Sotomayor graduated from Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx. She earned her A.B. from Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude in 1976. Sotomayor obtained her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Sotomayor then served as an Assistant District Attorney under prominent New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, prosecuting robberies, assaults, murders, police brutality, and child pornography cases. In 1984, she entered private practice, making partner at the commercial litigation firm of Pavia & Harcourt, where she specialized in intellectual property litigation.
For weeks now, “news” sites like Huffingtonpost.com, CNN.com and others have been drooling over every external aspect of the first black First Lady. We have heard her titled “Mighty Michelle”, “First Lady of Fashion”, “a Fashion icon”, “a modern Jackie O”, and on and on and on. We have seen every article of clothing she has worn be critiqued, rated, and often praised to no end as some brilliant fashion choice. I recall seeing Chris Matthews of MSNBC drooling over her appearance at the State of the Union address, and Jack Cafferty exclaiming that “he has a crush on Michelle Obama.”
What is going on here? Is all of this coverage reflect what is realistic, or does it teeter on being somewhat ridiculous?
Michelle Obama was not known for her fashion choices before her husband ran for office. She was not a super model or fashion runway diva. I do not recall hearing her name in the same breath as Naomi Campbell, Iman, Cindy Crawford or Tyra Banks. In fact, Barack did not meet Michelle at a photo shoot, but he worked under her at a law firm. So where is all of this fashion hype coming from? Is it driven by the struggling fashion industry, desperate to make a star out of any super high profile icon?
Concerning Michelle’s fashion, it is mixed. Some of her choices look excellent on her, and others seem somewhat experimental. When you listen to the First Lady speak, she sounds like a lawyer. She is strong, determined, and insistent on making her points and supporting her beliefs/stances. She does not sound like Halle Berry or Sade Adu, nor are her mannerisms completely soft and gentle.
This is not a knock on the first lady. My only wish is that the media would cover Michelle Obama for who she is and for the strengths got her here, as opposed to some gleeful fantasy in which only the external and superficial are acknowledged or praised.
Let’s get this straight, Michelle Obama is pretty. She is not unbelievably drop dead gorgeous (as the press would have you believe) and she is not unattractive (as some mean spirited conservative citizens would have you believe). She has a nice smile, great figure, beautiful engaging eyes, and youthful skin. However, what is most attractive about her is her humanity. She has her flaws like we all do, but she does her best with what she has and encourages others to do the same. She’s raised two lovely daughters, and supports her husband in a loving way that strengthens both of them. She keeps up with her fitness and watches her diet, which is admirable in this increasingly obese society. But most of all, she is genuine. What you see is what you get, and she cares about the youth.
I think the press would honor the first lady more if they discussed her character more than her shoes. Millions of women across the globe would love to be the wife of President Obama, but Michelle has captured his heart and loyalty. He was incredibly protective of her against GOP attacks (Remember “lay off my wife”), and grew agitated over rumors of an email relationship with Scarlett Johansson and videos from Obama girl. The President is always quick to praise his wife, even calling her the rock of the Obama family. And President Obama does not appear to be a superficial man. He does not chase after any short skirt out there (like a number of Washington politicians and past Presidents have), but he has found lasting value in Michelle, which means he knows a good thing when he sees it. Despite her initial rejection, the President was “persistent”, and their relationship has flourished and lasted while the same cannot be said for many of Hollywood’s hottest.
So the media should look at other things about Michelle, what makes her a beautiful person inside? What makes her a wonderful mother for her daughters, even as she juggles work as the first lady? What about her value for education that took her to some of the nation’s top Ivy league schools, and had the President working under her for a time? What about her resilient spirit that did not allow fear of racist threats or the stress of our current crisis talk her out of supporting her husband’s Presidency?
There are alot of things the press could and should focus on if they are talking about the nation’s first black first lady. And zeroing in on her belt, her shoes, her new hair style or sleeveless dress is a pretty empty choice.
Two of the great strengths of our President are his calm demeanor and his ability to communicate clearly and analytically what he believes and why. One reporter mentioned that this latest speech was like an Economics 101 class, in terms of its presentation. To often in politics, substance and reasoned explanations are replaced with high volume emotion and fear mongering. Take Glenn Beck for example. He might very well have some legitimate concerns and good arguments to make against some of the policies from this administration. However, his over-the-top “dooms day” rants, and ridiculously immature behavior (like pouring “gasoline” on a guest spokesman or drawing cartoon pictures of “Jesus” representing the President) prevent many independents and most mature adults from taking anything he says seriously. He just comes across as an idiotic and potentially dangerous buffoon.
