not given me any reason to be otherwise. And it’s not a blind cynicism….it is a justified cynicism.

One positive that could come out of a Democratic defeat in November….sort of a silver lining to the dark storm cloud of a McCain victory… is that such a Democratic defeat may be what the Country needs. It wouldn’t be a completely negative experience. Perhaps this would be the spark that the Democratic Party would need to finally implode, which would be a good thing, forcing the Party to clean house from top to bottom, starting with Howard Dean. Perhaps this would cause the Party to refocus its vision, mission, and strategy for the future. The current cast of characters give me nothing to be excited about.

But those changes would only be superficial. What we really need is a complete fundamental overhaul of the entire political system in this Country. I know… not likely, but that’s the only way to restore public confidence in politics. There has to be a change in the way that the nation chooses Presidents and other elected officials. Public financing of campaigns, where all candidates are on a level playing field, and enjoy a truly impartial media, is the only fair framework for future elections. Maybe a Democratic loss could convince enough people (fed up Democrats and independents) to form a separate political Party. And I would love to see Conservatives and Moderates do the same. Both Parties should split into 2 or 3 different groups in my opinion. A true multi-party Democracy (more than two or three major Parties) is the only way that all Americans can feel that their interests are being represented. You need more than two corrupt political Parties to represent the needs and interests of a diverse group of 300 million people. No other major industrialized Democracy has that kind of Party ratio in terms of political representation. You only see that kind of ratio in dictatorships and communist Countries. Voters need choice when they go to the polls… they have had to choose between the Demon and the Devil for too long. Until there are fundamental changes to this Countries political landscape…. nothing will fundamentally change in the lives of Americans.

U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis Calls Obama - 'BOY'

Here's the article:

U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a "snake oil salesman."

He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama.

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

Yeah....THAT BOY....

UH HUH.....

Here's his insincere apology:

Dear Senator Obama:

On Saturday night I gave a speech in which I used a poor choice of words when discussing the national security policy positions of the Presidential candidates. I was quoted as saying "That boy's finger does not need to be on the button."

My poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity. I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness.

Though we may disagree on many issues, I know that we share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation. My comment has detracted from the dialogue that we should all be having on legitimate policy differences and in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you.


Geoff Davis

Obama is an United States SENATOR. Davis is a CONGRESSMAN. Davis is from Kentucky and not Idaho. Any White person from the South understands EXACTLY what they mean when they call a Black man ' BOY'.



Support The Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival

WHAT: The Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival celebrates those who have created and continue to create works addressing the Mixed racial and cultural experience through film screenings, readings and workshops.

WHEN: June 12 - June 15, 2008, in celebration of Loving Day, the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the right of people of different races to marry.

WHERE: Japanese American National Museum, 369 E. First St., Los Angeles, CA

WHO: Co-producers Heidi Durrow and Fanshen Cox of Mixed Chicks Chat (, also available on itunes, keywords: mixed chicks) will host the event. The Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival is inclusive: anyone who identifies as Mixed, has a trans-racial/cultural adoptive family, or who supports interracial/cultural relationships is welcome. Admission to the Festival is free, however, pre-registration at is highly recommended.

WHY: In the past, artists of Mixed heritage and their works have been forced into mono-racial/cultural categories based on antiquated notions such as the ‘one drop rule.’ The Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival validates and celebrates Mixed identity and experience. The goals for the festival are to encourage emerging storytellers to explore the Mixed experience; introduce and encourage role models for future generations of Mixed artists; provide a safe and positive forum for honest discussions about race and culture; and to promote the Mixed experience as a valuable and important part of World History.



Opening night Loving Day Celebration in conjunction with Loving Day ( Loving Day’s mission is to fight prejudice through education and to build a sense of community among people who engage in meaningful interracial and intercultural relationships.

Honoree: Kip Fulbeck “for inspirational dedication to celebrating and illuminating the Mixed racial and cultural experience.“ Kip Fulbeck is recognized as one of the world’s premier artists exploring Hapa identity through art, film, literature and spoken word.. His popular books (Part Asian, 100% Hapa; and Paper Bullets: A Fictional Autobiography) and short films (Banana Split) speak to and inspire a You Tube generation to political involvement. Kip has been featured on CNN, MTV, and PBS, and has performed and exhibited in more than 20 countries. He is a Professor of Art and an affiliate faculty in Asian American Studies and Film & Media Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara and is a nationally ranked masters swimmer and ocean lifeguard. His current book is titled Permanence: Tattoo Portraits by Kip Fulbeck published by Chronicle Books.

