Part 1 of 3
Part 2 of 3
Part 3 of 3
Viewing entries in
Election 2008
cross-posted to Jack & Jill Politics
It's so funny to see a Democrat display such open contempt for the will of voters. For Hillary, some votes are more equal than others. First, watch this madness on CNN:
Then check out Markos at dailykos do what many have been doing in identifying the pattern of contempt and selective counting Hillary has done with the primaries and caucuses. The lady doth protest too much. aka. She's whiny, and it's really, really starting to bug the crap out of me.
More from Kos:
This post was inspired by a comment I read earlier yesterday, which I can't find now, so apologies for the unsourced inspiration. One of the hilarious side-effects of every Obama victory is the spin from Clinton quarters and its surrogates and supporters explaining why said victories "don't matter". Iowa didn't matter because it was a caucus state, and it's undemocratic. Same goes for every other caucus state including Maine. The only caucus state that mattered was Nevada. Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska, and Utah don't matter because they're small Red states that Democrats won't carry in November. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana don't matter because they have black people. Expect the same spin out of DC this Tuesday. Black people don't apparently count. Washington and Minnesota don't matter because they have educated white people. In any case, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana didn't matter on Saturday because everyone expected Obama to win them anyway. Virginia and Maryland, assuming they're won by Obama, will be a combination of the "black people" and "educated people" rationalizations. Throw a little of "Obama was expected to win anyway", and you've got the trifecta. Illinois doesn't matter because that's Obama's home state. Expect the same spin when Obama wins Hawaii by double-digit margins in two weeks. Missouri doesn't matter because Clinton sent out a press release claiming she won it. Colorado was a caucus state, so that leaves Delaware and Connecticut. Those are the only two states that apparently matter, giving Hillary Clinton a commanding 10-2 lead among states that matter.Of course, everyone fires their campaign manager for losing states that don't count.
cross-posted to Jack & Jill Politics
Last week, I posted a video of my friend Derrick Ashong getting interviewed about Obama and health care outside the LA debate between Clinton and Obama. That video has blown up, and Derrick has received thousands of comments and other responses.
Today, he explains how he came to be interviewed and offers an extremely powerful emotional explanation of his support for Obama. This complements the intellectual perspective he dropped. Check it out, and share with others.
You can also read Derrick's original explanation of support for Obama here.
You should also find out more about his band, Soulfege.
cross-posted to Jack & Jill Politics
Years ago, I found myself upgraded for free on a flight from Florida to Boston. The man seated next to me was of the prostelitizing flavor of Christianity. He went on missions abroad and door to door to spread the good word. I asked him, "Why can't you just leave people to their beliefs?" His response: "If you knew this plane was going to crash, wouldn't you try to tell the captain and all the passengers so they could try to correct the situation or at least call their families? Well, that's how I feel about my religion. I know that these people will go to Hell if I don't help them get saved."
While I would hardly go so far as to say that those who don't vote Obama are going to Hell, I have felt a sense of mission about sharing the vision of a politically engaged America that Barack Obama's campaign has rekindled in me. I looked forward to moving my words from the computer screen directly to my fellow citizens (blogging in 3D!), and it was with that sense of mission that I traveled to DC this past weekend.
My initial mission was to have a face-to-face discussion with the family friend I referred to last Friday, but the trip included so much more. I returned exhausted but also reinvigorated about the potential each of us has to contribute to this world, and I have an increased respect for the value of simple conversation among neighbors.
The second mission was to meet up on Sunday with fellow New Yorkers who traveled down to volunteer by canvassing door to door in Northern Virginia.
This post deals just with Saturday. Considering how little sleep I've gotten, I can't promise the most eloquent (or spell-checked) tale, but I'll do my best to cover the highlights while only slightly blowing up your computer screen with an insanely long post.
