ABC: Pandering to Kith and Kin

Jeremiah Wright is old news. That story no longer has legs as far as the voters are concerned. "Bitter" has been confirmed by workers and is old news. Sean Hannity of Fox News feeds George Stephanopoulos a question to be asked about Bill Ayers. Rather than issues the ABC moderators took a page from the Hillary Clinton play book. for almost an hour, side issues not substantive ones were the subjects of the debate.

We are in the throes of one of the worst presidencies in history and rather than what the candidates stand for and how they can get us out of this mess, the questions are about people Barack knows but not what is going to do. Hillary is about to suggest going to war with the whole Middle East. That is ignored because choosing a pastor is so much more important.

At the beginning of Barack's entry into the race, the question was asked: "Is America ready for a black president?" America might be ready but much of the establishment media certainly is not. The people have ignored the Wright attachments but not the pundits. Major indicators say the people have not been bothered by the "bitter" comment. Several of this group have supported Barack's sentiment. He quotes an older white woman who said to him: "You misspoke but you didn't lie." Yet, like Reverend Wright some weeks ago, the 'bitter" comment is a mainstay for these pundits. Rather than a new America, their livelihoods depend upon the America of the present and past. It is their job to promote old prejudices. ABC did just that last night, as they pandered to their fellow pundits in this silly season of the campaign.
RGN

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html

On Being Bitter: Of course....

Why Shouldn't We Be Bitter?
By Michael Winship
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 16 April 2008

Having grown up in a small town, I'm always struck at how rarely movies and television shows and other art forms capture the quality of life there. The false notes are thumped as discordantly as the "Moonlight Sonata" on a badly tuned spinet; the citizens portrayed as homicidal mouth breathers, amusing rubes or country sages with an unsullied rustic wisdom that astonishes visiting city slickers.

Some get it right. A weekend attending a conference in Columbus, Ohio, ended Sunday at the small, Victorian boyhood home of one of my literary heroes, James Thurber. In his short stories and reminiscences, it was his "sure grasp of confusion," as a magazine once put it, his understanding of small town, family dynamics and foibles that instantly won my heart, even at an early age.

And though Thurber, like me and so many others, wound up in Manhattan, exploring the anguishes and delights of the big city, he himself wrote, "My books prove that I am never very far away from Ohio in my thoughts, and that the clocks that strike in my dreams are often the clocks of Columbus."

So, it was with a mixture of bemusement, bewilderment and vexation that I've been watching the furor around Barack Obama's remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser, the ones that have led to accusations of elitism and belittling folks from small towns.

With the critical Pennsylvania primary a week away, this is the Obama sentence that, as Thurber would say, has torn up the peapatch: "It's not surprising then that they [small town people] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The response to this by the media and the attempts to exploit Obama's words by Senators Clinton and McCain have been mind shattering in their hypocrisy and cynicism. As political operative Bob Shrum wrote in The Huffington Post, "Ironically, Obama's the one raised by a single mother. He's the one who only recently finished paying off his student loans. He doesn't know what it's like to have $100 million. The opponents who are attacking him are the ones who inhabit that financial neighborhood."

First, place Senator Obama's words in greater context. Here is more of what he ACTUALLY said, ending with the sentence in question: "Here's how it is. In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, they feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it.

"... Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Different, huh? Especially, as Salon.com's Joan Walsh pointed out, when you consider what Obama added after the spittle hit the fan. "They're frustrated and for good reason," he said. "Because for the last 25 years they've seen jobs shipped overseas. They've seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare.

"And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we're going to make your community better. We're going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And, of course, they're bitter. Of course they're frustrated. You would be, too. In fact many of you are."

For the full article see: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_041608A.shtml

Media Matters and the Logic (?) of the Obama Opposition

An argument that I continue to make it that what is at stake in this election is white nationalism. Fox News and conservatives in these waning months of the "Reagan Revolution" are very upfront in their push to maintain this white nationalist hegemony. What is not so apparent is that there is a strain of white nationalism in the Democratic party. While the right-wing largely has as its base adherents to the Republican party's "southern strategy," they run their campaigns on anti-civil rights platforms masking their racism behind codes like racial preferences, crime, welfare, etc. They are not the blatant white supremacists of the Jim Crow days but are now "color-blind racists," white nationalism with a kinder face.

Its not only right-wing Republicans who are white nationalists. The polls seems to show that about 30% of Clinton supporters say that if Obama gets the nomination, they will vote for John McCain. While about 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton, much of that has been generated by how the Clinton has tried to undermine Barack Obama, unfairly and racist as far as Obama's supporters are concerned. For Clinton to accuse her fellow Democrat as being less qualified than their Republican opponent, John McCain, is hitting below the belt. To deliberately distort Obama's words, to undermine his credibility, given the unfairness, has its own white nationalist appeal. Geraldine Ferraro's words about Barack getting some sort of racial preference was clearly a white nationalist appeal. The comments below from a nameless Clinton supporter speaks volumes. Could it be that what is happening here is that a major wing of the Democratic party is wrestling with its own white nationalist demons? RGN

Altercation, by Eric Alterman

The self-evident stupidity of American politics can be almost as hard to stomach as it is to understand, but yes, it's possible the worst president in American history will be followed by one who embraces that legacy because Barack Obama said something that was inarguably true in San Francisco last week. The weird, almost supernatural power of the word "elitist" when used by elitists is the topic of the excerpt from Why We're Liberals that published in The Nation last week, and you can read it here. (Of course, the idea is still to get you to buy the book.)

Thing is, this silly issue was hatched and ready to sprout wings long before Obama made his easily manipulated and exploitable remarks, and not just by the morons on cable TV and talk radio. Look at the subhead of the profile of Obama in the current Newsweek: "Obama says he knows the globe better than his rivals. Does he know it too well?" Is it not a pathetic comment on this country's politics to ask if a presidential candidate knows the world "too well?" We all know what it means, and yet ... reels the mind, particularly since one of its authors is a Brit and one is the author of a book on foreign policy.

Now look at the evidence:

This supposedly unique sense of empathy, however, could easily remind some people of Bill Clinton's propensity for "feeling their pain" -- and it opens Obama up to charges of naiveté. "It is a danger," says biographer David Mendell, the Chicago Tribune reporter who wrote "Obama: From Promise to Power." "He believes that he can turn anybody to his side. His former Senate campaign manager says Obama thinks he can go into a room full of skinheads and come out with all their votes. But some people just aren't going to be won over." Obama was harshly criticized after he declared, during a debate last year, that he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without setting preconditions. The Bush administration and McCain have declared they would not do so at least until Tehran stops enriching uranium, and even Clinton has criticized Obama's stance. The candidate still insists that a major power like Iran must be engaged. But he's now careful to inject a note of realism into his position, telling NEWSWEEK last week that "it wouldn't make sense for us to negotiate or even have discussions with Iran probably when they are in the midst of a political season." (Iran's presidential elections are in 2009.)