While Keith Olbermann might not be as crazy as Glenn Beck, he would still add more credibility to his stories if he calmed down the mockery, the anger rants, the “worst person in the world” garbage, and just spoke plainly about the issues facing our nation. One could argue that these are media personalities, and thus a certain level of “entertainment” value is necessary to increase viewership. But the issues they are discussing are real to the American people. If they are discussing war, torture and our military, or health care or government response to natural disasters, or the record job loss, these are not “entertainment” issues, they are real and should be treated with a manner of seriousness and respect.
And as for the politicians, the Dick Cheneys, Rudy Giulianis, Michele Bachmanns and the like in both parties should remember that we are Americans first and should respect fellow Americans even if they are in the opposing party. You don’t need over-the-top rhetoric or insane fear mongering to prove your point, if you have a good point. If you have sound reasons to support the policies you do, then simply explaining them as the President has here will gain you much greater respect, attention and possibly support.
Even for those that disagree with the President’s economic policies, it cannot be denied (after hearing this speech) that he has thought through them thoroughly and has sound reasons for his beliefs. This isn’t some wild liberal idealism. It is a practical approach to restore the economy and secure America’s future.
50 seconds in, they say Obama took advantage of talk shows during the campaign, “yucking it up with Oprah” and they show him on Oprah. The notion is that Obama was featured on Oprah DURING the campaign as a way to gain votes. As if Oprah used her show to promote Obama.
“At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates.
The super talented President Obama impersonator, Alphacat, is at it again! This time doing a “hip hop interpretation” of the President’s state of the nation address. Very creative! SNL or MadTV should really hire this man, he’s much more talented than what we’ve seen out there.
Each morning when he arrives at the Oval Office, President Obama asks his staff to deliver him a package containing 10 letters. It is a mere sampling of the 40,000 or so that Americans send to the White House every day — a barrage of advice from students and teachers, small-business owners and the unemployed. In between his daily meetings with senior staff members and Cabinet secretaries, Obama has made a habit of sitting alone behind his desk and reading one letter at a time, friends and advisers said. The exercise is intended to help keep him grounded, but it also provides Obama with a glimpse beyond the White House walls and the Secret Service perimeter into what the president sometimes refers to as “the real world.”
Today, CNN placed a cut out of Barack Obama’s head over an image of Hillary Clinton’s clothes (here’s the video). Why? They reported that the company that makes a number of Obama’s suits has gone bankrupt, but Obama’s Secretary of State’s clothing designer is still in business.
Even if the graphics editors and chief directors were all openly flaming homosexual crossdressers, this move is insulting and unprofessional. Whatever the staff members at CNN choose to do in their own personal lives is their business, but there should be some standards for work that they adhere to.
While CNN does have a habit of running stupid and completely purposeless segments routinely (ie: a Jeanne Moos report), there should still be some lines that are not crossed. Placing the first African American preisdent of the United States in women’s clothing is one of those lines.
I am writing this post in response to the new found legal troubles that street artist Shepard Fairey finds himself in with the AP. Shepard Fairey became a household name after creating his marvelous HOPE and Progress art pieces that went viral and played such a major role in this past election. Now they might cost him in court.
I should start by saying that I am not a lawyer. However, I have read up a little on copyright law (most notably from the book “Electronic Highway Robbery” by Mary E. Carter) and I have been in contact with lawyers about copyright, patents and trademarks. So with that background and what I consider to be common sense, I have reached the following conclusion.
News organizations such as Reuters and the AP (the press) should not be fully covered by US copyright law, at least when it comes to art.
Why? Well first, let’s examine the copyright law.
To quote Electronic Highway Robbery by Mary E. Carter:
What can be Protected by Copyright?
Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act states:
Copyright protection subsists…in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
The basic requirements that a work of art must meet to qualify for copyright protection are that:
- It must be original. The artwork must be an original.
- It must be creative. The artwork must show at least a minimum amount of creativity.
- It must be fixed in a tangible medium.…
My argument hinges on the part of the law that says “mediums of expression“, which Ms. Carter refers to as “creative”.