Friday night - 11pm-3am: Planning & Packing
- burned a couple of CDs with my Obama music to canvas by mix
- reserved a Mini Cooper via Zipcar to be picked up at Union Station in DC
- downloaded some videos to the ipod including Obama's address to Google where he unveiled his technology plan last November
- downloaded and printed Obama's position papers on issues I had never bothered as much to dig into including immigration and homeland security
- charged my TomTom GPS
- printed some detailed, two-sided, info sheets that friends in NYC had created which described Obama's accomplishments and plans for 11 issues
- printed some black and white "Yes We Can" 8.5x11 "posters" on my home printer
- sent some color prints to a Kinko's on K Street that would be waiting for me when I arrived. The posters are these "Progress" joints from Obey Giant
- printed Krugman's health care critique and critiques (another) of his critique
- When he comes to DC, he shouldn't just appear in the newly gentrified section. He needs to come to the still-black parts of DC in SE/Anacostia or Benning Rd. etc. It would do a lot for black DC to see that someone who works in their city actually cares about it beyond kickin it on Capitol Hill. Obama does support DC voting rights, but Robby's basic point was that he could get extra mileage out of showing he cares. He reminded me that Bill Clinton marched down Georgia Ave back in the day, and there are still black folk who remember that fondly.
- Despite the dogwhistle concerns of a lot of us about the Hussein, muslim father issue, Obama needs to own and advertise the value his heritage and name bring BEFORE the Republicans paint him as a traitor with it. One of my own strongest selling points is that O is uniquely capable of playing makeup with the world after Dubya has taken multiple dumps on it. With family in Kenya and years spent living in the most populous Muslim country in the world, Obama is connected to global poverty (for example) in ways no other president has ever been or will be
- Obama has rightly focused on inspiring and motivating the American people, but in order to realize many of his stated goals, he needs to inspire and motivate federal employees. If he can do that, he has a good chance of getting something real accomplished
- (updated. just remembered). Can black people criticize or not be for Obama without being considered traitors (similar to the NOW fanatics who call women voting for not-Hillary traitors)? This is a great question, and the answer should be yes. It depends on the nature of that opposition (CBC water-carrying vs. policy/philosophical/fact-based critiques like the Black Agenda Report peoples). It would be a travesty if black people did not feel free to raise concerns about Obama, and I know I have to be careful to check my fervor when confronted with facts. We all should. Blind followership hurts us all.
cross-posted to Jack & Jill Politics
I'm tired of Paul Krugman. His latest column ("Hate Springs Eternal") claims that the ugliness we've seen in the Democratic campaign is due to all these angry Obama cultists. He's dismissive of legitimate grievances of the LBJ comments, for example. And this is all just so ironic because if there's been a campaign marked by "hate" or at least anger, it is clearly not the Obama campaign.
The Obama campaign has not had to fire people for smearing Hillary Clinton.
The Obama campaign is predicated on hope. How can people criticize how happy and positive the Obama message is and yet complain that it's Obama people who are the hateful ones?
And what the hell is Krugman's basis for his assertion? Who is he talking to? Where is he getting his impressions? Every group of Obama people I've been around has gone out of their way to present a balanced perspective on Mrs. Clinton despite her best attempts to bring out the worst in us.
Paul Krugman needs to read the Clinton Attacks Obama wiki.
And yall need to read dnA over at toosenseblog
Continuing on to Krugman's original point, which is that supporters of Clinton and Obama need to chill and stop sniping at each other, because we're fundamentally on the same side. That sounds great, except the Krugman is downplaying his own role in instigating this fight. Just last week on his blog, Krugman claimed only three of his last ten columns criticized Obama, in comparison to his colleagues Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd who had written critically about Hillary 7 times and 6 times respectively.
cross-posted to Jack & Jill Politics
I'm heading to the DC area in a few hours and pulled this mix together from across the web. I'm sure there are more, but this is a decent start. I plan to rock this as I canvass the old hood.
