On the Net everyone is your neighbor. We are each but a one-click search away from the other, each but a flying finger down the block, and boom, you are in someone else’s space or backyard. And the New York Times’ recent purchase of a website called Blogrunner has brought some of the best bloggers under the same tent.
So, with time on his hands, Barack Obama wrote a blog entry down the block on Huffington Post (with nearly 5,000 comments) trying to explain away Jeremiah Wright, his comments, his religion, his radicalism, his racialism, their relationship, himself, and his preaching the gospel of politics from the pulpit. For that Rev. Wright might be investigated for using his pulpit for political gain. If that is the case, then Rev. Wright was clearly in the wrong. While I believe that politics, race, and religion are inevitably intertwined, the law of the land dictates that they be kept separate.
What Barack couldn't say was that to be a black native of Chicago was almost to be radical by nature, by definition. We are the home of the pan-African movement, Afro-centric beliefs, black vegans/vegetarians, Kwanzaa, nouveau-clique clothes, radical ideas, intellectual light, music, and politics. This is the home of Minister Farrakhan whose Hyde Park mansion is literally down the block from the Obama mansion in Kenwood, to nearby Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.
Hillary Clinton also blogged an article there recently and made children in poverty her subject. But she failed to mention one of the leading causes of childhood poverty: incarceration in the family. Why was that? Was it because she did not wish to draw undue attention to her husband’s track record on drug laws and their impact on the poor and minorities? What was really strange about that omission are new statistics released citing 1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated — a new record. That issue was strictly political. What has been borne out in the past months was that she too needs to repudiate Bill’s remarks and track record on racial equality! Like I said in another article, the Clintons are walking the racial tightrope with the wrong-colored tights.
I grew up going to political meetings and radical churches, enthralled with blaring Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow coalition speeches on the radio. His son was elected to congress, and when Barack ran for a congressional seat he lost to Bobby Rush because he used the “Barack is not black enough” argument, and it worked. I’ve never attended Obama’s particular Unity church nor is it the type of church my family would join. Not because it is radical but because it is not cut from the same Christian cloth as less political, born again assemblies.
That said, within Unity churches there is really little unity. They have splintered just like the rest of the so-called Christian churches. I have also been a member of Unity in both Texas and Chicago under (now long retired) Rev. Johnnie Coleman. Her church is also a splinter of Unity Church. She had a huge congregation with a mix of congregants who believed in everything from esoteric Islam to Hinduism to Kabala — heretics the lot of us. I touch upon this political and religious morass in my book. Good thing I am not running for elected office this lifetime, I wouldn’t have a prayer.
Which Has More Political Cachet: Obama v. Clinton or Obama and Clinton?
The GOP regulars, conservatives, Dem haters, radio talking heads, and party leaders are salivating over this duel in the primary. Well-funded 527 ads will blast Rev. Wright’s speeches and will put the Obamas in Rev. Wright’s white-race-hating audience and kill the party at the polls. We can’t let that swift boat sail, people.
If you read my article “Offers I Can’t Refuse” and the headline about putting these two on the same ticket you will notice I never used the term “dream ticket.” I could have easily called it that. But I didn’t. I call a Clinton ticket a necessary evil. I hate to put it in those terms but that’s how I see it. Hill and Bill will cry foul as long as Barack is on top. That may be a necessary evil to them, but not to Obama supporters. I am not yet convinced we can all just get along. But there is no reason that both cannot be on the ticket as Pelosi unwisely suggests won’t ever happen.
Nancy Pelosi: Gutless Wonder
From the transcript of her weekly press conference, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, who does not speak for me, said last week:
They asked me, "Did I think there was going to be a dream team?" Yes, there is going to be a dream team. They asked me specifically about those two people being on the ticket together. I said I thought it was impossible. Now, do you want me to go through a lifetime of political gut to tell you why that is the case? (emphasis added)
Ms. Pelosi: Take it from me, that won't be the ticket.