Well, yes, Obama was "harshly criticized"; after all, the guy is running for president. It's the job of the people who want to beat him to do that. Does anyone actually give a reason why he should be, however? Oh, never mind. One side, the other side, with nary a thought to separate them.

It continues:

Even some Dems who'd favor him in any contest against McCain also worry that Obama is overplaying his experience. "I don't know whether he's drinking his own Kool-Aid," says a former senior member of the Clinton administration who is not backing either Democratic candidate but would talk only on condition of anonymity because of his private-sector job. "I'm all for talking to the Cubans, or to the Iranians. I'm just not sure he's the guy to do it. The biggest administrative job he ever had was collecting articles for the Harvard Law Review."

Hey, wait a minute. The only quote here is a former Clinton administration official who refuses to give his name or his position who says he is "not sure Obama is the one to do it." That's it? Again, no evidence? No argument? Not even a name? They call this journalism? And remember, this is Newsweek -- they are supposed to set a standard. It makes one feel hopeless about both journalism and democracy.

From the Nation: The Working Class Steps up.

There was a clip on CNN yesterday at one of Obama's rallies. This older white gentleman stood up and said something to the effect to Barack: "Mr. Obama they keep calling you, of all people, an elitist. I think you should take exception to that. Their charge is really a racist one. What they are saying is that you, a black man, are "uppity." That is racist and they ought to stop it." RGN

OBAMA FALLOUT: THE BACKLASH AGAINST THE BACKLASH ...

The endless coverage of Barack Obama's comments about small-town America is a great example of the type of manufactured scandal that gives political journalism a bad name.

It's obvious why the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign want to keep this faux scandal alive. It's disturbing to see so many in the media swallow the spin.

Few have wrestled with the actual substance of what Obama said. But after three days of carefully calibrated outrage, voices in Pennsylvania and elsewhere are stepping forward to defend Obama's alleged gaffe.

Take John Baer's column in the Philadelphia Daily News this morning, entitled, "Decades of working-class neglect--now that's insulting."

As a native-born, small-town Pennsylvanian, a son of native-born, small-town Pennsylvania parents - one from the coal region, one from Lancaster County - let me assure you that the so-called offensive, condescending things Barack Obama said about the people I come from are basically right on target.

"Bitter" perhaps best describes my late mother, an angry Irish Catholic who absolutely clung to her religion.

Dad, also a journalist, wasn't really bitter as far as I know, but he sure liked to hunt.

So, despite carping from Hillary Clinton and annoying yapping from her surrogates (really, it's like turning on the lights at night in a puppy farm), I take no offense.

What's offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician's words.

Are you kidding me?

They're injured all right, but the injury is long-term and from lots more than "just words."

They've been injured from decades of neglect by political cultures in Washington and Harrisburg driven by special interests.

They're injured by a system of isolated, insulated political leadership that protects itself and the status quo above all else.

They've been harmed by a lack of political guts to fix a health-care system that works against the poor and forces middle-class families to pay more for less, while at the same time giving politicians the best coverage taxpayer money can buy.

They've been taken for granted by political parties and candidates who stay in power by - and this was the apparent gist of Obama's remarks - forcing attention and debate on issues tied to guns, religion and race (precisely because such issues resonate) rather than real problems such as health care and the economy.

"What's the Matter With Kansas?" author Thomas Frank made much the same point in an interview with the Huffington Post. "People are bitter in small towns," Frank said. "People are bitter everywhere. I don't know if you have seen the stock market--people are bitter about their situation. It doesn't strike me as a very controversial statement."

And back in 1991, in the midst of another economic recession, a Democratic nominee had this to say about the Republican Party's wedge strategy. "When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them."

That candidate, you might have realized, was Bill Clinton.

Posted by Ari Berman at 04/14/2008 @ 1:41pm | Email This Post

Hillary Losing Ground????

New Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg polls in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana suggests Sen. Hillary Clinton "may not be headed to blockbuster victories she needs to jumpstart her presidential bid."

Pennsylvania: Clinton 46%, Obama 41%

North Carolina: Obama 47%, Clinton 34%

Indiana, Obama 40%, Clinton 35%

Key finding: "One reason Clinton is struggling in Indiana and North Carolina is that a mainstay of her coalition in earlier contests -- women -- have been defecting. In Indiana, the poll found women split their vote, 35% for each candidate. In North Carolina, they favored Obama, 43% to 36%."

In Response to: He's there because he's a black man!!!

4-14-08

What If Someone from the Obama Camp Said Hillary Clinton Is Where She Is Because She's a Woman?

By Arica L. Coleman

Ms. Coleman is Assistant Professor of Black American Studies at the University of Delaware.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."--Geraldine’s Ferraro

Geraldine’s Ferraro’s comment sparked a firestorm of controversy which once again injected race into the 2008 Democratic primary. It was bound to happen as earlier remarks by the Clintons began to trouble the waters as early as the New Hampshire primary. As Jim Davis so aptly states, however, the black elephant was always in the room. The primary has now taken a somewhat comic- tragic turn. So I wanted to take this opportunity to capture this aspect of the election by flipping the script. When Ferraro’s remarks were echoed over the airwaves many, including some from the Obama campaign, responded with the question, “What if someone from the Obama camp had made the statement that Hillary Clinton was lucky because she is a white woman?” Well, since you all brought it up, let’s explore the question. Now, who among Obama’s supporters would have reason to say such a thing? Why Jesse Jackson of course. Jackson ran for the Democratic nomination twice in the 1980s and since Ferraro made similar remarks about him in ‘88, I think it only fair that he be allowed to return the favor.

So let’s pretend that the following Jackson interview was conducted and published by the History News Network.

HNN: So Jackson, what are your thoughts at this point on the election? Although Obama is clearly the front runner and Hillary seemingly has little chance to close the delegate gap, she’s a formidable candidate, nonetheless, and can still wrest the nomination away from Obama if the super delegates favor her. What’s your response?

Jackson: If Clinton was a black man, she would not be in this position. And if she was a man (of color period), she would not be in this position. She happens to be very lucky to be who she is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

HNN: Do I hear you saying that Hillary Clinton, who has no chance of getting the nomination through the front door, is only being provided the opportunity to become the nominee through the back door simply because she is a white woman?

Jackson: You’ve read the political blogs. Since theOhio/Texas primary political analysts have been doing the math and they have all come to the same conclusion, Clinton can’t win. Her campaign has been operating in the red since February. She has only amassed five new super delegates since Super Tuesday to Obama’s sixty. And with the recent Richardson endorsement for Obama, her achieving the nomination at this point is a fairy tale. Her own husband said that. Honestly, the only reason she is still in this race is because she is a white woman. (Note: The last statement is taken from Ferraro’s ’88 statement regarding Jackson, for good measure).