New Media 101: Creating an Online Show: Zadi Diaz. Zadi Diaz is a producer, writer, host and speaker best known for her work on the Webby Award-winning Internet TV series EPIC-FU. She is considered a pioneer and thought leader in the online video and new media community. She is co-founder and principal of Smashface Productions, a new media production company, and co-founder of Pixelodeon, an annual screening festival recognizing innovation, inspiration, and community in global online video. Zadi has spoken on panels for NPR, SXSW, Digital Hollywood, and NAB among many others about her progressive work in the new media landscape. Her online work has been highlighted in the New York Times, Forbes, CBS Evening News, MTV, TV Guide, The Associated Press, The Guardian, and many other national publications. She is a Film Independent Project: Involve Fellow and a member of the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences (IADAS). Zadi is also a select member of The Transatlantic Network 2020 founded by the British Council, a multilateral network engaging future leaders to collaboratively address global issues.


Fanshen Cox Founder & Producer, Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival. Actress/Producer/Podcaster/Educator Fanshen graduated with honors from the University of Michigan and holds an MA from Teachers College, Columbia University. She served 2 years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Cape Verde, West Africa and was given the Peace Corps’ Franklin H. Williams Award when teaching in a high school in the South Bronx. She honed her production skills as a 2007 Project: Involve Fellow; and is the co-producer and co-host of Mixed Chicks Chat - the only live, weekly podcast about being racially and culturally Mixed (available on itunes or at She was recently quoted in The Guardian and served as an interviewer on StoryCorps’ Griot Initiative. As an actress, her credits include: Gone Baby Gone (directed by Ben Affleck), Ellie Parker (opposite Naomi Watts) and numerous television and theater roles. The word fanshen was created by peasants during China’s land reform movement and means start a revolution. Fanshen’s parents are Jamaican, Scottish, Danish and Native American and she has dedicated her life to sharing her story as a woman of Mixed racial and cultural heritages.

Heidi W. Durrow Founder & Producer, Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival
Writer/Podcaster/Lawyer. A graduate of Stanford University, Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and Yale Law School, Heidi Durrow is a Los Angeles writer who is African-American and Danish. A former litigator at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Heidi has also worked as a consultant to the National Basketball Association and National Football League teaching conflict management and decision-making workshops. As a fiction writer, Heidi has won several awards for her writing - which focuses on issues of biracial and bicultural identity - including the Lorian Hemingway Short Story Competition, and the Chapter One Fiction Contest. She has received grants from the New York Foundation for the Arts, the American Scandinavian Foundation, the Lois Roth Endowment and an Emerging Writers’ Award from the Jerome Foundation. The Elizabeth George Foundation and the American Antiquarian Society have awarded her grants for her novel-in-progress about Miss Lala, a mulatta circus performer and strongwoman of the Victorian era. Heidi’s writing has been published in Alaska Quarterly Review and The Literary Review, as well as on the popular blog Light-skinneded Girl. She was recently nominated for a
Pushcart Prize. Her novel manuscript is currently a finalist for Barbara Kingsolver’s 2008 Bellwether Prize for Literature of Social Change. Heidi is the co-host and co-producer of Mixed Chicks Chat (, the only live weekly show about being racially and culturally mixed.

Lesa Lakin Writer/Producer. Lesa Lakin is a writer/producer who began her career in advertising. Her work for clients such as ABC, ESPN, Oxygen, MTV, Snapple and the New York Mets has won many awards in advertising. This experience in commercials led Lesa to television and film production. Starting as a director’s assistant on Warner Bros.’, Vegas Vacation and Universal’s, Billy Madison, she excelled in production and became the Executive Producer of Mambo Entertainment. While at Mambo, she was responsible for the series Neighbors for HBO, as well as working on the Academy Awardâ nominated short film, Birch Street Gym, NBC’s Sunday’s Best, and the MTV series, A Day in the Life. Lesa also produced the feature film, The Independent, featuring Jerry Stiller, Janeane Garafalo and Ben Stiller. The Independent is currently being adapted for the New York stage.

For more information, visit the Festival website here.

Also visit Heidi Durrow's Personal blog.


The Mixed Chicks mention 'Mirror On America' in Podcast episode 39. Take a Listen.

See My previous post on The Mixed Chicks.

Visit The Mixed Chicks Podcast page.

Cartoon Roundup

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Bill Clinton's Ties to China----show us the $$$$$$

From The Los Angeles


Bill Clinton, China linked via his foundation
Eugene Hoshiko, Associated Press

IN HANGZHOU: President Clinton gave the keynote address at a 2005 conference organized by Alibaba, hailing the Internet as “an inherently cooperative instrument.”
A firm that has donated to the president's charity is accused of collaborating with the government in its crackdown on Tibetan activists. Hillary Clinton has spoken out against China's actions.

By Stephen Braun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2008

NEW YORK -- As Chinese authorities have clamped down on unrest in Tibet and jailed dissidents in advance of the 2008 Olympics, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken a strong public stance, calling for restraint in Tibet and urging President Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies in Beijing.