Q: Are you concerned about the tone of the campaign between the two of them from this week" And are you worried that one of two or both important constituencies, black voters or women voters, could end up being alienated?
Ms. Pelosi: I think the constituency for these candidates goes well beyond those two groups.
I say that she needs to save the strategy sessions for wiser heads. With the yin-yang divide yawning wider highlighted by the recent Mississippi primary – Obama won 90% of the black vote – the divide is growing greater every day between races and parties. Therefore, the ticket might have to hold both Obama and Clinton. I want to see the Democrats stomp the Republicans in the dust, beat them back to their huts and tear off their nuts. Nancy, with all due respect, needs to whip Congress of both parties into shape and save the economy, if she can. Bernanke and the feds are also to blame for this mortgage and now banking mess. The fault sat squarely with them because they were not watching the pot and it has boiled over. There was enough blame to go around for both parties. It spilled out onto Wall Street and the folk street.
Is This BHO's JFK Catholic Speech a la Blog?
I question the whys and the hows of Obama's blog on his religion and church: Does he have to tell the world that he has repudiated his pastor? Why does he have to broadcast something that will neither satisfy nor pacify the haters? It’s a good thing he has staunch supporters because they are just about levitating with anger over this pastor dust-up. Many black supporters are not having doubts about the year of Barack. But we are having doubts about his strategy or lack of one to attack Hillary Clinton, her ads, her mindset, and her Machiavellian methods.
Instead of rejecting his pastor shouldn’t he be getting publically tougher with Clinton? So why can’t he get tough with her? He will be smeared with the mud of same old political dogfights. Obama’s supporters have begged him to get tough with Hillary. In lieu of that bloggers and surrogates have had to come to his defense. But they have been chastised and even dropped from the campaign team.
Hillary can’t win without Barack, but many political observers believe that he can win without her. I think he believes that he can win without her. But playing devil’s advocate for a second: Should we let Hillary be the top of the ticket and clean up the Bush mess (as she suggested) and what’s left of the economy by the time “the shrub” has left office? Does Barack need protection from Billary, the Right and Bush leftovers? Why can’t he use the ammunition that abounds about Billary? Some of it would be dirty pool but much of it is fair game. Unknown quantity John Edwards was put on the bottom of the ticket by John Kerry. But to his credit Kerry put Barack on the platform to give the Convention’s keynote address in 2004 and he never looked back. Edwards did little for the Democrat party that year. At least we know Hillary is a known vote-getter.
Why the Grand Old Party Should Remain on the Do Not Resuscitate List
The U.S. created Saddam and armed this anti-Iranian demagogue. The U.S. killed him under a Bush. This was blowback at its finest. According to narration in Why We Fight, “we [the U.S.] have the receipts of weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam.” Saddam Hussein is dead, his sons are dead, over 4,000 American soldiers are dead, over a million Iraqis are dead, the U.S. economy is on life-support, Osama bin Laden is alive and well and his sons are alive. Who won 9/11, I ask you? Yes, 9/11 changed everything. But are we safer, freer, and richer since then? It could have been so different. Everyone should spend 99 minutes watching Why We Fight.
Finally, I am fed up with the right’s “Barack as black boogey-man” argument because it plays only to the base of human nature — fear. The right wants to keep this hot mess going because it takes the eyes of the world off the issues. It takes the focus off the war front, off the price of gasoline, off the economy front, off the fact that McCain can’t win, off the fact that Barack can be a president of the people, off the mark, off money matters, off health care, off what really drew us into Iraq in the first place, off the block, and off topic most of all. I do believe that McCain cannot win without the race-baiting radio shock jocks. When is he going to repudiate and reject them? Is he going to repudiate Pastor Hagee and others who endorse him but who don’t speak for him? When will America, long off the gold standard, get off the racial double standard?
John McCain cannot win without fear as his running mate. The only question left to answer is who will be the Republican face of fear this year? Who will be McCain’s “Dick Cheney” in 2008? As for me, I’d rather be a blogger than president.Powered by Sidelines