The Right Wing's Racist Attacks on Michelle Obama

The shameless right-wing attack machine has figured out that it may be more politically expedient to go over after Michelle Obama with subliminal racist attacks than the Democratic candidate himself. And the racist code word of the day is "angry." What they're trying to do is scare Americans into seeing Michelle Obama as nothing more than an angry black woman who they should fear getting into the White House. It's absolutely disgusting.

We've heard for months now how the wife of the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for president, Sen. Barack Obama, is unpatriotic and hates her country. That she is not "proud" to be an American. That she believes America to be a "mean" place.

And now she's "angry." Very, very angry. One of the more relentless perpetrators of this reprehensible attack is Sirius Radio's Andrew Wilkow. On his "The Wilkow Majority" show Monday the Sean Hannity wannabe went on a verbal rampage against the "mean-faced," "tough-looking" Obama, saying she was "harboring a whole lot of anger" and that she was "full of rage." So much rage that she has "quivering lips" and a "scowl" when she speaks. And as if that wasn't enough, he railed that "she looks like the kind of woman that would hit her husband with a shoe for talking back." Is this guy for real? If Wilkow would like us to believe that he's not trying very hard to conjure up the racist image of the angry black woman, he is either terribly dumb and naive or thinks we are. Just how does Wilkow know she's "full of rage?" What's he basing this prognosis on? Is he watching the same intelligent, happy family woman that I see plastered all over the TV? I've yet to see even one public display of even a bad mood let alone the sort of "rage" Wilkow refers to. Perhaps it's Wilkow who's the one "full of rage?" Maybe it's Wilkow who "harbors a lot of anger" at the thought of a a black First Family? What's even more outrageous than Wilkow's blatant stereotyping is his claim that his attacks on Michelle Obama "are not personal." What a croc of shit.

The right wing attack dogs have one goal, and that's to scare the crap of America. "Michelle and Barack Obama. The angry radical black man and his angry black wife. A couple of militants whom Whitey should be very, very afraid of." It's 2004 all over again. But instead of gay marriage it's angry black folk. Let's just hope this time Americans care more about the war, the recession, $4.50/gallon gas prices, unemployment, record debt, the housing slump, the mortgage crisis, universal health care and global warming.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: Are we gonna let the Right Wing bullies frame this election and define Barack Obama? John McCain and the GOP are going to spend tends of millions on vicious attack ads and aggressive ground teams. Obama will need millions more to effectively combat the Republicans' desperate, race-baiting onslaught. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizable war chest, Sen. Obama can win these states. We are committed to raising as much money as possible to help elect Barack Obama president. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.

Who's Your Baby Daddy? Plastic Ken's Denial Part II

About a month ago former North Carolina Senator and once presidential hopeful John Edwards issued his own version of "I did not have sex with that woman." Only this time, instead of Bill Clinton's angry, finger-pointing delivery what we got from Plastic Ken was a smarmy, half-smirked, squinty-eyed look of incredulousness and mock indignation as if the reporter had just asked him the dumbest fucking question on Earth. 'What, me cheat? How dare you!'?

His denial was unequivocal, almost to the point of challenging, especially when he referred to the allegations as "tabloid trash." Probably not the smartest strategy when you happen to have an already zealous National Enquirer up your ass, feverishly gnawing away as it obsesses over proving its journalistic legitimacy. A dumb move indeed. Sort of like former Sen. Gary Hart's boneheaded challenge to the scandal-starved media back in 1987: "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." And follow him they did, right into his mistress Donna Rice's arms.

Cut to a month later, with Plastic Ken finally admitting last week to the rest of us what he claims to have confessed to his wife Elizabeth back in 2006: that he had a "liaison" with novice filmmmaker and 80's party girl Rielle Hunter. But wait, the affair took place while Elizabeth's incurable cancer "was in remission." Good thing. Its not like she was in chemo or anything. That would've been unconscionable. See? Plastic Ken does have a conscience after all.

Now in this same admission last week Plastic Ken, who chalks up his sexual indiscretions to unbridled narcissism, flatly denied that he's the father of Hunter's six month old baby. So let's get this straight: Edwards is unequivocally denying something else?. George W. Bush had it right when he so aptly said: "...Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Exactly. No one believed Plastic Ken a month ago and we sure as hell don't believe him now. That he's volunteered to take a paternity test is not enough. I want him on "Maury" for one of those patented "Who's Your Baby Daddy" shows. I want all of America on the edge of their seats as Maury tears open the big manila envelope and declares, "Plastic Ken...you ARE the father!" as the publicly humiliated Baby Daddy runs offstage in tears as Elizabeth and Rielle high-five each other and curse him out on national television. That would be most fitting.

To be sure, marital infidelity is rampant in Washington, and Plastic Ken isn't the first and surely won't be the last to let his roving shmecky out of his pants. He's in good company with other fellow self-destructive narcissists such as Hart, Clinton, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Larry Craig, Bob Barr, Bob Livingston, David Vitter, Jim McGreevey and Elliot Spitzer. But what is it about these extra-special dirtbags--Edwards, Gingrich, McCain to name a few--who are not only compelled to betray their wives, but allegedly do so while these poor women are battling some sort of dreaded illness or debilitating physical condition? They reside on the bottom of the philanderers food chain. Yet that doesn't stop them from sanctimoniously lecturing the rest of us about morality and decency. While running for president last Fall Plastic Ken said, "...We are facing a moral crisis as great as any that has ever challenged us. And, it is this test -- this moral test -- that I have come to understand is at the heart of this campaign." ("now if you'll please excuse me, I have to go boink Rielle before Elizabeth's cancer returns"). It's enought to make you sick.

McCain at Sturges: Who's the "Radical" Now?

Just imagine. A raucous event of 500,000 engine-revving, beer-guzzling, tattooed Hells Angels-looking motorcyclists and their scantily-clad women engaging in racy contests where nudity and simulated sex take place while wife-beater-wearin' Kid Rock head-bangs in the background. And then appears a presidential candidate who gleefully announces:

"Thank you, I thank you all very much for that unique Sturgis welcome! As you may know, not long ago a couple a hundred thousand Berliners made a lot of noise for my opponent. I’ll take the roar of 50,000 Harleys any day! Any day, my friend!"

And then an insane look appears on the candidate's face as he makes a wildly animated spinning hand gesture and loud "vroom vroom" noise intended to simulate the cranking of a cycle engine but ends up his own embarrassing version of the Dean scream....and then offers up his wife in the event's notoriously T&A-infested main contest: "I told her with a little luck, she could be the only woman ever to serve as both the first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip."

Holy Radical Associations, Batman...tits, ass, booze, tattoos, sex, cycles and sluts, oh my! Had the candidate's name been Sen. Barack Obama you can bet your ass that the McCain camp, his GOP surrogates and Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the right wing attack-dogs would be crucifying "The One." You can hear them now:

"It's an outrage! Does this man really have the judgement to be president? Hanging out with biker gangs and their naked 'old ladies'....drinking, cursing, engaging in lesbian sex, topless contests....Kid Rock, for Pete's sake!? Its disgusting and un-American....and we cannot have this sort of radical behavior in the White House!"