Press photographers should be excluded from this category. They given special access to the President of the United States, not for “creative” purposes or a means to “express” themselves, but to inform the public.
In other words, the press acts as our eyes and ears receive information from the President because our real eyes and ears cannot legally be in attendance. Not every Joe blow with a camera has the privilege of gaining such close access to the President. In fact, it is my understanding that the press even accompanies the President on Air Force one.
The only reason that press photographers have the privilege of being so close to our politicians so that they can snap those close up shots, is because they are licensed for the purposes of serving and informing the American public. If that was not the case, then I and half the rest of the country could (and would) grab the Nikon or Canon, head to Washington, and take a front row seat at the next Obama press conference. In that context, I honestly could take “creative” pictures or use my photos as “expressions”. After all, they are my photos, my camera, so I can do with them as I please and I have no obligation to our nation at large.
But what’s not fair is to say only special licensed photographers can gain close up access to the President, and then turn around and treat their photos as art. These photographers are not there to make art. Again, if they are, then I should also be given access. I should have been there when the man shoes were thrown at Bush, so I can “express” how I saw it with my photos. I should have been there when Obama was meeting with all of the governors for the first time, so I could snap shots of Palin’s first facial expressions when meeting the President who “pals around with terrorists” and isn’t from “real America”.
I could take much more artsy photos than what comes out of the AP, guaranteed.
So do not tell me that the same copyright laws that protect Mickey Mouse (a true creative work), such that I cannot just draw up my own Mickey cartoons and sell them on DVD, also protects an AP photographer’s photos when they are only licensed to serve & inform the American public.
I hear it all the time. Sour, cynical voices rolling their eyes saying “Obamabots think Obama is a messiah”. It was FOX News who labeled Obama “the chosen one”, not Obama nor his campaign. In fact, for those that actually paid attention to the campaign, Obama repeatedly said things like this:
- it’s not about me, it’s about all of you
- I know you didn’t do this for me
- I am reminded everyday, if not by events then by my wife that I am NOT a perfect man.
- I am not a perfect man, and I will not be a perfect president
- We are the ones we’ve been waiting for
- people who love this country can change it
- etc.
The morons who pedal the lies that Obama is supposed to be a messiah or a perfect one do so because they are clueless to what Obama was actually campaigning on in the first place (or they are just racist). As a leader, he wants to engage us, the American public, to bring about the CHANGE our country needs. Which is something that George “the decider” Bush didn’t do. That’s why they call Obama “inspiring” because he inspires people to get involved.
So quit with the “Obama made a mistake, I guess he’s Satan coming to kill all of us all rather than Jesus coming to save us” rants. That only shows your ignorance.
Make yourself useful and get involved (if you’re not already) to help CHANGE America. Don’t just whine from the side lines.
Tiger Woods should see this video. I like Tiger, but…he should still research the one drop rule. Yes America has progressed. Yes we are happy that race relations are improving. However, we cannot simply dismiss history as if it has no relevancy to us today. We cannot create this meaningless category called “mixed” in efforts to be more “accurate” and right past wrongs.
Why is “mixed” meaningless? Because someone with a Latino father and an Asian mother is “mixed”. Someone with a white father and a Native American mother is “mixed”. Someone with an Indian father (from the country of India) and a black mother is “mixed”. Someone with an Arab father and a Cuban mother is “mixed”. As the video states, 80% of African Americans come from “mixed” backgrounds. Take a look at Rosa Parks, doesn’t she look “mixed” with something? Malcolm X was also “mixed”, but how do we refer to him? How was he seen and treated in America?
I am happy that America is progressing and I am excited about us perfecting our union. I am encouraged by this past election and hopeful about our future. Will we ever reach a point where we can simply refer to ourselves as “Americans”. Yes, I think so, and in some ways we can do that accurately right now.
However, history does matter. It is important to know who your ancestors are, and how you got to where you are in order to fully appreciate where you are and make sure we don’t repeat past mistakes. One could argue that Barack Obama’s father is from Kenya, but Obama was not raised in Kenya. He was raised as an American, His 4 years in Indonesia gave him unique experiences, but his grounding is in America. After reading “Dreams from my Father”, it is clear that Obama understands what it’s like to be a black American, even growing up in a white household. In some ways, black kids adopted into white families might be able to relate closely to Obama’s upbringing. Yes, Obama is half white. Yes, his white family members loved and raised him. Yes, that is a wonderful thing, and yes it should be acknowledged. But outside of the home, walking down the street with an afro and a basketball, America saw Obama as black. America treated Obama as black. And as Obama said in a 60 minutes interview, in America, if you look black, then that is how you are treated.