Responding to Ferraro’s comments in his speech on race, Obama stated that such statements were “the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in Affirmative Action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.”

Yet if such statements were made about Hillary being lucky that she is a white woman wouldn’t the interpretation be the same? Just as Affirmative Action policies were implemented as a redress to institutionalize racism, they were also implemented to redress institutionalized sexism. The assumption that affirmative action somehow benefits African Americans at the expense of whites is, in fact, a myth. Affirmative Action has helped a wide range of marginal groups. Studies conducted by the Labor Department have shown that the largest benefactors of affirmative action are women and more specifically white women.

Hence if she is married with children, then it stands to reason that her entire family benefits. As the American Psychological Association’s Office of Public Policy explains:

Finally, although affirmative action policies appear to target women and people outside a majority group as 'beneficiaries,' majority group members benefit as much as minority groups, if not more, from such policies. Although opinion polls reveal that many Whites believe they are unfairly discriminated against by affirmative action policies, it is Whites who benefit most. This is because of their larger numbers in most sectors covered by affirmative action interventions. For example, when white women, along with people of color, benefit directly from affirmative action in the schoolhouse and workplace, all citizens benefit by being part of a well-trained, competitive U.S. workforce capable of participating effectively in the global world market and of supporting an aging population. Further, when white women are as well educated and well employed as white men, then white men, women, and children also benefit, for in virtually every woman's life there is someone with whom she shares resources.

Therefore, if white women have been beneficiaries of affirmative action far more than is realized or that anyone would care to admit, is it a stretch to suggest that Hillary’s racial privilege as white and gender privilege as a woman makes her truly lady luck? Are wide- eyed liberals, to use Obama’s words, simply trying to purchase gender reconciliation on the cheap?

Let’s assume that Hillary’s race and gender are the only factors that provide the advantage over Obama, hence we can also assume that while his maleness may well provide an advantage over Hillary, his blackness most assuredly does not. So one can assume that if the shoe were on the other foot and Clinton had the delegate count, the popular vote, had won more states, had the math on her side with no way for Obama to close the gap, and his only recourse to getting the nomination were that he persuade the super delegates to overturn the will of the people, I believe this phase of the election would have been over after the Ohio/Texas primary. And no matter how much Obama would try to justify staying in the race with the argument “But I’ve won more states; I am more electable; Hillary’s experience is exaggerated,” I can imagine there would be far more pressure from political colleagues and the voting public, his own supporters notwithstanding, for the Illinois senator to terminate his bid for the nomination.

Having said that, I do not think the luck factor for Hillary (her ability to stay in the race despite the overwhelming odds against her) simply boils down to her being white and female. It becomes rather a question of power and her proximity to it. In a recent Washington Post article on race, gender and the Democratic primary, Lani Guinier states, “White women and black women have had different relationships to power . . .White women have had a greater access to it. They were sleeping with power. Even though they were disadvantaged in terms of access to conventional opportunities to their mates, they were also in an intimate relationship with power." Hillary, however, is not simply in an intimate relationship with power vis-à-vis Bill Clinton; as a former first lady of unquestionable political celebrity status and a two termed United States senator with ties to big money, she is a power broker within the Washington establishment. As such, her marriage to power and ability to wield it within the realm of the ultra-elite, places her in a class all by itself. It provides her a twofold advantage which no woman (of any color), to use Ferraro’s term, let alone a black man at this point in American history, could ever dream to enjoy. Perhaps, Hillary believes her unique status as an A-list political diva will be the rabbit’s foot that will clench the nomination.

Now that we have explored the question, “What if someone from the Obama camp stated that Hillary Clinton is where she is because of who she is,” perhaps it is time that the New York senator grapple with this question herself. Senator, when you are done “pursuing the ‘Tonya Harding Option,’ ” and Obama is no longer acceptable as a presidential hopeful, the Democratic party is left in shambles, and McCain is elected in November to begin Bush’s third term to embark on a hundred years war, and your family legacy has been mocked and scorned by the American people who become victimized by your audacity of hopelessness, and history judges you as the spoiler of the most historic American presidential election to occur in the first 232 years of this nation’s existence, you should ask yourself, do you feel lucky?

For the original article see: http://hnn.us/articles/49180.html

The "Bitter" Lie!

On Spinning Being “Bitter” and Elite?: What will they think of next????
Robert Newby
Central Michigan University

Friday evening there was a story that merited the status of “Breaking News” about Obama having stumbled by saying that people in small town America who are being squeezed economically as being “bitter” and linking that bitterness to God, guns, and tolerance. While there is validity to his comments, the mainstream spin doctors, seeking every possible distortion as a headline, jumped on this accusing Barack of labeling or stereotyping. This was a case of “misspeak,” though not in the class of dodging machine gun fire flying into Tuzla. The Huffington Post “reporter” who did the taping knew herself that this was little more than a case of “gotcha.” She debated whether or not to report this. Nonetheless she felt compelled to do so because of “professionalism.” Unfortunately, much of the media is little more than gotcha. It is the nature of the profession.

This “misspeak” is at the core of the current media attack on Barack. They have determined that the central issue of the race will be Obama, himself not the issues. Barack Obama, this African American, is to be made the campaign issue by the use of white nationalism. Regardless of the intent of his message of unity and the blurring of divisions, the conventional wisdoms of the constructed realities of the past two and a half decades has been to justify a status quo that has been divisive and mean-spirited. It is this conventional wisdom that is comfortable with a Hillary or a John McClain. It is this same conventional wisdom that had accepted the inevitability of the Clinton candidacy and is now befuddled by Barack’s success. These pundits remain tenacious as they struggle to maintain their credibility and legitimacy of the world they construct. They see this “bitter” event as Obama’s downfall.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Lou Dobbs program on Friday (4/11/08) centered on Obama’s “bitter” comment with possibility of dooming Barack’s campaign. Bill Schneider argued that Obama was going to have to “explain himself.” By this time the report had been reduced to labeling, not an expression of how people feel when they are being assaulted by the nation’s economic policies, including globalization. The problem is that these shapers of our knowledge are in a time warp. The American body politic has moved beyond them. This just another case showing a desperation in their declining ability to define our realities for us.

While it’s only a small indicator, that Lou Dobbs show including Bill Schneider, did not convince many viewers. The viewers’ question for that date was:

“Do you believe that Senator Barack Obama's comments reveal his elitist attitude toward every hardworking American?”