But the candidate was none other than the socially-conservative Sen. John McCain, and there was nary a peep out of Hannity and Limbaugh and the rest of the good 'ole boy spinhead network. In fact, they think it's cool that their guy gets down with the 'real Americans...patriots...the courageous men and women who serve our country proud,' as McCain painted the Sturgis crowd.

Sweet Jesus, could you imagine the holy shitstorm the Right would make out of this had Obama been standing up there reveling in his biker glory, teasing the flesh-baring beer-buzzed crowd that Michelle should "show us your tits!?" Oh, the hypocrisy....


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. We are commited to helping the campaign raise as much money as possible to combat the bountiful warchest of Sen. John McCain and the GOP. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.

David Brooks is Dead Wrong About Barack Obama

Let's get something out of the way quickly: Sen. Barack Obama is not the most credentialed presidential candidate the Democratic Party has ever sent to the general election. He has made many judgement missteps along the way, and he has only himself to blame for it. The candidate at times can also appear weak, arrogant, aloof, lacking in substance and yes, elitist. But let's not confuse all this, as NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote on Tuesday, with Obama being "not in it;" of his being psycho-socially detached from virtually everything professionally noteworthy in his life.

What Brooks fails to understand in his oversimplified Freudian assessment of Obama's psyche is something truly monumental, heretofore not seen in American politics: the very likelihood that Sen. Barack Obama will make history as the first black president of The United States of America. Given that black men were still being lynched and beaten just 45 or so years ago simply for being black, this accomplishment not only is historic and electric, but it carries with it an unfathomable amount of pressure and stress. Yes, Barack Obama is an agent of change. He is a light, a force, a movement. He is not merely a candidate, and anyone who views him that way is terribly myopic. An Obama victory can and will forever change not just America's political landscape, but it's socio-economic one as well. There is great purpose to Obama's candidacy, much more beyond simple politics. His victory would end America's first 233 year phase and usher in a new one. When Brooks writes that Obama "lives apart," he is grossly minimizing the significance of Obama the man, the candidate, the movement.

Brooks downplays the race factor and writes that Americans more so "are wary and uncertain" of Obama. He's right about that in one sense, but not in his intended meaning. Yes, Americans are wary and uncertain...the same way they are wary and uncertain when they see a black man walking towards them on a dark street, or when they are alone in an elevator with a young black man, or when LA cops see them driving in a white neighborhood late at night. I'm not sure what bugs the shit out of me more, white people's racism towards blacks or elite whites like Brooks minimizing it. The fact is, the black man walking down the street, getting in the elevator, or driving in Beverly Hills could very well be, like Obama, a Harvard educated lawyer. But to the "wary and uncertain" whites, it doesn't matter. And this is precisely where Brooks gets it all wrong.

Brooks summarily tears apart Obama's entire career as if it's truly meaningless. That Obama's a self-made success with infinitely more impressive credentials than, say, George Bush, gets lost on Brooks. His job as a conservative pundit is not to speak the truth about Republicans, but to distort the truth about Democrats. But the truth is, Obama is the American Dream personified. Of mixed-race heritage and from a poor, broken home, he made his way into the finest academic institutions in the country, and became the first ever black editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He spent years as a community organizer, 12 years as a law professor, 6 years as a State Senator, 3 as a U.S. Senator, and stands the best chance of anyone in history of becoming the first black president. Yet Brooks' column conjures up the image of some emotionless, spiritless, disconnected automaton who somehow managed to accomplish this greatness without ever having any real, intimate relationships or intellectual curiosity. That he somehow robotically drifted his way to being some sort of comatose-like wonder, having fooled everyone and touched no one. Give us a break, Brooks. Your shameless partisanship precedes you. You're a Rove in sheep's clothing.

What Sen. Barack Obama stands for, what his candidacy means, transcends politics and in many ways is a larger than life phenomenon. It signals the beginning of a new dawn in American life. It's unfortunate that David Brooks cannot, or will not, see that.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. We are commited to helping the campaign raise as much money as possible to combat the bountiful warchest of Sen. John McCain and the GOP. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.

The Right Wing Attack Machine and the Race Card

Sen. Barack Obama last week attempted to defend himself against subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) racist attacks from the Right by telling an audience that "They're going to try to say that I'm a risky guy. They're going to try to say, Well, you know, he's got a funny name, and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills." Oh no
he di-int!

In response, Rick Davis, campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, said "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

Oh, puleeeeze. This is the kind of projection Freud would be quite proud of. To be sure, whether directly or indirectly, everyone from Camp McCain to the GOP to conservative talk-radio hosts have been playing the race card since Day-One. What do you think the Rev. Wright scandal was all about, simple incendiary rhetoric? The imagery of an angry, unpatriotic black preacher against that of a supposedly angry, unpatriotic black presidential candidate was not just intentional, but exploitative of Americans' worst fears about race. How come there was virtually no major backlash or outcry over McCain's relationship with Rev. John Hagee? The leader of the 19,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Tex. has said the Nazis "operated on God's behalf" in driving Jews from Europe to Israel. He's also called the Catholic church a "great whore." I guess when it's white-on-white it's allright.

Or how about the fiery race-baiting ad created by Floyd "Willie Horton" Brown before the North Carolina primary that describes the murders of young people killed in Chicago gang violence and concludes by stating that Sen. Barack Obama, while an Illinois State Senator, voted against the death penalty for gang members convicted of murder. Not about race, you say? What was the ad about then, Chicago's terrifying Jewish street gangs?

Or how about the attack ad last Spring produced by the North Carolina Republican Party which featured Wright's "God Damn America" speech in an effort to align Obama with the two Democratic candidates for Governor, Bev Purdue and Richard Moore, both of whom had endorsed the Democratic presidential hopeful. Hence, don't vote for them because they support Obama, the supporter of an angry, black, unpatriotic, hateful preacher. Not about race, you say?

Or how about the non-stop attacks on Obama by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and others in the right-wing media? Hannity uses the words "radical" every three seconds to slyly imply that Obama's nothing more than an angry black man with "radical associations." I don't recall, even in the highly contentious '04 campaign, hearing the word "radical" used--and used so often--to describe Sen. John Kerry.

Or how about Bill O'Reilly's constant lapsing into Stepin Fetchit-talk when he discusses Obama? Funny, I don't hear any black slang from him when he discusses McCain.

Or how about Sirious Satellite Radio's Andrew Wilkow who weeks ago pointed to a NY Times photo of Michelle Obama and commented how 'mean and angry' she looked, and that if she were a teacher her students would be frightened. Not an image intended to conjure up an angry black woman, you say?

Obama was 100% right when he refered to "they," and the picture "they're" trying to paint of him. The race card's being played allright, but not by Obama. Let's not confuse playing the race card with pointing out the playing of a race card. Just as the media insists Obama acknowledge the "success" of the surge while they give McCain a free pass for voting for the war and inaccurately predicting we'll be greeted as liberators and that Iraq's oil will pay for it all...the media is now choosing to turn a blind eye to the rampant racism that clearly still exists in America while vilifying a black man for defending himself against it.

The Walmart Dictatorship: Vote McCain or Else?