Links to the artists:
- Hip Hop For Obama (h/t Think On These Things)
- Obama Nuestro Presidente (h/t MySpace) - by Dr. Flow
- Obama Reggaeton - (h/t Amigos de Obama)
- Yes We Can - will.i.am
cross posted to Jack & Jill Politics (warning, this post is massive. grab a cup of tea and settle in).
Over the past month, I have gotten more involved with and attentive to parts of presidential politics than at any previous point in my life. Following and, increasingly, participating in the Obama campaign has become a third or fourth job. My conversations, my blog posts, my leisure reading, my dreams -- all have been gripped by the extreme gravitational pull of this season. As votes began to be cast, I have reached out to friends and strangers alike, attempting to get them to see what I saw (I'm headed to DC this weekend to campaign). As the Clintons attacked recklessly, I grew more adamant in my defense of Obama and promotion of his campaign.
There is a cost to all of this, and on the periphery of my consciousness I hear the voices of accountability calling out my name. It's time for me to take a step back, to remind others but mostly myself, why I support his campaign. Here's why I feel the need to do this.
First, a few weeks ago, I tuned in to Democracy Now and caught Glen Ford and Michael Eric Dyson engaged in one of the most fascinating discussions of Obama's candidacy I've yet heard. It was wide-ranging, touching on the legitimacy of a term such as "post-racial" and the moneyed interests that capture all high-flying politicians. Glen is with Black Agenda Report, and they have what appears to be no love lost for Senator Obama. I don't agree with their strong stance against him, but I cannot deny the importance of many questions they raise. In this interview, Ford asked, "What good does it do to put a black face on American imperialism?" Let that one ring in your head, and as fellow new media brotha, Clarence Smith Jr., would say, "marinate."
Another moment occurred on that same, annoyingly insightful program, Democracy Now. Amy Goodman hosted a discussion with the head of the Progressive Democrats of America, a writer from Black Commentator and several others. Most supported Obama but they did so because he represented the best chance for movement politics to gain a closer and stronger foothold to real power in this country. While supporting Obama, they also wanted to push him further on issues such as reduced funding for the military (I agree) or an even more aggressive health care proposal (I admire the rational choice foundation of O's current plan just the way it is).
Finally, what really grabbed my attention was an old friend of my mother's in DC. Several weeks ago, she reached out to me saying she wasn't convinced about Obama but was open to hearing more. This week, I got in touch and heard her concerns. A few of them had ready answers (e.g. Q: what are his criminal justice proposals? A: here they are as part of his poverty plan), but one struck at the heart of this entire presidential election drama. "Who does he owe?" she asked me. "Before he started getting money from citizens, somebody chose him and saw potential and decided he could be president. I just want to know what he compromised to get to where he is."
Aye, there's the rub.
Now I don't think there was a secret back room meeting between Obama and the Five Philandering Families at a secret retreat off the Cayman Islands, but my friend was raising a larger point. It is nearly, if not completely, impossible to be taken as seriously as Obama is being taken without having had to cut deals or ignore controversies or take money from some shady (most likely economic) interests. You don't become president without being sat down and told what the real deal is by those whose power and influence pre-dates your arrival and outlasts your departure. Those of us here on the ground level of society have the luxury of not being bombarded by such pressures. I'm convinced that if Dennis Kucinich ever did become president, he would be sat down on Day One and presented with an envelope. He'd open it, and he'd simply say, "Ooooooh. Now I see. Let us commence the bombing." I'm only half-kidding.
But back to the legitimate question: who does Obama owe?
It's not too hard to find out. The short answer is Wall Street employees and execs. OpenSecrets analyzes FEC filings and compiles easy-to-read reports. It's true that Obama relies much less on large scale contributions than does Hillary. However, Obama's top contributors are those at investment banks like Goldman Sachs ($400K), UBS ($300K) and Lehman Brothers ($250K). You'll remember that Goldman made a killing off the subprime crisis as it ripped apart the bottom lines of other banks and the financial assets of so many Americans. (Here's Clinton's for comparison).