The response of the poll was a resounding “No” at 54%. Note that this was a Lou Dobbs poll. The people know they are hurting. The people know what he was trying to say. Rowland Martin on that Lou Dobbs show has been the most honest and clear about what Obama was saying by combating the “corporate” spin. Robert Shrum, a Democratic strategist, on “Meet the Press,” like Martin, cautioned about making this “slip” into some ideological statement. The validity of Obama’s overall message about how “rank and file” Americans feel about the hand they have been dealt by the far right policies of the Bush administration and the “Reagan Revolution” is being revealed for the distortion that it really is, and that includes “middle Americans” who have been the among the biggest victims of conservatism.

One of these pundits queried whether or not this was Obama’s his “Macaka moment.” Is it possible that an observation of reality can be turned into a racist slur? Barack has proved them wrong time after time. He will prove them wrong on this. He is connecting with the American people. He knows that many people are bitter as they should be about a government that is more dedicated to sowing racial division than solving America’s problems. Surely, the so-called Reagan Democrats have learned their lesson will no longer be duped that civil rights is their enemy. It has been the “Reagan Revolution” that has undermined the power of their unions.

They tried Jeremiah Wright. That didn’t work. The Pew Research Center shows that the “Jeremiah Wright Controversy” so to speak is a thing of the past. (See: “The Wright Thermometer” on blog left column) Fox News, in particular, followed closely by Lou Dobbs and Anderson Cooper, tried to make Jeremiah Wright the candidate for president, not Barack Obama. While this attack will be exploited more viciously by the Lee Atwater, Karl Rove Republican party in the general election, the people know the difference between distractions and the possibility for change that is embodied in candidacy Barack Obama for President of the United States. Even America’s Black Patriot numero uno, Colin Powell, has spoken of Jeremiah Wright with respect.

Barack Obama the Elitist? Give me a break!!! Barack Obama an elitist!! What kind of spin is that? This is an African American who was a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. An elitist? What they really mean is “uppity.” It is likely that the income for last year of his opponent, the Clintons, was more than Barack and Michele have made in their lifetime. What these pundits are saying is that Obama does not know his place. How dare he? How dare he, of all people, have the audacity to say that America is not perfect, and that all Americans are not cheerleaders for this right-wing hegemony? Who is he to say that some Americans are bitter and that the Republicans have exploited their bitterness using the divisive issues of God, guns, and intolerance? Obama’s message is that we must get beyond these divisions. This is a case of the white nationalists having had their tactics exposed. It was supposed to be a secret. Ironically, this is a case of the pot calling the skillet black.

In the same way that the people have seen past the exploitation of white nationalism by Fox News and their supplicants on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue, people now see that Obama is the real deal. These “bitter” and “elitist” tags will have no staying power. Hillary brings a lot baggage. The Clintons’ “wars” of the first administration will find those same warriors waiting in the wings. Which Richard Mellon-Scaife will show up? The one who funded the Paula Jones “vast right-wing conspiracy” case? Or the one to whom Hillary so ingratiated herself as she sought his endorsement in his right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review? She sold her dignity. The Republicans want to run against her. It’s not just Rush Limbaugh who wants her as the Democratic candidate. Except for the consideration of which party will control the next Supreme Court appointments, a nomination of Clinton would be no more than a return to the politics of old and a continuation of the recent two-family rule of the last two decades. What is needed is a change from that politics. What is needed is a new politics. The Obama movement represents a new politics.

The nation is seeking an alternative to an illegal and ill-moral war for which there is no end in sight. The nation is seeking an alternative to what is likely to go down in history as one of the worst administrations in history and certainly the worse by far in my lifetime and that includes Richard Nixon. The nation is seeking an alternative to the divisive politics of the white nationalism of the Reagan Revolution. As Barack has stated, now is the time for another transformation. It is Barack Obama who represents this opportunity for transformation. Obama is about change. Obama represents a hope for a new America.

An Obama presidency will change the face of America. An Obama presidency will change how Americans view America and how the world views America. It will be a new America. The mission of the Justice department will change, as will the missions of every other federal agency. It won’t be utopia but it will be different. As opposed to what John Dean has referred to as an “authoritarian conservative regime,” democracy will be restored and a voice of the people will be in the White House.

Obama's Organization Exposes the Clintons

April 10, 2008

What Went Wrong with the Clinton Campaign

With the demotion of Mark Penn, it is appropriate to take stock of the Clinton campaign.

There is no doubt that it has been a poorly run campaign. But what has been so bad about it? We could point to a lackluster message, or Bill's various gaffes over the last three months, or the staff that couldn't stop watching soap operas long enough to pay the bills. There's something to all of these things, but I think they are symptoms of an underlying malady.

As you well know, Obama has a huge lead in pledged delegates. But you might not know that nearly 90% of this lead comes from caucuses. Obama has netted 147 delegates via the caucuses alone.

It need not have been this way. Caucuses have exceedingly low turnout - and so victory depends upon organizational prowess. Clinton was poorly organized in the caucus states, and it cost her. For every caucus state she has lost, Clinton could have found enough supporters in those states to at least tied Obama. This is the case even in states where Obama would win a broad-based primary. In Kansas, for instance, Obama had about 18,000 more caucus supporters than Clinton. Grant that Kansas is a state Obama would win in a primary. Shouldn't Clinton have been able to find 18,000 more people? She received less than 10,000 votes for goodness sake!

Even more amazingly, Obama crushed her in states where Clinton probably would have won or barely lost a primary. Obama netted 15 delegates on her in Colorado. He netted 6 in Maine. I'd put the odds of Clinton winning primaries in those states at no less than 50-50. Clinton won the Texas primary outright, but Obama walked away with 9 more delegates in the caucus. Obama won 26 more delegates than Clinton in Washington state. One week later, he beat Clinton in the Washington state beauty contest by just 4 points. Clinton won a clear plurality of voters in the Nevada entrance poll, but Obama walked away with a net of one delegate.

This is an organizational failure of monumental proportions. There is no other way to put it. The question is why did it happen?

There is no great skill that the Obama campaign possesses that the Clinton campaign lacks. Organizing caucus states still has a lot in common with 19th century politicking. You need a friendly smile, a good handshake, and a sturdy pair of shoes. Obama didn't develop a new way to organize. He just chose to organize while the Clinton campaign chose not to.

The only reason it would choose not to organize is if it did not think it was worth the cost. More than 400 pledged delegates have been allocated through caucuses. So, it wasn't worth it because it was insignificant. Then why didn't her campaign organize? I believe it is because it never thought Obama would mount this kind of challenge. It never thought it would have to scrap for every spare delegate. Instead, it thought the race would be over before Super Tuesday.

In other words, the Clinton campaign did not see Obama coming. It underestimated him.

Of course, much of the Washington press corps didn't see him coming, either. But that's not terribly surprising. Washington is their beat, and many of them don't have a great read on how politics outside the Beltway works. But politicians are different, or at least they should be. They should be in touch with life outside the Beltway, and they should know better than journalists. The Clinton campaign should not have underestimated Obama. There were warning signs that it should have picked up on.