It's got Karl Rove written all over it. It smacks of the lowest form yet of sleazy Republican intimidation tactics to disenfranchise voters and influence the outcome of the November election. And it's got right-wing spinmeisters whipped into a mouth-foaming frenzy. We're talking about the behemoth retailer Walmart's alleged threats against its employees if they vote for the Democratic presumptive nominee for president, Sen. Barack Obama. It's all about jobs. So is the world's largest retailer really trying to scare the bajesus out of its 1.4 million workers? 'Vote for Obama and you could be fired.' Is this what it's all coming to?

What apparently has Walmart executives' panties in a snit is the belief that if Obama becomes president it's more likely that its employees will unionize, which is something the notoriously stingy employer fears. Walmart's reputation as a lousy employer is legendary. Charges of low wages, poor benefits and overall workplace mistreatment have plagued the company for years.

At issue now is a bill, co-sponsored by Obama and opposed by the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, that could force the retail giant's hand and serve to appreciably lighten its pocketbook. The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow unions to organize workplaces without secret ballot elections, thus making it much easier to turn companies from non-union to union. Should this happen at Walmart, it would cost the company bazillions, eating into its sizable earnings. Wal-Mart recently reported first quarter 2008 profits of over $3-billion, a 6.9% increase over last year. Our collective hearts bleed for them, huh?

So what exactly is Walmart up to? The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the company has been holding mandatory Chicken Little meetings with store managers and department supervisors warning that the bill would likely pass in an Obama administration and that that would negatively impact its workers. To what degree the warnings were issued is not confirmed, but many Walmart employees anonymously have said that the company's message is quite clear: 'a vote for Obama could mean a loss of jobs.' And while the company may not have specifically instructed any of its employees--be they management or rank-and-file--to vote specifically for McCain, the intention is obvious: 'We don't like Obama. We don't like Unions. Obama will unionize us. That will hurt business and result in massive layoffs. We do not want Obama to be president.' They don't need to finish this with, "and if you vote for Obama you will lose your job." The perceived threat is already there. Of course, Walmart denies that it's threatened or intimidated its workers.

As expected, right-wing spinheads are rushing to Walmart's defense. On his national Sirius Satellite Radio program Friday, The Wilkow Majority, Andrew Wilkow emphatically and repeatedly asserted that Walmart, or any company for that matter, not only has the right to maintain whatever size workforce it so desires, but that it would be well within their right to warn employees outright that "If you vote for Obama you will be fired."

In an email exchange, I pointed out to Wilkow that not only is his suggestion unconscionable in terms of voter intimidation, but that it was convoluted in its enforceability. How would Walmart know who their employees voted for? And how, therefore, could they fire only those who voted for Obama? It's moronic no matter how you slice it.

Wilkow replied: "What I said was that a company has the right to inform the
workers of the stark reality of the effect the election may have on their
business. I wasn't endorsing voter intimidation. A company doesn't have
any obligation to maintain a particular number of employees or
production output. If a company feels that the political climate is
going to add weight or cost to doing business a company is free to cut
staff or production. If that is not the case then who is going to force
a company to maintain said levels of production and staff or stay in
business at all for that matter?"

Nice try, Andy, but the words "If you vote for Obama you will be fired" came out of your mouth, not mine. But let's give Wilkow some credit. Maybe after seeing his outlandish rant thrown back at him, he at least had the smarts to realize how irresponsible it was and he immediately backpedaled. I informed him that while a company indeed has the right to maintain whatever staff levels it so chooses, it does not have the right to attempt to control the outcome of an election by threatening its employees with dismissal if they vote for a specific candidate, which is exactly what he was urging.

This sort of tyrannical ploy is taking sleazy Republican politics to a new low, but it's surely not surprising. Republicans are desperate and scared and, like always, will do or say anything to retain power. And its corporate pals like Walmart seem all too willing to help the cause at the continued expense of the little guy. So, when exactly will the little guy learn and stop voting Republican? Perhaps this is the year we finally see an end to that unexplained phenomenon called Reagan Democrats.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. We are commited to helping the campaign raise as much money as possible to combat the bountiful warchest of Sen. John McCain and the GOP. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.

Can Obama Really Win this Thing?

George W. Bush's legacy is clear. Come January, when the 44th president of the United States takes office, the nation will be racked by,among other things, a record half-trillion dollar budget deficit; an economy teetering on, if not in, recession; $4+/gallon gas prices; the lowest consumer confidence in 15 years; a failing, deadly war; and a resurgent terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. Americans are broke, both in pocketbook and spirit. Over 85% of voters now think the country is headed in the wrong direction. No matter how you slice it, this should be a landslide year for Democrats. By any stretch, Sen. Barack Obama, the party's presumptive nominee, should be ahead by 15-20 points in the polls. Why then, in the latest USA Today tracking poll, is he trailing Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee, by four points among likely voters...a poll in which he led by five points last month? Is this a chilling foreshadowing of things to come in November?

Has the Obama campaign plateaued? Is it stuck in the mud? Out of steam? Despite the media frenzy and campaign euphoria over his much-heralded overseas trip to Europe and the Middle East last week, the polls show no bounce. In fact, as the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll above indicates, Obama's numbers are dropping. Even more troubling for the campaign are numbers released in last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. On the questions of who has more knowledge and experience, who's better equipped to be commander-in-chief, and who's the riskier choice, McCain leads by a whopping 20%-30%. And in most polls, voters say McCain is the more truthful, trustworthy candidate. Last week's trip was designed to make Obama look presidential. But as the numbers above indicate, it's going to take a lot more than a brilliantly choreographed series of photo-ops with foreign heads-of-state to convince voters that he has the chops to actually be president.

The simple truth is, John McCain is very much in this race, and depending how you look at it, he can and very well might win despite every logical reason that should point to his defeat. So what's happened? Is it merely race? That Americans are just not yet ready for a black president? For a black first family? To be sure, Obama's skin-color has and will continue to pose a major problem for him come November. The harsh reality is, America is still very much a racist country. But the overwhelming support Obama receives from blacks and young people could very well offset losses from the nation's bigots.

But how much can we blame the candidate himself for? Has he truly run an effective campaign, one that has reached out to, and whose message has resonated with, constituencies beyond blacks, the youth, the affluent and educated "Starbucks" whites? Last January, Obama came roaring out of the gate like a Triple-Crowned thoroughbred, but as the primary season wore on it became clear that, once the novelty and mystique of his historic candidacy wore off, that he could not finish off his main rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, with whom he bitterly fought to the end. That he would not capture enough delegates to win the nomination without the last-minute help from the party's elite super-delegates. Along the way there were several critical controversies including Rev. Wright, Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers, "BitterGate" and several patriotism-related gaffes by him and his wife Michelle that all served as a major distraction from the campaign.

That Obama's campaign seems flat is of no surprise to many. Of concern is the belief that with Obama there's lots of style but little real substance. His recent spate of position-changes smacks more of political expediency than the genuine convictions of the "agent of change" to whom millions have heretofore passionately thrown their support. He's disappointed many, and while they'll still surely vote for him, some of that luster, and lust, has faded. The honeymoon is over. They realize their marriage to Obama might just be like every other political union, and that's depressing given all the hope surrounding his early campaign promises.