Another noteworthy contributor is a (primarily) nuclear power company named Exelon. The NY Times ran a hard piece about Obama recently for what looks like him watering down an enforcement bill that would have affected this company. Obama also sees nuclear as a necessary component of our energy mix, a point many strongly disagree with (as a self-studied peak oil nut, I too see a role for nuclear).
Hillary Clinton shares some of this influence and often leads Obama. McClatchy covers how Wall Street has made it rain on both their campaign coffers. Bob Sheer of Truthdig concludes that neither Hillary nor Barack are demanding a needed reduction in America's insane levels of military spending, writing:
Which one of the likely winners from either party would lead the battle to cut the military budget, and where would the winner find support in Congress? Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have treated the military budget as sacrosanct with their Senate votes and their campaign rhetoric. Clinton is particularly clear on the record as favoring spending more, not less, on the military.Having been exposed to the high altitude of political power far longer, Hillary has many of her own distinct crosses to bear. She's the top recipient of money from the weapons industry among Republicans or Democrats (yes, war profiteers!), and she refused to vote for a ban on those horrific devices of arbitrary destruction known as land mines and cluster bombs -- even in the topsy turvy world of Senate votes and back room deals, this vote looks unforgivable. I happen to think Clinton's real and perceived concessions to those sucking the lifeblood out of our democracy are more egregious than Obama's, but the point remains that neither's hands are truly clean. By definition, a successful politician has some dirt on his or her hands. I do think, however, that Michelle Obama's point is relevant. The Obama's are much closer to normal than the Clintons. They haven't had their norms so stewed for as long by access to the moneyed people of the world. So, let's take it as a given than in joining ranks of the League of Potential Presidents, Obama has made some compromises and has the appearance of many more. He has accepted money from people in the financial services industry which wields US policy like a market-fixing bludgeon, or from a nuclear power company interested in avoiding as much government regulation as possible. Why, again, do I support him and why, so much moreso than Clinton? I return to my original endorsement letter of Jan 3, 2008
Obama is neither a Magic Negro nor a messiah. He is not Martin Luther King Jr. nor is he Sojourner Truth. He cannot change this country and make it all the great things so many people want it to be on his own. No politician can. No single person can. Anyone who promises that cannot deliver it. What I hope and increasingly believe, however, is that his ability to connect with people, to inspire participation, to transcend some of the more obscene flavors of recent partisanship will encourage us to take a step closer to fixing this country ourselves. It says something powerful when you have the largest pool of small campaign donors in the history of presidential elections. It says something powerful when you can lure 30,000 ordinary people to a political rally, especially when you do so in a country whose leader doesn’t wear fatigues or put his image on the nation’s money. If President Obama can accomplish two or three of the changes that candidate Obama has laid out, that would be a vast improvement for the country. But what I’m really rooting for is that he will help rekindle that spirit of civic engagement and community that is the lifeblood of this experiment called democracy. In the end, it’s not about Obama. It’s about us!I will add to that. My support of Obama goes beyond him and perhaps eventually even against him. My support is based on his ability to activate the civic gene in many more Americans. His effect is undeniable (though unproven in the long term), for look at the vastly different types of people he is getting to pay attention and turn out for rallies and turn out to vote! Yes, Obama is a politician. Yes he is and will be beholden to financial interests. But you cannot tell me that "any ol politician" gets old white Republicans and young feminists to be enthusiastic about the prospect of voting for them. If he is even partially successful, he may create an electorate so constructively engaged and, yes, pissed off, that it pushes him even beyond his current proposals. Presidents are under an immense amount of pressure, and as any politician climbs the ladder, their world shrinks as access to the average citizen gets replaced by access to the captains of industry. But, if Obama's campaign is successful, it will be because we are successful, and if that happens, I envision a country in which people are more engaged in their government