First and foremost, Obama raised a gazillion dollars last year, none of which came from PACs. This was an early warning of many things. First, his campaign operation was going to be awesome. It could basically match Clinton dollar-for-dollar without the benefit of a former President. If it could fundraise that well, the Clinton people should have expected it would campaign that well, too. Second, this was an early indication that Obama was resonating with people out there. Political donors are a miniscule subset of the electorate, but in terms of demographic and socio-economic characteristics they have a lot in common with a broader set of people - namely, upscale voters who can figure prominently in primaries. Unsurprisingly, Obama has been winning upscale voters coast-to-coast.

The media wrongly turned the race for money into a proxy for the race for votes. But the Clinton people should have known better. They should have said, "Holy crap! This guy raised a gazillion dollars! We better get things locked down!" I don't think the Clinton people ever said that. They certainly never got things locked down.

Her campaign also overestimated its own position. Once again, the media did this, too. Journalists looked at the summer and fall polls and bought into the inevitability argument. Again, this is par for the course - many journalists do not know the difference between good polling data and bad. Candidates should know the difference. The Clinton campaign should have known. It should have suspected that those eye-popping leads were merely a consequence of her superior name recognition, which would not hold after Obama unloaded his gazillion dollars. I don't think it suspected this. I don't know how else to explain Penn's snide memos touting Hillary's inevitability.

Why did it make these mistakes? Is it because it doesn't understand electoral politics? Unlikely. After all, Bill won two national campaigns.

I think its mistake was its starting point. It bought the same inevitability line it sold to the press. It began with the assumption that Clinton could not lose the nomination. If you assume this a priori, you will inevitably interpret all of the evidence in a way that reinforces your preconceived notions. It's like adding epicycles. If she cannot lose, there is no reason to worry about Obama's money, no need to anticipate that this might be an early indication of his appeal. If she cannot lose, those summer polls are not mere artifacts of her name recognition; they are critical pieces of evidence that demonstrate how the race is over before it begins. If she cannot lose, there is no need to organize in the caucus states because the race will be over by then.

What we are talking about here is plain old arrogance. I think this is the central mistake of the Clinton campaign. It presumed that the nomination was Clinton's. Not Clinton's to lose. Just Clinton's. Period. As a consequence, it behaved in an unduly confident manner. Mark Penn is to be blamed, for sure. So is Patti Solis Doyle. But so also is the entire upper-echelon of the campaign. Above all, it's Hillary's fault. She's the candidate. She sets the tone.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/04/what_went_wrong_with_the_clint.html at April 10, 2008 - 02:35:59 PM PDT

Super Delegates to Obama

Obama Closing Superdelegates Gap

Barack Obama is gaining steadily on Hillary Clinton among Democratic superdelegates, nearly erasing her last advantage in a presidential race where those party insiders could be the ultimate kingmakers.

In a danger sign for Clinton, Obama over the past few months has sharply cut her lead among superdelegates — nearly 800 elected officials and party leaders free to back any candidate.

"Obama has won more delegates, he's won more votes, he's raised more money, and now you see it happening with superdelegates too," said Simon Rosenberg, head of the Democratic advocacy group NDN.

Neither Obama nor Clinton is likely to win enough pledged delegates in state contests to clinch the hard-fought battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, leaving superdelegates to decide the race. The Democratic nominee will face Republican John McCain in the November election.

Despite heavy courting by Clinton, most of the superdelegates who made up their minds since January backed Obama. Clinton's superdelegate lead dwindled to about 30 from 100 in that time.

A count by MSNBC gives Clinton 256 superdelegates to Obama's 225. Obama, an Illinois senator, has gained steam in the past month, winning more than two dozen new commitments, compared with a handful for Clinton, a New York senator.

"It has been a drip, drip, drip toward Obama," said Steven Schier, a political analyst at Carleton College in Minnesota.

"Superdelegates can see Obama's advantages growing, and it's pretty clear it's going to be very hard for Clinton to catch him," he said. "If Obama notches a few more victories, it could become a stampede."

Obama has suggested that superdelegates back the candidate with the most pledged delegates — he leads by about 130 — and popular votes. He leads Clinton by about 700,000 votes, excluding contests in Florida and Michigan that were not sanctioned by the national party.

Clinton has struggled to overtake Obama in the Democratic contest and has rejected calls from some Obama supporters to get out of the race.

More than 300 superdelegates remain uncommitted or have yet to be named, giving the candidate who wins the bulk of them a path to the nomination.

CLINTON TRIES TO CLOSE GAP

Clinton hopes a strong run in the last 10 contests starting April 22 in Pennsylvania will close the gap with Obama in pledged delegates and popular votes, bolstering her claim she is best suited to beating McCain.

The private battle for superdelegates has been as tough as the public campaign for votes, with both camps courting uncommitted party leaders and trying to keep supporters in line.

Clinton has suffered high-profile reversals like the decision by U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a prominent black supporter, to switch to Obama. Another superdelegate ally, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, suggested that backing a candidate who did not win the popular vote "would be a hard argument to make."

But she recently won the support of U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and picked up three more superdelegates this week.

"Most superdelegates are in a holding pattern. They're waiting to see what happens in Pennsylvania and down the road before they make any decisions," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Rosenberg said the recent string of superdelegate endorsements for Obama made that argument hard to swallow. "A substantial number have moved — and most are moving to Obama," he said.

Wayne Holland, chairman of the Utah Democratic Party and a superdelegate, endorsed Obama on Thursday. He said he thought Obama could help Democratic candidates throughout Utah and the West by attracting new voters, donors and volunteers.

"As state chair, my job is to try to elect as many Democrats in various offices in this state as possible," he said. "I was looking for who could best help us win here, and that was overwhelmingly Senator Obama."

© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

Surprise: Pushing "Race" Helps Billary

This is an AP story that is being pushed by Newsmax. My perception of Newsmax is that it tends to be right wing. This story might very well be their wishful thinking. Without lots of white support, Obama would not be leading in the Democrat primaries and caucuses. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that the Clinton's kitchen sink is not as dirty and polluted as that of the (Lee Atwater/Karl Rove/Swift boating) Republican Party. After all this is the party of Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott and other white nationalists too numerous to name.
RGN

Newsmax.com
Polls: Race Helps Clinton With Whites Monday, April 7, 2008 4:00 PM

WASHINGTON -- Add this to the divisive debate over race in the presidential campaign: Whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Sen. Barack Obama.

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender's race _ Clinton is white, Obama is black _ were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.

The figures shed some light on race's effect on a competition that moves to the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania, which has a slightly greater proportion of whites than average. The numbers also underscore the challenge Obama could face in the general election, when whites will comprise a larger share of voters and tend to be more conservative than those participating in the Democratic primaries.