Again, great video. Please watch it and feel free to comment.
America is a young country, yet again and again we surprise ourselves and the world with the living power of our ideals and our values, and the core decency and generosity of our people. On Tuesday, Americans of all backgrounds gathered together in celebration of ushering in our new President, Barack Obama. Just the warmth and civility between the outgoing President and his administration and the in coming President and his administration speaks volumes about the true greatness of America!
Tuesday was not merely Obama’s victory, nor was it merely black people’s victory. No, Tuesday was America’s victory! Citizens and politicians with completely opposing political views to our new President were able to celebrate as Americans, just as much as Obama’s most fervent supporters.
Many people, black and white (and every race in between), fought hard (bled and some died) for what happened on Tuesday. However, their deaths were not in vain. Many nations around the world face fighting and conflicts within their borders, some of which has lasted for generations and generations with no end in sight. But here in America, this young nation has proved, through the power of our ideals and the strength of our Democracy, that we can overcome even our greatest odds and tribulations. As Obama put it “America can change. That is the true genius of America”. And genius it is!
Yes, if you are an American, take pride! Whether you voted for Obama or against him, or even if you didn’t vote at all, take pride as an American! We truly are a great great nation.
He was not bluffing when he spoke of bringing this country together. After appointing his “team of rivals” cabinet, sitting down with Sen. John McCain and reaching out to Democratic and Republican governors, President-elect Barack Obama’s idea to meet with all 4 living (former) Presidents was like icing on the cake. Obama is clearly setting the tone he had promised during the campaign, of moving past our differences and lifting this country up together. Bringing hope to America. Bringing change to America. Bringing unity and respect back to America. Yes we are! (Yes he is!)
- Spoke at Democratic National Convention “Obama”
- At 17 had company worth over $3 million
- Won 2002 Kansas Young Entrepreneur award of Year
- At 23 youngest AA CEO of Public traded company
- At 12, when he began making 3D videogames and selling them to his friends
- Created Ephren Taylor Entrepreneur Academy opened in July 2007 at Cheney Uni.
Anytime you hear a question like this, one thing is absolutely certain: the person they are talking about must be (or have been) a great success. In this case, the subject of the question happens to be the next President of the United States of America. President elect Barack Obama came literally out of no where to defeat Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine, as well as those “mean old Republicans”, to win the 2008 presidential election in a landslide.
But what if Obama had not won? What if news had come out that Obama had a secret white mistress who accused him of rape and abuse? Would white America jump to say he wasn’t black then? Would Americans from mixed backgrounds leap to say he’s one of them, or he’s raceless? Would news periodicals and the AP run stories claiming “Many insisting that Obama is not black”? Or would they run front cover images of him darkening his features?
I wonder what the reaction would be if these same people, who now claim “Barack Obama is not black”, were to have only known the Barack Obama of the 1970s? What would they have said about him when he had an afro, played high school basketball, drank, experimented with drugs, and was “casual” about his education and future? (as his mother put it in Dreams from my father)
He still had a white mother from Kansas, and he was still raised mainly by his white grandparents. However, something tells me that those same white people and “mixed” people would not be as enthusiastic about claiming him as one of their own. I can just hear them referring to him as that BLACKburden to an otherwise “good family”. To some, he might serve as evidence as to why white women should never ever sleep with black men (because they produce such awful offspring).
No America, President elect Barack Obama is black. He is an African American, and thankfully he is smart enough and has enough integrity to recognize that. Black people come in every single shade you can think of, but we are still black. The KKK has no problem recognizing that. Nor did most white people when passing on their inheritance. It would be laughable to believe that the black offspring from rapes/relations between white slave owners/segregationists and black women would gain the same recognition and treatment (when it comes to passing on inheritance) as the white offspring of those men. Undoubtedly, there are many white people in America who are related to black people and they don’t even know it. Consider this, it was Barack Obama who brought up his relationship to Dick Cheney, not the other way around. At the height of his power as Vice President and his dealings with Halliburton, do you think Dick Cheney ever recognized Barack Obama as part of his family? Ha!