What's been most disappointing to his supporters is that, while he gives awesome speeches, he may be proving to be little if anything more than the typical double-talking, flip-flopping, opportunistic politician as everyone else. Unfortunately, the bar has been raised much higher for him, and by him in particular. His entire campaign has been built with him being the candidate who'll transcend typical dirty politics. That he's above the fray. Running a new kind of campaign, with a new kind of message of hope and change. And that's what millions were drawn to. They were not drawn to a typical triangulating panderer who now seems to do or say whatever it takes, to whomever, to get elected even if it means supporting centrist policies that are counter to those of his supporters.

His recent flip-flopping and/or support of several hot-button issues--wiretapping/telecoms, Iraq, campaign finance, gun control, death penalty, religious-based incentives--is quite disingnuous. That he has just three years national experience doesn't help either. Nor does his boneheaded relationships with Wright, Ayers, Rezko etc., all of which show really poor judgement, and serve to give his detractors and the Sean Hannity's of the world ginormous fodder from which to attack. You'd be kidding yourself if you believe that these missteps have not had a tremendous negative impact on the independents; those still on the fence. Those voters whom he so desperately needs.

I don't quote Hannity often, but I will today: "We just don't know who this guy really is." Correction, we do: he's a really junior Senator, with no major policy accomplishments, who wants to be America's first black president. In a year where the election should be a fucking landslide for a Democratic candidate, it's incredible, and beyond frustrating, just how close the race truly is at this point. More and more indicators point to the ugly truth that America's racist dumbasses might very well rather have a curmudgeonly-old-forgetful-highly-experienced-grandfatherly-war-hero-white-guy-they-can-identify-with than a young, inexperienced black man with a Muslim name who they hear hangs out with angry black preachers, radical 60's terrorists and real-estate crooks. While many Democrats, this writer included, would still take Obama in a nano-second over McCain for many reasons, don't kid yourself that the rest of the country's gonna follow suit.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. We are commited to helping the campaign raise as much money as possible to combat the bountiful warchest of Sen. John McCain and the GOP. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.

McCain: "It's My Surge, Dammit! I Was Right. Why Won't Anyone Show Me Some Respect!"

We all know the John McCain type. He's the petulant kid who barked "It's my ball" as he stormed off the field because he didn't get his way. He's the little bully who said his dad could beat up your dad. He's the nasty little brat who would tell on you so he could get the little pat on the head: "That's a good boy, Johnny, you did good!" And it's the same petulant little John McCain today who's practically stomping his feet and throwing a tantrum because that other kid, Barack Obama, is getting all the attention these days. The same nasty John McCain who responds to reporters' questions with "What do you want, you little jerks?" ...as he did this week aboard his "Straight Talk" plane.

It seems that McCain's been having a hissy-fit over all the invaluable press coverage Obama's been getting during his much-hyped Middle-East visit which included stops in Afghanistan, Iraq and a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq. Unfortunately for McCain, while he's been seen zipping around in a golf cart with his bud George Bush Sr. looking like a couple of crusty old rich white guys, Obama's been looking, sounding and acting like a brilliant, confident, modern-day statesmen on the world stage. Looking presidential. And it's killing McCain. He so riled up that it's continuing to throw him off his game. At a public forum Tuesday he referred once again to the non-existent country of Czechoslovakia. This is the same McCain who earlier this week incorrectly referred to the Iraq/Pakistan border. The same McCain who this Spring confused Iraq's Shia and Sunnis. Who incorrectly claimed that Iran was training al Qaeda terrorists. Who's confused Somalia and Sudan. Who's referred to Russia's Vladimir Putin as "President Putin of Germany." And this is the same guy who claims that he's best qualified to be Commander-in-Chief?

McCain appeared angry and frustrated in his attacks on Obama Tuesday. On the U.S. troop surge in Iraq, the feisty little Republican presidential candidate said: "He was wrong then, he is wrong now, and he still fails to acknowledge that the surge has succeeded. Remarkable." What's truly remarkable is that McCain, over the past year, has deluded himself into thinking that it's his surge. He talks about it as if he's its sole architect and beneficiary to its supposed success. Yes, supposed success. Let's not forget that the goal of the surge was to stabilize the country so that real political change could take place. While the violence is indeed down--not gone--there's not been anywhere near the political change the Bush administration expected or promised. As for the drop in violence, it should come as a shock to no one that sending in more U.S. troops could overpower a much smaller, less equipped, less sophisticated enemy in the contained areas in and around Baghdad. But the real question remains: what happens when the extra military muscle leaves? Does the violence increase again? Is there a strong enough political structure to run the country effectively and simultaneously secure itself? In that sense, the surge has not worked. Based on the original stated purpose, regardless of McCain's relentless macho chest-thumping, the surge is not a success.

What's also remarkable is that McCain can make the outlandish statement he made Tuesday about Obama's motives: "He would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." This is an unconscionable accusation to make during a presidential election campaign and while our nation's at war, and it further demonstrates just how low McCain and the GOP will stoop to win in November. So much for the "respectful" campaign McCain promised earlier this year.

The simple truth is, Obama was right about the war from the get-go. And based on the fact that Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his top military commanders support the Democrat's timetable for a 2010 troop withdrawal, he's still right. Obama not only understands the will of the American people when it comes to the war, but the Iraqis' as well. John McCain is simply out of touch.

Republicans Flip-Flop for McCain

The Republican campaign charade is finally drawing to an end. One by one, prominent conservatives are "coming around" to the candidacy of Sen. John McCain after excoriating him for months as nothing more than a liberal in sheep's clothing. Did anyone really doubt this would happen? Did Democrats get fooled into thinking die-hard right-wingers like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay and James Dobson would actually stay home on election day or, worse, vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Get real. That was the absolute worst demonstration of feigned objectivity in the history of American politics. The truth is, Republicans belong to a cult, unlike Democrats, who, albeit in an often disjointed, politically inexpedient manner, relish freedom of thought, dissent, and choice. And at the end of the day, the cult members follow their leader. And come election day, they will march in lockstep to the polls and robotically throw their support to the same guy who they've been saying will be a "disaster" for the party. They'll follow McCain and his partisan pipe into the death water just like The Pied Piper's rats.

To be sure, the party is coalescing around McCain, the same candidate whom they've relentlessly vilified over his positions including immigration, campaign finance and torture. But now he's their guy when it comes to taxes, the war, fighting terrorism, marriage and abortion...yada, yada, yada. The latest flip-flopper is Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Dobson, heretofore highly critical of McCain, appeared on Hannity's radio program last week extolling the candidate's many conservative virtues. And Hannity joined the lovefest. It was Republican hypocrisy at its finest: two of the party's most cultish figures engaged in newfound hero-worship of their devil incarnate.

And incredible hypocrisy it was/is. Dobson's 180 on McCain, he said, is because the candidate shares many views, especially those on key social issues. For example, said Dobson, Obama "has the most radical views on marriage," unlike McCain. Oh really? Last time I checked, Obama is in a happy, respectful marriage and has never been divorced. To the contrary, McCain not only divorced his first wife Carol, but he allegedly cheated on her with his current wife, Cindy, who he married at 43 when she was just 26 (McCain and Carol stopped living together in January 1980. He married Cindy five months later. You fill in the blanks). Who's the "radical?" If "protecting marriage" is truly Dobson's motive, then it should be clear which candidate he and Focus on the Family should support, right? But we all know when it comes to Republican politics it's "do as I say not as I do."