Throughout the campaign, Obama has tried to avoid being cast narrowly as a black candidate. Last Friday, he was the only one of the three major presidential contenders to not travel to Memphis, Tenn., to mark the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The only thing Obama can do is keep the campaign about change in the future" while running as "a candidate for the whole country," said David Beattie, a Democratic pollster.

Whites who said race influenced their decision were outnumbered more than six to one by those saying it was insignificant. Whites who say they discounted race also leaned toward Clinton, though by more modest margins.

Obama has trailed Clinton, the New York senator, among whites nationally yet won the white vote in six state primaries. He leads overwhelmingly with blacks.

In the exit polls, whites saying they considered the candidate's race were likelier to be from the South and rural areas, less educated, lower earning and older. That's consistent with voting so far, in which Obama has done better among whites with more education and higher incomes, especially men.

Ohio _ which has similar proportions of downscale whites to Pennsylvania _ was among the states with higher numbers of whites saying race mattered. Clinton won Ohio's March 4 primary by 10 percentage points. A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Clinton with a solid lead in Pennsylvania among whites, while Obama led easily with blacks.

Pollsters have long expressed doubts about using polls to precisely gauge voters' feelings about the sensitive issue of race, concerned that some people give answers they think are socially acceptable.

The phenomenon even has a name, the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley's losing 1982 run for California governor despite favorable polls, making him one of several prominent black candidates in the 1980s who did worse than surveys suggested. Critics argue that other factors could account for the discrepancies and say white voters' reluctance to support black candidates has diminished since then.

No one doubts some voters are influenced by a candidate's race. The pivotal questions this year are how many are abandoning Obama because he is black, and whether they are offset by others supporting him for racial reasons. Many of this year's primaries have already seen increased turnout among black and younger voters.

"We'd be foolish to say it's not a factor," Harvey Gantt, an Obama supporter who lost two senatorial races against Republican Jesse Helms in North Carolina in the 1990s, said of race. But Gantt, who was the first black mayor of Charlotte, N.C., said he believes those voting for racial reasons can be offset by higher turnout among blacks and others eager to support a black candidate. He and others said fewer voters are letting a candidate's race outweigh their concerns about issues or political preferences.

So far, the outlook for November is unclear. A poll last month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center showed Clinton and Obama both trailing likely GOP nominee John McCain among whites by under 10 percentage points, but some expect Obama's race to be telling. "You ain't heard nothing at all yet if Obama is the nominee and it's Obama-McCain," said Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Cornell Belcher, an Obama pollster, argued that the candidate has done well with whites in some states and will attract more as the campaign continues.

The exit polls also reveal a tilt toward Clinton, who would be the first female president, by those who strongly considered the candidate's gender. While those saying sex was not a factor leaned slightly toward Obama, six in 10 of those saying gender was important have supported Clinton, including more men. Most said the candidate's gender was not important.

Whites who said race was their top consideration or an important factor preferred Clinton over Obama by 63 percent to 32 percent. Those who said race was not consequential backed Clinton by a narrower 11 percentage points.

Nearly one in three blacks said race was significant in choosing their candidate. Eighty-eight percent of blacks who said race was an important factor voted for Obama, compared to 81 percent of those who said they did not consider race.

At the same time, 41 percent of whites who said race was important said they would only be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee, compared to 14 percent who said they would only be happy with Obama. Another 36 percent said either would be fine.

Whites who said race was not a factor were nearly evenly divided when asked which candidate would satisfy them.

The data is from exit polls in Democratic primaries conducted for The Associated Press and television networks in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Vermont.

In these states, 24,657 voters were asked how strongly they considered race, including 16,764 whites and 5,366 blacks. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 1 percentage point for all people and whites, 2 points for blacks.

© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

What Kind of Prophet? Reflections on the Rhetoric of Preaching in Light of Recent News Coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

The Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president, released the following statement on March 17 on the rhetoric of preaching, in light of recent news coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., and Chicago's Trinity UCC.

What Kind of Prophet?
Reflections on the Rhetoric of Preaching
in Light of Recent News Coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
and Trinity United Church of Christ

The Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ

Over the weekend members of our church and others have been subjected to the relentless airing of two or three brief video clips of sermons by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ for thirty-six years and, for over half of those years, pastor of Senator Barack Obama and his family. These video clips, and news stories about them, have been served up with frenzied and heated commentary by media personalities expressing shock that such language and sentiments could be uttered from the pulpit.

One is tempted to ask whether these commentators ever listen to the overcharged rhetoric of their own opinion shows. Even more to the point is to wonder whether they have a working knowledge of the history of preaching in the United States from the unrelentingly grim language of New England election day sermons to the fiery rhetoric of the Black church prophetic tradition. Maybe they prefer the false prophets with their happy homilies in Jeremiah who say to the people: "You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place." To which God responds, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. . . . By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed," (Jeremiah 14.14-15). The Biblical Jeremiah was coarse and provocative. Faithfulness, not respectability was the order of the day then. And now?

What's really going on here? First, it may state the obvious to point out that these television and radio shows have very little interest in Trinity Church or Jeremiah Wright. Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate. In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to be alarmed at this. Will Clinton's United Methodist Church be next? Or McCain's Episcopal Church? Wouldn't we have been just as alarmed had it been Huckabee's Southern Baptist Church, or Romney's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel. Pastor Wright's judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?

We might like to think that racism is a thing of the past, that Martin Luther King's harmonious multi-racial vision, articulated in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 and then struck down by an assassin's bullet in Memphis in 1968, has somehow been resurrected and now reigns throughout the land. Significant progress has been made. A black man is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. A black woman serves as Secretary of State. The accomplishments are profound. But on the gritty streets of Chicago's south side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health care systems, crumbling infrastructure, and meager economic development. Are we to pretend all is well because much is, in fact, better than it used to be? Is it racist to name the racial divides that continue to afflict our nation, and to do so loudly? How ironic that a pastor and congregation which, for forty-five years, has cast its lot with a predominantly white denomination, participating fully in its wider church life and contributing generously to it, would be accused of racial exclusion and a failure to reach for racial reconciliation.

The gospel narrative of Palm Sunday's entrance into Jerusalem concludes with the overturning of the money changers' tables in the Temple courtyard. Here wealth and power and greed were challenged for the way the poor were oppressed to the point of exclusion from a share in the religious practices of the Temple. Today we watch as the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor widens. More and more of our neighbors are relegated to minimal health care or to no health care at all. Foreclosures destroy families while unscrupulous lenders seek bailouts from regulators who turned a blind eye to the impending crisis. Should the preacher today respond to this with only a whisper and a sigh?