Sadly, there is still a subtle belief in America that being black is a bad thing. That explains why whenever an African American becomes incredibly successful (like Oprah or Michael Jordan), people are quick to say “they transcend race”. It is almost as if they are saying “you are so good at what you do, that we will forgive you for being black. I hardly even notice that (negative) part about you.”
When have you ever heard this type of comment said about a successful white American? Nobody says Michael Phelps “transcends race”. Nobody says that about Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, George Clooney or Brad Pitt, Celine Dion or Barbra Streisand, etc. For them, and many non blacks in general, race is not something to apologize for, nor is it something that is even addressed.
But whether we are talking about Halle Berry or Colin Powell, Tiger Woods or Barack Obama, successful African Americans with mixed backgrounds always seem to draw comments seeking to dilute, belittle, or ignore their black/African roots. Even for black Americans with two black parents, like Beyonce, efforts seem to be made to diminsh their blackness once they reach a certain success level.
I recognize that people with this mentality often consider themselves as being “helpful”. They may also claim they are being “accurate” and “honest” in their assessments. (that is, when it comes to recognizing the diversity in the ethnic backgrounds of successful African Americans). But what they are really doing is perpetuating the lie that black people and people of black African descent are inferior. They are saying that being black is a bad thing, and thus any successes from blacks (especially in terms of intelligence or beauty), comes about because the person is not really black, or the person is unusually gifted enough to overcome their blackness.
In order to truly “perfect our union”, Americans must redefine what it means to be black. That is, we must change our attitudes towards the word “black”, when speaking about ethnicity. “Black” can no longer harbor within its definition the lies of inferiority, danger, cultural weakness, criminal intentions, ignorance, foolish and rebellious behaviors, loudness and bad grammar, or any other negative or stereotypical attributes. Black must describe one’s ethnic background, physical attributes, and that’s about it.
I am even slow to suggest that culture be added to the definition of “black”, because culture is mainly tied to environment, upbringing, and social structures. Thus, a “black” person from the suburbs of Minnesota is still “black”, even if he or she does not share all of the cultural preferences or practices of a “black” person from Atlanta. Too often, African Americans who break from the black stereotypes pedaled by the entertainment industry and the media are subsequently labeled “not black” or “acting white”. Too often those blacks that dare to speak proper English are accused of “talking white”, despite the fact that some of the greatest orators in our nation’s history (MLK, Federick Douglass, even Malcolm X) were black. History shows that African Americans built their own towns and universities, even during the brutal years of Jim Crow and segregation, yet the popular stereotype only emphasizes the ghetto, and the projects, and lazy uneducated blacks seeking handouts.
Yes, whites and blacks and all Americans must look carefully at their own definitions of the word “black” if we are ever to truly unite as a country. Just as whites should not be labeled racist simply for being white, blacks should not be seen as a stereotype simply for being black. And those blacks that do reach high levels of success are still black. If they marry outside of their race, they are still black. Even if they came from mixed marriages, in America, they are still black.
Black is not confined to the jail cells, the hip hop videos, the basketball courts, the stripper poles, the ghettos and stereotypical images in the media. Black exists in corporate board rooms, in the upper ranks of the military, in ivy league schools, in high fashion magazines, in law offices, in doctors offices and scientific laboratories, in NASA space programs and architectural/engineering firms, in the police forces and congressional offices, and yes…now…black exists in the White House!
This message is long but important. I fear that far too many conservatives in America are disconnected from reality, as illustrated by their confused reactions to the election of Barack Obama as President.
Wake up Morning Joe!
Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough let loose a bitter rant about what he perceived to be injustices and double standards from the “liberal elite” media. It began when co-host Mika read a snippet from an op-ed by E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post. It basically said the US finally practiced the democracy it has been preaching to the world by rejecting the traditional cynicism often practiced in our politics. Mr. Scarborough was greatly offended by these and other comments made yesterday because, to him, it was as if people were saying this election “was the first time Americans got excited and engaged.” He went on to describe how Southern “evangelicals” were excited four years ago for George W. Bush, yet these “liberal” journalists condemned them voting as backwards thinking, stupid, and scary. Joe cited his own “open-mindedness” by celebrating with Democrats for “their” victory yesterday and scolded the left for not doing the same when those on the right (who don’t think like them) celebrate.