Personally, I never really got the whole "protecting marriage" mantra. It's sheer hypocritical, convoluted narrow-minded bullshit spewed by a bunch of uptight, twisted, homophobic, controlling old white men (or, as in the case of Sen. Larry Craig, closeted gays). What are these fanatics really trying to say, that only heterosexuals can enjoy a healthy, productive, successful marriage? Well, tell that to Nicole Simpson, or Laci Peterson, or Ted Ammon, or Mary Jo Buttafuoco or Hedda Nussbaum or Christie Brinkley or Suzanne Craig or Jackie Battley (Gingrich) or Marianne Ginther (Gingrich) or Hillary Clinton or any other lesser-known spouse who's been killed, beaten and/or cheated on by their "normal, heterosexual" mate. When, on a good day, 50% of all straight marriages end in divorce, just what exactly are these Republican hypocrites protecting? Perhaps it's time to let gays get a legitimate, legal crack at this sacred institution. They can't do any worse.

As for McCain and his flip-floppin' Republican detractors, you can be sure he'll continue to capture more of their support, passion and votes as election day nears. Because that's what Republicans do. It's what cult members do. They do what they're told. And what they're very effectively being told right now by their elected leaders, their TV and radio hosts, and by their religious and spiritual leaders is that Obama's the new devil in DC, and McCain, well, he ain't so bad after all.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. We are commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.

Rep. Charlie "Wrangle" Plays Dumb on Real Estate Scam

Rep. Charlie Rangel, who represents Harlem's 19th Congressional District, sure knows how to wrangle himself a whopper of a real estate deal. He's managed to acquire four rent-stabilized apartments in his district's Lenox Terrace development at rents roughly 50% below market, and without enduring the same aggressive scrutiny from landlord Olnick Organization that has seen the poor, the elderly, the sick and the blind evicted over much less. But of course, Rep. Wrangle has angrily asserted he's done nothing wrong nor is he aware of getting any special treatment. C'mon Charlie, you're one of the sharpest tools in the shed. Do you really expect us to believe you had no idea that you were getting a preferential deal? If he didn't do anything wrong, why has he decided to give up his fourth rental unit, the one he currently uses as an office?

What is it about politicians that gives them special skills for blatant, outrageous lies? Why is it that they think they can portray themselves as ignorant and unaware of even the most obvious situations from which they benefit? Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) "didn't realize" his Countrywide mortgage rate was less than everyone else's. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "didn't think" there was anything fishy about Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko buying the land next door to the Obamas and selling it to them for a below-market price. And of course, Bill Clinton "didn't think" a blowjob constituted having sex.

It's unconscionable that Rep. Wrangle would greedily amass his not-so-little 50% discounted rent-stabilized fiefdom when his own constituents are being put on the street for failing to meet much less stringent income and/or residency requirements. Judging from Thursday's NY Times front-page article about the Congressman's shady deal, his neighbors clearly agree.

Unfortunately for Rep. Wrangle, this story has legs. Given the attention it's been getting on a national scale, the double-talking Congressman will likely lose his third apartment (the first two had been connected years prior), be hit with huge rent increases, and/or lose an appreciable amount of votes.

The New Yorker's Willie Horton Incident

In the Fall of 1988's presidential election the GOP's attack machine, led by Karl Rove's dirty-politics mentor Lee Atwater, ran ads against Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis for allowing convicted murderer Willie Horton to be freed on weekend furlough during which time he committed rape and robbery. George H.W. Bush, the Republican nominee, publicly stated that Dukakis had allowed Horton to "terrorize innocent people." The campaign was designed to tap voters' worst racial stereotypes and fears. And it worked.

Cut to 2008. In its July 21 issue, in an unconscionable display of poor taste, racial insensitivity, fear-mongering and bad timing, the venerable highbrow literary journal New Yorker put a cartoon on its cover depicting Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama and his wife Michelle as fist-pounding, machine-gun-toting, flag-burning Muslim terrorists. What on Earth were they thinking? Just some 'good-natured satire' designed to mock America's racist dumbasses, right? But the humor has fallen way short of what was intended. Quite frankly, the cover is incredibly offensive and highly irresponsible.

The campaigns of both Obama and GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain reacted harshly:

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

McCain's spokesman Tucker Bounds said, "we completely agree with the Obama campaign, it's tasteless and offensive."

But editor-in-chief, David Remnick, defended his magazine's decision to run the controversial cartoon: "The intent of the cover is to satirize the vicious and racist attacks and rumors and misconceptions about the Obamas that have been floating around in the blogosphere and are reflected in public opinion polls. What we set out to do was to throw all these images together, which are all over the top and to shine a kind of harsh light on them, to satirize them. That's part of what we do."

But rather than succeed in satirizing these vicious and racist attacks, rumors and misconceptions, the New Yorker's cover cartoon feeds into them. First of all, not every reader is a Manhattan 'limousine liberal' who'll "get" the satirical intent. To be sure, there are plenty of so-called Democrats and liberals who, despite their public political personas, are closeted conservatives who marinate in the same racist witches brew of attacks, rumors and misconceptions. Deep down, they want to see a black family occupy the White House about as much as their bigoted brethren on the right. But these people would likely feel this way regardless. Where the magazine's cover is most damaging is with those on the fence. People who happen to pass a newsstand and quickly glance at the cover thinking "Yup, that Obama couple must be really bad if this is on the New Yorker cover.". What about young people who see it? Will all of these folks "get" the satire, especially if only in a quick passing glance?

The New Yorker gambled big with this cover. If it's intention was to be controversial and dominate the news, it succeeded. But if it's goal was to present a compelling message with redeeming value, it failed miserably. It's attempt at social commentary in the form of biting racial satire did nothing but pour gasoline on an already raging fire.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. We are commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.

The Murder Trial of George W. Bush?

There are those who say that President George W. Bush should be impeached for intentionally overstating the case for war with Iraq and misleading the American public and Congress about the threat of WMD as well as Saddam Hussein's alleged role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Since then, there have been administration insiders like Richard Clarke and Scott McClellan who've written books confirming these long-held suspicions, providing meticulously detailed accounts of how the Busheviks, as early as January 2001, began their mission to manipulate, misrepresent and manufacture evidence in order to justify an invasion.

And then there are those like former criminal prosecutor and best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi who believe mere impeachment is not enough. According to his website, his new book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," is "a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq..."

Bugliosi, most famous for prosecuting Charles Manson for the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders, appeared Friday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe program with host Joe Scarborough, NBC's Andrea Mitchell and the Boston Globe's Mike Barnicle. Citing reams of documentary evidence to support his contention that Bush should be tried for murder, Bugliosi bases his case not on Bush's false claims of WMD, but rather that the president lied that the WMD posed a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States, which in turn became the justification for the war.

As just one example, Bugliosi points to Bush's October 7, 2002 speech to the Nation in which the president, for the first time, informed Americans of the "urgent" threat from Saddam and Iraq. Here's a few excerpts from that fateful speech:

"...Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat...Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action...First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant...who has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States...Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction...If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?...Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints...We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring...I hope this will not require military action, but it may...The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities..."