Is Pastor Wright to be ridiculed and condemned for refusing to play the court prophet, blessing land and sovereign while pledging allegiance to our preoccupation with wealth and our fascination with weapons? In the United Church of Christ we honor diversity. For nearly four centuries we have respected dissent and have struggled to maintain the freedom of the pulpit. Not every pastor in the United Church of Christ will want to share Pastor Wright's rhetoric or his politics. Not every member will rise to shout "Amen!" But I trust we will all struggle in our own way to resist the lure of respectable religion that seeks to displace evangelical faith. For what this nation needs is not so much polite piety as the rough and radical word of the prophet calling us to repentance. And, as we struggle with that ancient calling, I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.

Michael Eric Dyson on King's Anger

The prophetic anger of MLK

After 1965, the civil rights leader grew angrier over America's unwillingness to change.

By Michael Eric Dyson
April 4, 2008

ON THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY of Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, few truths ring louder than this: Barack Obama and Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. express in part the fallen leader's split mind on race, a division marked by chronology and color.

Before 1965, King was upbeat and bright, his belief in white America's ability to change by moral suasion resilient and durable. That is the leader we have come to know during annual King commemorations. After 1965, King was darker and angrier; he grew more skeptical about the willingness of America to change without great social coercion.

King's skepticism and anger were often muted when he spoke to white America, but they routinely resonated in black sanctuaries and meeting halls across the land. Nothing highlights that split -- or white America's ignorance of it and the prophetic black church King inspired -- more than recalling King's post-1965 odyssey, as he grappled bravely with poverty, war and entrenched racism. That is the King who emerges as we recall the meaning of his death. After the grand victories of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, King turned his attention to poverty, economic injustice and class inequality. King argued that those "legislative and judicial victories did very little to improve" Northern ghettos or to "penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation." In a frank assessment of the civil rights movement, King said the changes that came about from 1955 to 1965 "were at best surface changes" that were "limited mainly to the Negro middle class." In seeking to end black poverty, King told his staff in 1966 that blacks "are now making demands that will cost the nation something. ... You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then."

King's conclusion? "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." He didn't say this in the mainstream but to his black colleagues.

For the complete piece see:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dyson4apr04,0,1840793.story

Check Out This Poll on Pennsylvania

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 2, 2008
INTERVIEWS: DEAN DEBNAM 888-621-6988 / 919-880-4888
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POLL: TOM JENSEN 919-744-6312
Obama overtakes Clinton in PA

Raleigh, N.C. – Barack Obama has taken the lead over Hillary Clinton 45-43 in
Pennsylvania, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling. It’s a remarkable turn around from PPP’s last Pennsylvania poll, conducted two and a half weeks ago, that showed Clinton with a 26 point lead in the state. That poll was released at the height of the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the day before Obama’s major speech on race in Philadelphia. Obama has been trending upward in national polling and in many state level polls since then and this survey reflects that pattern. “In the last few weeks there has been increasing attention given to the fact that a continuing divisive Democratic nomination fight could hurt the party’s chances of defeating John McCain this fall,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “The major movement in Obama’s direction in Pennsylvania could be an indication that Democrats in that state think it’s time to wrap it up.”

Obama is narrowing the gap with white voters, trailing just 49-38, while maintaining his customary significant advantage with black voters. He leads that group 75-17. Obama also leads among all age groups except senior citizens, with whom Clinton has a 50-34 advantage. The poll shows the standard gender gap with Obama leading by 15 points among men while trailing by 10 points with women.

PPP surveyed 1224 likely Democratic primary voters on March 31st and April 1st. The survey’s margin of errors is +/- 2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify. Public Policy Polling had the most accurate numbers of any company in the country for the Democratic primaries in South Carolina and Wisconsin, as well as the closest numbers for any organization that polled the contests in both Texas and Ohio.

Complete results are attached and can be found at: www.publicpolicypolling.com.

If you would like an interview regarding this release, please contact Dean Debnam at
(888) 621-6988 or 919-880-4888.
###
Public Policy Polling
3020 Highwoods Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: 888 621-6988
Web: www.publicpolicypolling.com
Email: information@publicpolicypolling.com

Gallup Says Obama More Electable vs. McCain than Hillary

March 31, 2008

Dems, Reps Agree: Obama Tougher Opponent for McCain

Perceived as having better chance than Clinton of winning in November

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Panel survey finds a majority of both Republicans and Democrats saying Barack Obama has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of defeating Republican John McCain in the November presidential election.

The survey was conducted March 24-27, interviewing a nationally representative sample of 1,005 Gallup Panel members. Democrats were asked whether Clinton or Obama has the better chance of defeating McCain in November: 59% say Obama does; 30% say Clinton. Republicans were asked whether McCain has a better chance of defeating Clinton or Obama on Election Day. Sixty-four percent say McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton, compared with only 22% choosing Obama, meaning Republicans view Obama as the more formidable candidate.

Gallup polling has recently shown some positive momentum for Obama in the Democratic nomination battle -- he has moved into the lead over Clinton in the preferences of Democratic voters nationwide. Both candidates are competitive with McCain in Gallup's latest polling on registered voters' general election preferences, though Obama has tended to do marginally better than Clinton in the more recent updates.

Last Friday, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy became the most prominent Democrat to call on Clinton to drop out of the race. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean did not go that far, but urged the Democratic superdelegates to decide by July 1 so the nominee is known well before the late August convention. Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has made a pitch for superdelegates to hold their own mini-convention in June to determine the nominee.

Those calls have been made out of concern that the increasingly contentious nomination battle will hurt the party's chances in November. Most rank-and-file Democrats seem to agree, according to the Gallup Panel survey results. When asked about the effects of the continuing Democratic nomination campaign on the party's general election chances, 56% of Democrats say it is doing "more harm than good," while 35% think it is doing "more good than harm."

As would be expected, most Democrats who favor Obama for the nomination believe the ongoing campaign is doing more to hurt (61%) than to aid (32%) the party's chances of winning in November. But Clinton supporters also tend to believe this -- 48% say the continuing campaign is doing more harm than good, while 40% say it is doing more good than harm.

Implications

Clearly at this point, the party rank-and-file thinks Obama would present a stronger challenge to McCain in the fall than Clinton would. Those attitudes could certainly change over the remainder of the campaign, but it is notable that Obama maintains a wide lead in these perceptions shortly after the Jeremiah Wright controversy knocked his campaign off stride.

Also, the poll shows there is a fairly widely held belief among party supporters -- including a plurality of Clinton supporters -- that the ongoing campaign is hurting their chances of winning in November. It seems unlikely those attitudes would improve much going forward, particularly if the tone of the Democratic campaign remains negative. If so, then it is likely there would be further calls for Clinton to drop out of the race, and that would put more pressure on her to do well in the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 and all the contests that follow.

StrengthsQuest^TM, TeacherInsight^TM, The Gallup Path^®, and The Gallup Poll^® are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. These materials are provided for noncommercial, personal use only. Reproduction prohibited without the express permission of Gallup, Inc.