First, what Mr. Scarborough FAILED to realize was yesterday was not a partisan victory. That is, the magnitude of celebration from this election was not due to a triumph of some leftist ideology America now embraces. It was not merely a political shift as the Reagan revolution was in the 1980s. The world has no need to celebrate that. The election of Barack Obama as President (President-elect) of the United States of America was the defeat of this nation’s greatest and deepest sin. The sin that has endured for centuries, ever since the founding of this nation. The sin of racism.
Sure, there were racists in America on November 3rd 2008, and there are still racists in America on November 5th 2008, but what November 4th proved was that, as a people, as a country, as a nation, we have moved beyond the racial barrier.
Before November 4th 2008, there appeared to be a general understanding throughout America, and particularly in the African American community, that blacks in America can only get so far before whites close the doors on them. It was a given that if you are white in America, every opportunity is open to you, but if you are black (or a minority) in America, only some opportunities are available to you. And the most notable opportunity that would never ever ever be open to blacks is the opportunity to be President of the United States of America.
Sure, you could run for the office, but you would lose. The racism of white America was too strong. It was a tradition practiced and passed on in this country for centuries. And though it lessened more and more through the fights for civil rights, hardly anyone expected America to have progressed far enough to elect a black man President!
This was not merely a victory for liberals.
This was not merely a victory for blacks.
This was not even just a victory for America.
The election of Barack Obama was a victory for humanity worldwide. It was a victory for hope and great sacrifice. It was the reality of achieving the impossible.
That’s what the big deal was Joe. And galvanizing white Southern evangelicals in 2004 to passionately support the right based on fears of terrorism, homosexuality, and abortion really cannot compare.
Fears vs. Hopes
Another thing Joe took offense to was the opinion that America chose hope over fear in electing Barack Obama. To Mr. Scarborough, this was like saying that Democrat Barack Obama represented hope, and Republican John McCain represented fear and that’s just not fair!
Sorry to break the news to you Joe, but if you were paying attention at all to this election you would know that Barack Obama DID appeal to our hopes and John McCain DID appeal to our fears. That’s not partisan (I’m Independent) that’s just fact!
Obama emphasized the need for unity in this country. He told us we each have common hopes and purposes in this country despite our differences or where we live. He continued his message first introduced in 2004 of there not being a red America or a blue America, but the United States of America. He encouraged we disagree without being disagreeable, and that we look after one another for we “rise and fall as one people, one nation, together”. He avoided personal attacks and below the belt mud slinging on his rivals throughout the campaign, and inspite of what they did to him.
Never once did Obama attack McCain over his connections to terrorists or his endorsements from al Qaeda.
Never once did Obama mention McCain’s adulterous past.
Never once did Obama mention McCain’s opposition to MLK day.
Never once did Obama highlight McCain’s battles with skin cancer.
Never once did Obama say McCain was someone we should fear, or that his Presidency would bring about fascism or the death of the middle class.
Obama did not digg up hurtful gaffes from McCain’s past, like when McCain called his wife a c*nt, or joked about the then preteen Chelsea Clinton’s appearance, or claimed he “hates gooks”.
Nor did Obama pounce on new McCain gaffes made in social settings, like when he joked about killing Iranians with cigarette imports, or how he just quit beating his wife a week ago.
Consistantly, Obama praised John McCain the man, the war hero, while attacking his policies as a continuation of George Bush. This helped create a contrast for Obama, in which he highlighted his own positions as a hopeful alternative to just “more of the same” from McCain.
John McCain on the other hand emphasized fear in his campaign.
He promoted the fear that Obama was too “exotic”, too different and foreign to be safe for America.
He stressed the fear that Obama was too young, inexperienced, and naive for the job of Presidency, and America elects him at our own risk.
He promoted the fear that Obama is sexist or cruel towards Sarah Palin for his “lipstick on a pig” remark.
His campaign sought to scare Americans over Obama’s “associations” with “terrorists”, citing the criminal activity of a fellow American when Obama was a young boy.
There was the fear drum that Obama is too risky, not ready, Obama is a socialist, Obama will steal your young children’s innocence by teaching them sex, Obama doesn’t care about our troops, etc.