But her recent stern comments on China's internal crackdown collide with former President Bill Clinton's fundraising relationship with a Chinese Internet company accused of collaborating with the mainland government's censorship of the Web. Last month, the firm, Alibaba Inc., carried a government-issued "most wanted" posting on its Yahoo China homepage, urging viewers to provide information on Tibetan activists suspected of stirring recent riots.

Alibaba, which took over Yahoo's China operation in 2005 as part of a billion-dollar deal with the U.S.-based search engine, arranged for the former president to speak to a conference of Internet executives in Hangzhou in September 2005. Instead of taking his standard speaking fees, which have ranged from $100,000 to $400,000, Clinton accepted an unspecified private donation from Alibaba to his international charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation.

The former president's charity has raised more than $500 million over the last decade and has been lauded for its roles in disaster response, AIDS prevention and Third World medical and poverty relief. But his reliance on influential foreign donors and his foundation's refusal to release its list of donors have led to repeated questions about the sources and transparency of his fundraising -- even as Hillary Clinton has talked on the campaign trail about relying on him as a roving international ambassador if she is elected president.

Foreign contributions to American-based charities are allowed under U.S. law, but political and philanthropy ethics advocates worry that Bill Clinton's reliance on international businesses and foreign governments to finance his worldwide charity campaigns raise issues of potential conflicts of interest if he were to take an active role in his wife's administration.

"This is a perfect example of why it's critical for both Clintons to provide prompt and complete disclosure of all their sources of income, not just personal sources but also his foundation," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a government reform advocacy group.

The Clinton foundation and the former president's library in Little Rock have received millions of dollars in donations from the Saudi royal family and the Middle East sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar, along with the governments of Taiwan and Brunei.

Fueled by such cash, the foundation has grown into a worldwide philanthropic dynamo, using its financial clout and influence with business leaders to streamline solutions for logistical logjams that have long plagued charity operations. The foundation has pressed to lower the price of expensive AIDS medications and set up long-term projects across the Third World.

But like many charities, the Clinton foundation maintains a strict policy of keeping its donations confidential to protect the privacy of donors. Still, partial lists have emerged in the foundation's tax filings and in press accounts, leading to growing scrutiny of the activities of some contributors.

Some human rights activists suggest that the Clinton foundation's contribution from Alibaba undermines his wife's outspoken stance on China's internal crackdown.

"A former president of the United States received a donation from a Chinese firm that is involved in censorship, and now his wife is running for president. This is a shame of the U.S.," said Harry Wu, an exiled Chinese activist based in Washington.

Rest of article at link above.


See, while the MSM obssesses over Obama's so-called 'Elitist' comments,

They still havent gotten the list of Donors to
1. Bill Clinton's Charity
2. Bill Clinton's Library

I wanna know how much the Chinese have given him, as well as others.

It's called TRANSPARENCY...something The Clintons don't want any parts of this election season...just exactly WHERE are those 2007 Tax Returns? And what's up with that partnership with Ron Burkle? What did you do to earn those millions?

Friday, April 11, 2008

Obama defends his statement

There has been yet another Friday afternoon dustup in this political campaign. Barack Obama was speaking in San Francisco last week (yes last week, it took this long for somebody to find the video). He was answering a question about why some Pennsylvania voters are finding it hard to get behind his campaign. As usual, Barack Obama gave a very thoughtful answer. "But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Hillary Clinton, because her campaign is desperate, and John McCain, because he's a Republican, have both jumped on this statement. Accusations of a Barack Obama being an elitist (McCain may be the richest man in the Senate and Hillary Clinton who made over $109 million in the last 7 years are calling Obama elitist - that's rich...pun intended) and not respecting gunowners or religious God-fearing people have been recklessly thrown out. (more...)

Video here

The Honorable War Hero McCain Doesn't Support A New GI Bill

This is by my fellow Blogger, Jack Turner, over at Jack and Jill Politics.

Support the troops.
Support the troops.
Support the troops.

How many times has legitimate debate about our foreign policy been obscured by calls to "support the troops?" Too many to count.

And yet, when you examine the records of those pro-war people who hide behind the troops, you find that they don't know the first thing about what that support means. It means equipment, training, adequate troop levels, health care, safety from sexual assault, reasonable enlistment standards and financial compensation.

It also means not deploying the troops off to illegally invade and occupy a foreign land, but I'm not even gonna get into that.

John McCain is one of these people who says we should support the troops.

John McCain (as if he could ever let us forget) was a prisoner of war.

Based on his experience in Vietnam, he's considered an expert on military matters. He thinks "honor" is the highest calling, and he thinks a lot of his own sense of that virtue.

But this honorable, troop-supporting, military expert and P.O.W. veteran has been reluctant to support a new GI Bill. And more people need to be calling him on it.

Watch this video put together by Brave New Films, WesPac (Wesley Clark) and VoteVets, then sign the petition. Also read this Op Ed in the LA Times.