The problem with all this, and which Bugliosi also cites, is that just six days prior to Bush's speech the CIA presented him its 2002 assessment entitled Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction in which it was the consensus of 16 federal intelligence agencies that in fact Saddam and Iraq was not an imminent threat to U.S. security at home. Bush knew all along that his speech was a lie as was the fallacy of an "imminent threat," but he nonetheless pursued his aggressive mission of selling his war to the American people and to Congress. A sales job based on pure lies, deception and misrepresentations that result in over 100,000 deaths. And therein lies Bugliosi's case for murder.

Referring to what is now widely known as the Downing Street Memos, in a March 27, 2006 front-page story the NY Times reported the following:

"In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war. But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons..."Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides. "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."... The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein." Five days later Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to make Bush's case for war.

Remember the timeline here. This is key. The meeting between Bush and Blair occurred four months after the CIA's report in which it stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat. Yet, not only did Bush continue sounding the alarms over Saddam's WMD, but he and his blood-thirsty neocons--VP Dick Cheney, then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--had already secretly drawn up the war plans and were angling to concoct the saleable justification.

And where was the media while the Busheviks were perpetrating these lies in their march to Baghdad? Nowhere. The press was embarrassingly neutered and utterly useless. I recall possibly one or two noble attempts by MSNBC's David Gregory to doggedly get some truth out of Bush during a couple of White House press conferences, but his efforts were summarily dismissed by a smirking Bush, whose smug, arrogant, defiant reply of "I told you, we're not gonna go there, David" was beyond infuriating. Headline: Bush to Media...Fuck Off.. And that was the end of that. America's free press was rendered impotent by a tyrannical president defiantly pissing on the Constitution and laughing about it.

Nothing's changed. It's been five years, a half-trillion dollars and 4000 dead troops since the invasion and the media still has about as much impact as a flaccid wiener in a whorehouse. That was evidenced yet again with Scarborough's interview, or shall I say mocking session, with Bugliosi. Scarborough was noticeably confrontational, to the point of being belligerent in his defense of Bush's march to war. While Bugliosi was diligently trying to demonstrate, from a purely scholarly, legal, non-partisan standpoint, how the U.S. president is responsible for the death of over 100,000 people, Scarborough and Barnicle had that "behind the teacher's back" grinning/laughter thing going on as if they were a couple of high-school cut-ups. While all this was taking place, Mitchell sat in a robotic trance. On multiple occasions, Scarborough repeated the GOP talking point that "everyone said Saddam had WMD." Bugliosi, albeit unsuccessfully, kept trying to hammer home the point that it wasn't Bush's lies about the existence of WMD, but the imminent threat that Bush regurgitated ad nauseum to bolster his case for war.

But that's just the problem. From the start, the media never took this war seriously in terms of its justification; what the sacrifices would be; or its consequences. It never did its job in questioning the obvious lies and misrepresentations. Never held Bush or the administration accountable for its actions, especially when those actions included egregious violations of the U.S. Constitution, international law, the Geneva Conventions, or just plain simple morality and ethics. So why should it start now? It's as if the media at this point needs to remain hands off so as not to call attention to its gross negligence over never being hands on. It may be maddening to watch Scarborough, Barnicle and Mitchell sit it mock judgment and disdain of a former prosecutor presenting a cogent scenario for Bush's indictment for war crimes, but it sure as hell ain't surprising.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. We are commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.

Random Thoughts...

1. To Rep. Charlie Rangel: It most definitely is "the NY Times' business" how much space you and your family live in if it's the public's tax dollars that subsidizes it, and you're getting a questionable 50% break in the rent you pay on your four, count 'em, four rent-stabilized apartments. And what's with all this rent anyway? If you ever think of buying, give Sen. Chris Dodd a call. He knows where to get really cheap mortgages.

2. To Sen. John McCain: it's not funny, nor presidential, to say we should keep exporting more cigarettes to the Iranians because "that's a way of killing them." We thought you learned your sensitivity lesson with "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..."

3. To Barack Obama: Who are you, man? Your loyal, heretofore insanely inspired followers don't recognize you anymore, what with all your recent flip-floppin.' Who'da thunk you were just another pandering, triangulating politician. What a let down, huh folks?

4. To Tony Snow: your very untimely death is very sad and tragic. R.I.P.

5. To Jesse Jackson: spare us the sanctimonious lessons on race. We're so fed up with your definition of what it means to be black and how blacks are supposed to act in order to be 'authentically' black. In case you haven't noticed, Barack Obama is but a heartbeat from the Oval Office. He's done just fine without your guidance, and is more of a legitimate role model for blacks than you can ever dream of being. Even your own son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr, thinks you're irrelevant. Time to retire from public speaking. And while you're at it, take Al Sharpton with you. Young blacks need inspiration from high-achieving successful black leaders like Obama, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, not race-baiting excuse-makers like you and the Rev. Al.

6. To NBC News execs: sadly, in Tim Russert's absence, Meet the Press is now a real snoozer. In all fairness, it's hard to imagine anyone being able to fill Russert's shoes. Take the show off the air, revamp it with a younger host (David Shuster?) call it something similar but different (The Sunday Press?), and bring it back after Labor Day in time to inject some exciting new journalistic blood into Fall's election coverage.

7. To the oil companies: What the fuck? Oil at almost $150 a barrel? Have you gone mad? There's absolutely no justification on this planet for fuel prices to have more than doubled in a year. As long as you keep recording record profits and paying your CEO's $50-million per year while the price of gas is crippling the American economy, I will continue to say you Bush-sanctioned thieves are raping us.

8. To the Stock Market: enough already.

The Bumper-Sticker Wars: How Democrats Can Effectively Disarm the Right of its Most Powerful Rhetoric

In the wake of the Karl Rove era of divisive labeling and framing where, for example, only Republicans are patriots and people of faith, Democrats should co-opt this very effective GOP strategy as we head towards the November election.

Very simply, every Lefty across the country should immediately place three bumper stickers on their cars. In the middle should be "Obama for President." To the left should be "Praise the Lord" and to the right "Support the Troops." That'll show 'em! We love God too, even if some of us are atheists. And while this may sound shocking, we can get behind a good war every now and then as well...case in point Afghanistan. Yes, let's fight fire with fire and pull the rug right out from under the Rovians. Beat 'em at their own game. Just think how effectively this could shift perceptions and disarm Republicans of some of their most powerful rhetoric.

C'mon, Democrats, it's time to level the playing field. Time to take back faith. Time to reclaim ourselves as Patriots. Time to out-frame the framers. Volvo's unite!

The Wesley Clark "Scandal:" Democrats Get Sucked Into the Same Old Republican Trap

General Wesley Clark created a tempest in a teapot during an appearance last Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation. Here's what the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe told host Bob Schieffer about the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, when discussing his military record as relating to his quest for the presidency:

..."in the matters of national security policy-making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.....He hasn’t made the calls......I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Now here's what a key McCain surrogate, retired Col. George "Bud" Day, told reporters afterwards:

"This backhanded slap against John as not being a worthy warrior because he just got shot down is one of the more surprising insults in my military history."

But just exactly where is this major diss that Day is so sanctimoniously condemning? Where exactly is the part about McCain not being a "worthy warrior?" Don't waste your time looking, because it's not there. It's simply another "If you're against the war you're against the troops" framing job from the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd. We should remind Day of his own appearances in the morally-repugnant 2004 Swift Boat ads that attacked the military record of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry. "My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971," the good patriotic colonel said of Kerry at that time.