His whole campaign was “Obama is scary, so vote for McCain.” So mentioning that Obama represented hope and McCain represented fear shouldn’t offend people. We are entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.
IT’S NOT FAIR! If you criticize Obama, you are accused of “racism”.
I have heard this often from the right. They believe that targeting Obama with criticism will just bring up charges of racism. And they often say it’s not fair that people can attack George Bush, but they can’t attack Barack Obama. (as if there is any parallel between the two men).
You know, it’s funny, when Mike Tyson bit a piece of Evander Holyfield’s ear off, people of all races were critical of him. White comedians made jokes about Tyson for days, yet no charges of racism were made from African Americans. No one black claimed whites were only critical of Tyson because he was black. No one said whites were trying to call blacks cannibals. No one said this was just white people linking blacks to racist images of the past, where blacks were seen as animals. No one said criticism wouldn’t come if Tyson were white, nor bring up white brawls in hockey, etc. We all laughed along and criticized Tyson for the sheer shock, disgust, and bizarre nature of his actions. Tyson was seen as an individual, not a representation of black men.
That same standard of judgment applied to George W. Bush. The criticism and jokes made about him are based on a long pattern of embarrassing and incompetent actions that he made. It was not that Bush made an occasional gaffe based on fatigue (like Obama’s “57 states” comment), he constructed an archive of “misunderestimated” remarks that is so large it has become known on the “internets” as Bushisms. It’s not as if Bush made a few mistakes based on bad intelligence or something, as did Colin Powell in his promotion of the Iraq War. It’s that Bush lead the charge on recklessness and bad decision making, which he often seemed too stubborn or indifferent to care about. Whether we are talking about Katrina, or the Iraq War, or torture, or corruption in and around Washington (Scooter Libby, Enron, Haliburton, etc.) Bush seemed either too ignorant to make the right decisions or too unwilling.
Yet we do not judge all white men for the actions of George W. Bush. Nor do we assume white men cannot make good Presidents because of the actions of one man.
That’s all African Americans are looking for when it comes to judging Barack Obama. We are not interested in phony outrage, baseless fears and charges, or accusations from those who are seeking to find fault with Obama. America did not seek to find fault with Mike Tyson. America did not seek to find fault with George W. Bush (immediately following 9/11, Bush’s ratings were as high as ever) It was the clear, obvious and substantive actions and decisions of these men that brought them criticism and mockery.
There is no racism if that is how we judge Obama. He is new. Let him have a clean slate. Don’t hunt for imperfections or thirst for reasons to condemn him. It is those sentiments that most likely have their roots in racism.
Seeing the REAL Obama.
Seeing the REAL America.
It always offends Conservatives when “liberals” mock them as stupid or intellectually challenged. And the typical response is to hit back with accusations of “elitism” or “ungodly-ness”. Yet, it seems Conservatives rarely ever perform a self examination to see why they are labeled this way and whether or not there is any truth to it.
Let me remind you that I am an independent, but I have often been accused of being a “liberal” if I question soundness of their beliefs. Despite what Conservatives might say, a big part of their political might comes from the fear and racist attitudes of small town rural white Americans who are disconnected from the rest of America and the world at large.
In these towns with populations of a few hundred or a few thousand, the homogeneous makeup of people (both ethnically and culturally) allows for all sorts of fantasies and horror stories about “outsiders” to be made up and believed. This is where the lies about Obama being a Muslim (or an Arab) and tied to terrorism is believed and told as the gospel truth. Many of these people have probably never met a Muslim or maybe even an Arab or a black man. With their eyes firmly glued to Hannity and Fox News (who claim a monopoly on “fair and balanced” information) they might not realize how gullible, how easily manipulated, and how misinformed they actually are. Or, if they do realize it, they prefer racist and fearful fantasies over reality.
To them, every Muslim is a terrorist or at least a terrorist sympathizer. To them, an Arabic name or Kenyan outfit is evidence enough of “un-Americanism” in this land that embraces freedom of religion and states all men are created equal. There, it does not matter how nice Obama is, or what a great dad his is to his young daughters. It does not matter how many stirring speeches he gives about hope, unity, common purpose and common values. It does not matter if he says he’s a Christian, if he attends a church, if he speaks on his faith, reaches out to white evangelicals or pushes faith-based initiatives. For these voters, it appears a simple SPAM email packed with lies and misinformation is evidence enough to reject Barack Obama as not trust worthy and a danger to white people.