and society and thus check the power of those who already have unfettered access. I know the power of this inspiration because it has touched me and made me committed to seeing it happen in my small sphere of influence. If his revolutionary open government and technology plan and government ethics plan (for the love of god, read it!) comes to pass, we will have more visibility and input into the (corrupt) workings of our government than ever before, and it will be up to us to act on that new information. (BTW, compare that to this assessment of Hillary's tech/communications plan. It pales). With the searchable government spending database he spearheaded (use it!), we may find that the obscenity of our budgetary priorities is so readily available, we have no choice but to protest it. Obama's platform is not just about his positions. It's about the tools and infrastructure he's offering directly to the citizens of this country. Forget for a moment who speaks in a most commanding fashion about the particulars of health care legislation. Forget about beautiful language or alleged experience. Look at what President Obama offers all of us: empowerment. Empowerment like we've never seen. Power we forgot we had. Power that a community organizer trained on the streets of Chicago would recognize in a heartbeat. We may not get an opportunity like this for several decades! Look, I am under no illusions about the forces that wield the true power in this country, but what has been restored by Obama's campaign is my faith (and go ahead, say it, "hope") and knowledge that true power is still held by the people, and that we the people can use more of that power under President Obama than under any other. By far. On Super Tuesday, amid a speech full of language we've heard from him before, Obama spoke words that leapt out at me. He said, "we are the ones we've been waiting for." Let us remember that, and let's use this campaign, this time in our history, this great opportunity to be the ones we've been waiting for.
Straight from the Department of Adding Insult To Injury,
Earlier today, the Clinton campaign admitted that she had written her campaign a check for $5M in the month of January, yes the month in which Obama cleared $32M. I don't even want to think of where that loot came from.
On top of this embarrassing news, Obama has raised nearly $6M SINCE THE SUPER TUESDAY POLLS CLOSED YESTERDAY.
This will be an sad headline for HRC tomorrow.
Can I just say this again real quick?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Then again, Jesse Jackson ran a great campaign in 1984 and 1988.
proudly cross-posted to Jack & Jill Politics
What a great video! Derrick and I went to college together and have worked on mad projects including the Sweet Mother Tour.
He's a member of the award-winning band Soulfege, and clearly knows how to handle himself on camera. The interviewer clearly started off thinking he was gonna catch some uneducated Barack supported who connected only because of "emotion," but Derrick made that interviewer look like a fool and all of us look good. He got waaaaay beyond the talking points and ultimately earned the respect of the interviewer.
Oh, and Derrick lives in California, so he was holding it down for black voters out there at least :)
Thanks to JJP commenter jstele for pointing this out. Enjoy.
Update: a followup video from Derrick explaining how the interview went down, among other things.
cross-posted to Jack & Jill Politics
I so hope we are not too late. I honestly feel that we, all people alive in this country at this time in our history, are lucky to even have the choice of Barack Obama. I feel that our answer to this opportunity represents a test. Are we worthy? Are we ready? Are we willing to stand?
I have worked hard to use my words, my voice, my comedy to find my own truth in this election and share it as far and as wide as possible with those who have ears to hear.
And yet, I fear it's never enough.
I'm sharing a video made by one of the most impressive thinkers of our time who got behind Obama early and helped craft what is hands down the most innovative technology platform proposed by any presidential candidate.
His name is Lawrence Lessig. He's huge in the world of innovation and copyright and has made his new issue that of government corruption. He is worth listening to, for he is so down with the struggle, and the readers of this blog know something about struggle.
Lessig is not out marching in the streets for prison reform, but he is trying to free all of us from the shackles of institutions which have so effectively choked off our access to our own democracy. The fact that he is so down for Obama is immense.
This video is 20 minutes, and I want you to watch it all. Then I want you to send it (and digg it) to someone you know who says there is no difference of substance between Obama and Clinton or that they will "both bring about change."