In the wake of Clark's comments, Democrats immediately fell back into familiar patterns of subjugation and appeasement. The party's presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, was quick to throw Clark under the bus:

"I’m happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like General Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night," he said in Zanesville. He then went on, as he's done so many times lately, to lavish such effusive praise on McCain and his military record that he could be on the Arizona Senator's payroll.

It's one thing when Republicans twist and distort the truth, but when Democrats do it to themselves, as Obama did this week, it's a mystery that's only explained by the party's gargantuan inability (unless your name is Clinton) to successfully fight back against the right-wing attack machine. Here's what Obama should've said in defense of Clark:

"I stand behind Gen. Wesley Clark and agree that while my opponent's military record is indeed honorable and courageous, it does not in and of itself qualify him to be president of the United States or commander-in-chief. The right-wing's attempt to distort the General's very clear point is just another example of the Republican Party's desperate need, at any cost, to distract Americans from the harsh truths about the war, the economy and the fact that voters overwhelmingly are signaling they they want change in Washington come November."

Instead, Obama gave us another incredibly frustrating "I voted for the war before I voted against it" gaffe. He gave us his version of Kerry's embarrassing inability to fight the Swift Boat attacks. In what could've been a very seminal moment, Obama donned the familiar wuss-suit and once again demonstrated that Democrats just can't play rough.

You can bet your ass that if the situation were reversed, and it was Obama being attacked by the McCain camp, not only would McCain fail to publicly rebuke his surrogate, but he'd likely pile on for some cheap shots of his own. Why then do Democrats always have to take the higher ground? Why on Earth would Obama feel so compelled to condemn a loyal surrogate like Clark for something he didn't even say? It was as if he wanted so badly to appease McCain and his supporters that he forgot he's in the midst of a firce battle for the presidency. And it was one of those awfully frustrating liberal Kumbaya moments that Democrats are unfortunately famous for. Moments that can ultimately kill an election.

In the past couple of weeks Obama has reversed course on a number of key issues in a centrist ploy to out-McCain McCain. Be careful, Barack, that and a few more episodes in the wuss-suit and you'll be waking up empty-handed November 5th.

Why Obama Must Become President

The fact that Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, has come this far in American presidential politics is quite astounding. There are monumental obstacles that, by all logic, should've sunk his candidacy midstream, or kept it from getting off the ground in the first place. He's a 46-year young black man from a broken, racially-mixed family. He's got little experience on the national stage. He's a Senator. He's got some questionable, controversial relationships (Rev. Wright). He took on the the mighty Clintons. Despite being attacked on all sides, he fought in the primaries with dignity, grace and, for the most part, ran an unusually clean campaign that demonstrated character and integrity. He won his party's nomination and now faces an historic battle against the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain. And in 2008 America, Barack Obama must win.

To be sure, when it comes to race and race relations, the United States has an ugly past. This includes slavery, lynchings, murder/hate crimes, segregation, voter disenfranchisement, job discrimination, etc. But the truth is, 2008 America is a much better place. While racial prejudice still exists, and it's still quite ugly at times, blacks have made tremendous progress in becoming part of the national fabric in sports, entertainment, business, politics and more. Blacks have become leaders of industry, pop culture icons and powerful politicians....many of whom, like Obama, have quite successfully transcended color.

On the political landscape, people such as Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Obama have risen to enormous positions of power. Blacks are winning city, state and national elections more than ever, and that includes the deep South. The U.S. House of Representatives is 10% black. Two states, including New York, have black governors. This year, the Obama camp believes that it could see the South return to the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. Yes, there is change indeed. Which is why Obama must win.

The U.S. presidency is the grand prize. Again, it is nothing short of remarkable that Obama has overcome so many obstacles and is within very short reach of the White House. But the simple truth is, this year's election is the Perfect Storm of politics. The country is mired in an unpopular war, the economy's teetering on recession, and the existing administration--racked by cronyism, scandal and corruption--has historically low approval ratings. Gas is inching towards $5.00/gallon, housing prices are down 15% year-over-year, and consumer confidence is at a 15-year low. It's the perfect opportunity for Americans to shatter racial divides and elect a black president, someone who, after eight miserable years of George W. Bush, speaks to their bread-and-butter issues. But that opportunity may not come around again for a long time. The table could not be better set than it is right now. Which is why Obama must win.

America needs to get over itself and finally break down these walls of racism. It's time that its citizens stop viewing each other through the prism of color, and focus instead on the person beneath the skin. If we as a nation are to ever get beyond centuries of ignorance and racial bigotry, Obama must win. Whites would finally be presented with a black president and be forced to confront their inherent fears, while hopefully accepting the cultural reality that success or failure in the Oval Office has nothing to do with race. And for some blacks, they would no longer be able to hide behind the contention that the "system" is keeping them down, and instead assume a greater responsibility for their own successes and/or failures....a point that both Obama and the comedian Bill Cosby have spoken out on recently. In short, Obama's candidacy would effectively disarm those with bias and those with excuses. More than ever in our 232 year history, people might finally be just, well, people.

But if Obama loses to McCain in November, that will be an even greater statement of where America is with regard to race. That a candidate from a severely weakened party, who votes in virtual lockstep with Bush, could beat Obama while voters voice that they so desperately want and need change, would signal that having a black president is, in 2008, perhaps too much change. In that case, the nation, not just Obama, loses.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. I am commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.

'Sup, Obama, is You Talkin' Honkey Again?

Ralph Nader symbolizes the intense racism which still percolates below the surface throughout America. But in a shocking little slip during a Rocket Mountain News interview, the curmudgeonly third-party presidential candidate revealed the kind of ignorance, hostility and racial prejudice that could be carried into the voting booth come November. Here's what the crusty former consumer rights' advocate said about the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama:

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards....He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

What an unconscionable racist diatribe. Nader's upset that Obama apparently forgot to take his Ebonics classes at Harvard. With his disgusting comments, Nader is appealing to the lowest common denominator of racial bigotry: the belief that if a black person looks presentable, dresses nicely, is highly educated, extremely articulate and is successful, well then he or she must be trying to "act white." Because, as we all know, black people are supposed to sound like Al Sharpton, have gold teeth and rob liquor stores, right? Sadly, in 2008, this is how many people across America still view blacks. Despite the stellar accomplishments of Obama--Ivy League schools, Harvard Law Review editor, Illinois State Senate, U.S. Senate, Democratic presidential nominee--these racists can only see a jive-talkin' urban threat to white security. A homeboy in Whitey's clothing.

Earlier this week the comedian Robin Williams appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Speaking to this underlying racism, Williams nailed it in a hilarious bit about how whites deep down fear that once Obama becomes president he's gonna bounce out of the Oval office onto the White House lawn, grabbing his nuts, flailing his arms and hands like a rapper and sounding like Flava Flav as he introduces his cabinet, which would consist of folks like Jay-Z, Snoop Dogg and perhaps Flava himself (my examples, not Williams'...I can't remember his but they're similar). And ya know what? He's unfortunately right, as Nader so chillingly reminded us this week. The truly scary thing is, if someone as seemingly intelligent, progressive and well-known as Nader can publicly utter such irresponsible, reprehensible racial stereotypes, just imagine what might face Obama once small-minded America closes the curtain at election time...and is all alone with their racism and that lever.