For the full story and graphs see: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105904/Dems-Reps-Agree-Obama-Tougher-Opponent-McCain.aspx

Oh Charlie, Oh Charlie....

[Black Star News Editorial]

While announcing his support for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run over Barack Obama, Congressman Charles Rangel who represents Harlem said Obama had no chance.

Rangel professed admiration for Obama yet claimed the people who enthusiastically backed him were motivated by “Black pride.” Now that Obama has won millions of votes and more states and more delegates than Clinton, we wonder whether Rangel has reassessed his outlook.

Perhaps the millions of white voters that have preferred Obama over Clinton are also motivated by “Black pride”?

So much so that Senator Obama even got more white votes than senator Clinton did in Virginia--the first time he beat her in the white vote count in a Southern State.

Might these millions of voters –Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Asians—not be responding to senator Obama’s message of change, hope, empowerment and unity that resonates with all races, ethnicities, gender and religions?

The Rev. Calvin Butts of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York, while endorsing Clinton, also similarly disparaged Obama. Butts said he was supporting the “best candidate” and that it wasn’t about “race.” Former New York mayor David Dinkins made a similar argument in supporting Clinton over Obama; that it wasn’t sufficient that Obama was Black.

Dinkins and Rangel even travelled to South Carolina to campaign for Clinton. This, even after the Clinton campaign’s attack dogs had employed race baiting tactics, casting Obama as a drug dealer. Her husband Bill Clinton had also referred to Obama’s campaign and opposition to the Iraq war as a “fairy tale.”

Earlier, Bill Clinton had claimed electing Obama was like “rolling a dice.” Since he didn’t make similar remarks about John Edwards, who was then still a candidate, the implication was that “Are you going to hand over the keys to the White House and the nation’s atomic arsenal to a Black man”?

Beginning with South Carolina, voters have spoken loudly; rejecting such race baiting and gutter politics.

"Race pride,” might have been a factor in Obama’s drive to succeed throughout his life.

But race pride didn’t get him into Columbia; race pride didn’t take the exams that propelled him to Harvard Law School; race pride didn’t get him elected President of the Harvard Law Review; race pride didn’t get him elected to the Illinois senate, and then to the United States Senate; and, race pride, hasn’t brought him to the doorsteps of a possible singular achievement---on the verge of becoming the Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. president.

We can understand how the Clintons may have succumbed to the worse type of human instincts in their desperate quest for the White House; it’s much sadder when so-called Black leaders are recruited to join in such ugly misadventure.

Rangel, Butts and Dinkins have the right to support any candidate whom they want. No one is obligated to emulate pioneers such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Congressman Adam Clayton Powell or Shirley Chisholm. But it’s wrong for them to belittle another trailblazer as being propelled by “Black pride.” It only sullies their reputation.

When Rangel set out to become a congressman, and when Dinkins set out to become New York’s first Black mayor, and when Butts stepped to the pulpit at the great Abyssinian, each one of them, we are sure, hoped they offered more than their pigmentation to supporters.

Congressman John Lewis is an honest and honorable man. He has re-evaluated his position about Clinton’s allegedl --and now clearly mythical-- inevitability and come to the correct conclusion.

At the very least, Rangel, Butts and Dinkins owe senator Obama an apology.

To comment, to subscribe to or advertise in New York’s leading Pan African weekly

Barack, Michelle, and Condi: The Unpatriots????

PATRIOTISM GAMES OBAMA'S LOOMING MINEFIELD

By KIRSTEN POWERS

March 31, 2008 -- WHY does Condoleezza Rice hate America?

The secretary of state told an audience last Thursday that America has a "birth defect." She went so far as to criticize our nation's very founding, calling it "not a very pretty reality." See, we had slaves, and said Rice, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."

Of course, Rice doesn't hate America. But her remarks were a lot like those that left Michelle Obama on the receiving end of a hurricane of recriminations from the patriotism police - who stand at the ready, poised to shout down any Democrat who suggests America is or ever has been anything less than perfect.

The outrage last week was over Mrs. Obama's comments to a group of college students that they should make an effort to take advantage of their diverse community rather than holding on to their "own stereotypes and misconceptions." She said that sometimes "you feel justified in your own ignorance. That's America."

This hardly seems any more damning that Rice's comment that America has a "birth defect" - that our nation is inherently flawed by the circumstances of its birth - yet in Obama's comments, conservatives saw more evidence for their case that she isn't a patriot.

They may sincerely believe that, or just see a political advantage. Either way, the "patriotism issue" lurks in the shadows for the Obama campaign.

When Mrs. Obama said earlier this year that her husband's campaign was the first time in her adult life that she felt really proud of America, a close African-American friend pointed out to me that her comment was rooted in race.

He said that, for so many black Americans, the prospect of all these white people turning out to vote for a black man was something that made them feel so proud to be an American. That many African-Americans - unlike so many of Obama's critics - share Rice's view that race is an issue "we still haven't resolved."

What we have here, in other words, is an intersection of race and patriotism - with Mrs Obama's comments that grow out of her experience as an African-American getting painted as unpatriotic.

Which is why it would be easy to confuse the political minefield the Obamas are traversing as being just about race.

When tapes emerged of the Obamas' pastor, the Rev. Jerimiah Wright, Sen. Obama's response was to give a brave and honest speech on race. What he missed was that much of the outcry was really about the anti-Americanism some saw in Wright's claim that 9/11 was America's fault and his now-famous cry, "God damn America," for treating its citizens as less than human.

This all is filtered through a long-running narrative about Democrats, conceived by Republicans and carried out with the acquiesence of the mainstream media.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush painted Michael Dukakis as insufficiently patriotic for his veto of a law requiring Massachusetts school teachers to lead pupils in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (though the state's highest court had said the law was unconstitutional). A Republican senator accused Kitty Dukakis in a radio interview of burning an American flag, with no evidence. She vigorously denied it, but the seed of doubt had been planted.

Insert "flag pin" for "Pledge of Allegiance" and you get the idea. Late last year, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer boomed: "It involves patriotism and the American flag. Why has Barack Obama stopped wearing a lapel pin of the US flag?"

A lapel pin as a vital issue? Seriously?

Obama has also been falsely accused of being a secret Muslim and attending a Madrassa. His failure once to put his hand on his heart during the singing of the national anthem became another overdone flap.

All this seems ridiculous to many Democratic primary voters - but this week John McCain launched his first general-election campaign ad, playing up his military service and asking, "What must a president believe about us? About America?"

Call it a not-so-subtle heads-up of what the Obama campaign can expect in the future: "It's about the patriotism, stupid."

Kirsten Powers is a Fox News analyst.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03312008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/patriotism_games_104322.htm?page=1