In the wake of Nader's painful wake-up call about racial intolerance and bigotry still prevalent today, the million-dollar question remains: is Obama inspiring enough young people, blacks and independents to offset the loss in votes from the racist dumbasses across America? To be sure, because of the race factor, this is an election like no other in our nation's history.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. I am commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.

Obama's "Contract with America"

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. It give us the ability, the luxury, to look back and learn from history. Campaigning in 1994, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and several others leading the Republican Revolution devised a brilliant plan to win the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. It was called The Contract with America, a document detailing the actions the GOP would take if they won. It was a promise. And it was signed by all but two of the Republican members of the House and all of the Party's non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates. The result? A Republican landslide, with the party picking up 54 seats and their much sought-after majority.

Sen. Barack Obama and the Democrats have an opportunity this November to repeat history. Obama, the party's presumptive nominee, should waste no time in issuing his Contract with America. He and party officials should come up with their own catchy name, The Promise to America, perhaps. It would be Obama's vow, in the aftermath of eight years of Bush/Republican tyranny and corruption, to restore White House and government respect for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights...two documents that the Busheviks have shamelessly trampled on since 2000. The Promise to America would be Obama's contract with the American voter. And Democrats, both incumbents and those running for House and Senate seats, would sign this document just as their 1994 Republican counterparts did before them.

Imagine a nationally televised primetime Obama speech before thousands of Americans, in symbolic Philadelphia perhaps, where the candidate would promise, if elected president, a nation once again governed by the Rule of Law. A government which assures Due Process. One that Separates Church and State. Operates under a system of Checks and Balances. Respects its citizens' Right to Privacy; Free Speech; Civil Liberties; Freedom to Petition; Right of Assembly; right to Free and Open Elections. A nation that protects against Unreasonable Search and Seizure. Respects Habeas Corpus. An administration that promises No Elective Wars; No Torture. Promises a return to International Diplomacy. Allows for an Independent Judiciary. Promises No Corruption and Cronyism. And a Congress that promises voters that it will fulfill its Constitutional obligation of Oversight of the Executive Branch of Government. Given Obama's gargantuan oratory skills, imagine how such a fiery, passionate, patriotic speech would resonate among Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike. To be sure, voters are starved for change, and for a return to America's greatness.

The simple truth is, the Republican "brand" is heavily damaged and cannot and will not be repaired before November. The party's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, is running as a change candidate. Someone who calls himself an independent maverick who's gone against Bush on several occasions. Spend just one afternoon listening to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talking heads and you'll incredulously hear them say "I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative." Um, when Hannity and Limbaugh are afraid to call themselves Republicans, that spells shitstorm for the party come election time.

We are at a watershed moment in American history and in politics in general. The likelihood is that we are about to elect the first black president of the United States of America. How that can and will change the socio-economic landscape and racial dynamic in America is monumental . I get chills thinking about what it does for our overall progress as a nation. But politically there are tremendous ramifications as well. All points lead to a Democratic landslide in Congress. And if history is any barometer, this could usher in a new era of Democratic rule for decades to come.

Obama and the party are therefore sitting atop a potential goldmine. The political opportunity of a lifetime. The Promise to America can seal the deal.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. I am commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.


And finally, Happy Birthday (June 24) to our sweetheart, the late Adrienne Shelly.

Bill Kristol is Not Stupid, So Why Does he Pretend to Be?

Republicans, especially the near-extinct war-mongering faction of the party, aren't really good at anything these days, but they sure have perfected the art of framing a political issue to suit their rhetoric. In his NY Times op-ed column Monday, "Someone Else's Alex," uber neo-con Bill Kristol demonstrates the skill with such uber-deftness that it's a painful reminder of how much the left still needs to learn. And hopefully well before November when, in Kristol's dreams, the nation could elect the GOP's nominee, Sen. John McCain, as Bush 3.

In his column Kristol whines about the new MoveOn.org 30-second ad, "Not Alex," about the Iraq war and McCain's position on keeping troops there indefinitely, even for as much as "100 years," as he's been quoted. In attacking the ad, Kristol claims all it does is "express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform." Nice catchy soundbite, Bill. Damn those unpatriotic Democrats, right? Well here's what the ad actually says, according to Kristol's own account:

A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy: "Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him."

Now, let's play a fun little game. Can anyone actually spot the part where the ad expresses "contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform?" Kristol's accusation is a pretty big leap, no? Here's a woman who "simply" (as Kristol writes) says she does not want McCain or anyone else to send her baby to fight in Iraq someday. Where does she say anything...anything...about our military forces in general or her "contempt" for them?

Kristol continues by quoting the reaction of the mother of an "actual" soldier (as if only mothers of actual soldiers can have an opinion about the war): "Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere."

No ma'am, I believe what Alex's mother is "simply" saying is that she does not believe the Iraq war is justified; or that it's accomplishing the mission it set out to achieve; and that she does not want her son to have to grow up and be shipped off to another futile Vietnam-like debacle which the Republicans so cavalierly started and are now so clueless as to finding an end.

Kristol finishes his piece with a preachy, nauseatingly faux-compassionate sermon about patriotism and fairness: "The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve —and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past. And the sole responsibility of others."

That's pretty ironic, Bill. This is what Democrats have been saying since the war began. That our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are the sons and daughters of the poor and middle classes, not those of the wealthy, or those of the Republican war-mongers who sent them there. The true contempt for our soldiers comes from you and your neo-con pals who sent them off to fight and die in a totally bogus, elective war where America faced no threat whatsoever. It is you and your testosterone-starved henchman who need to apologize, not MoveOn.org or Alex's mother.

But as I said, Kristol's a great framer. He's not as dumb as he sounds. He's actually quite smart. Smart enough to know his audience, who's clearly not nearly as smart as he is.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. I am commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.


George Carlin, RIP.

What to Do with Meet the Press

In the wake of Tim Russert's tragic, untimely death last Friday there's much speculation as to what NBC executives will do with Meet the Press, the venerable Sunday morning news program he hosted for sixteen years. But, there was truly only one Tim Russert, and selecting a suitable replacement is surely a daunting task for the network.

In my opinion, there are only two names from which to choose: Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw. Let's review the more obvious choice first. Brokow represents the same type of old school non-partisan journalistic integrity as Russert, as well as a genuine passion, enthusiasm and love of politics. He commands respect from both sides of the aisle, and is a veritable encyclopedia of national news and world affairs. He's a slam dunk for the job, and truly the only person who can occupy that chair and do justice to its former resident.

But then there's Rather who, up until four years ago, was one of the news biz's most respected journalists. A guy who unfortunately got caught up in a controversial shitstorm in the age of Karl Rove/Tom Delay dirty Republican politics. How sad that over 40 years of dutiful service was tossed in the trash over one story about President Bush's alleged draft evasion during the Vietnam War. Mind you, Rather was and still is right about the story. But the right-wing fanatics conducted a witch hunt and shot the messenger, rather than question the message. Democrats simply went along for the ride. It was shameful and undeserving. NBC would show it has ginormous journalistic integrity, and balls, were it to put Rather behind that famous desk. It would make a huge statement to the partisan hacks who took him down: that there's a new sheriff in town, and a new town as well.....


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. I am commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.