The methods used to scare rural white Americans could never work in the multicultural cities like New York City, which really was attacked by radical Muslim extremists. People know better than that, and the diversity they experience in their everyday lives gives them a cultural maturity that appears challenging to those in rural America. But if one acknowledges that small town Americans aren’t too bright for believing Barack Obama is a one man terror cell who wants to destroy Israel and enslave white America, then they are called “elitist”.
Conservatives at large need to embrace reality and complex thought. There are more (effective) ways to combat abortion in America than to demonize the pro-Choice candidate every election cycle. There are more mature ways to argue for lower taxes and smaller government than to scream about “socialism” or whine that the government is “penalizing you for your hard earned success.” And if the evidence reveals that less regulation and tax breaks to the wealthy has hurt the nation as a whole more than it has helped, why not apply the Christian values of honesty, loving your neighbor as yourself, and rejecting selfishness and greed. And also gown the sense to ackknowledge that no one wants to be “soft on terror” or “retreat” from victory. No American wants our troops to lose, especially not Americans running to be Commander in Chief.
As a concluding thought, I will simply say that Conservatives and Republicans need to think long and hard about their future and how they chose to address the American people. Will they continue to chose division and seek to monopolize patriotism? It is clear from this election that the future of America, the young voters, have no tolerance for that. We want our country to be a model for the world, not the disdain of it. We want to be admired, not mocked. We desire to be famous for our excellence, not notorious for our stupidity. And we want to be known for our progressiveness, decency, and diversity, we want to be united around a common and higher purpose. We want to be proud of our nation and the citizens that live here. If the right desires to rebuild itself, it should keep these things in mind.
He’s pragmatic
He’s intellectually curious
He’s calm
He’s rational
He’s a great listener
He seeks peace and peaceful discord
He’s inspirational
He’s visionary
He’s got class
He’s a team player
He’s moral
He’s inclusive
He’s mature
He’s tough
He takes the high road
He’s protective of his family and other people’s families (ie: Sarah Palin’s daughter)
He’s nice
He’s brilliant
He has a good sense of humor
He’s humble
He’s deep (a very deep thinker)
He seeks to understand
He’s empathetic
He’s a family man, and values being a good father and a good husband
He has fantastic leadership abilities
He has a thick skin
and once again
He’s calm
Oh, and our time for change HAS come! Do your part to make that happen! If you didn’t already vote during early voting, then make sure you show up on November 4th!!
UPDATE!! I just VOTED! 10/28/08
GO OBAMA!!
****************************************
It was just yesterday that Barack Obama drew crowds exceeding 100,000 people in Denver Colorado and 50,000 people in Fort Collins Colorado. People stood out in lines that began forming around 4am, even though the rally in Denver didn’t start until 11:30am and the one on the CSU campus didn’t begin until after 3pm. They waited, and stood, with jackets and gloves, holding kids in their arms and Obama signs in their hands. All just to get a live glimpse of what just might be the 44th President of the United States of America.
If you look at the pictures, they are phenomenal. The crowds in Denver were so large, they surprised Barack Obama (who has seen big crowds all around this world, beginning in Iowa). Think of the patience that took. Think of the gas and (OMG) the parking!!! Think of the standing and waiting, standing and waiting, standing and waiting until finally there he was! Barack Obama!
As awesome and inspiring (and tiring) as that experience might have been, it could be all for naught if those people don’t show up to vote.
Even if you didn’t attend that rally, but you’ve attended others. Or you’ve kept up intensely with this election. Maybe you’ve made campaign contributions. Maybe you’ve made phone calls, bought bumper stickers and t-shirts, campaigned door-to-door, or simply engaged in political discussions and debates. ALL of that could be meaningless IF you don’t show up to vote!
I know how it is, because I’m in Colorado and we have early voting here. I said I was going to go Saturday, but things came up and I didn’t make it. I said I was going to go today (Monday), but alas, once again I failed to make it. I’m making it tomorrow, mark my word on it! Voting for me begins at 9am, I want to be out of the house by 7:30. My family here have all already voted, fortunately, so I’ve really got to get on the stick (I’ll post that I VOTED as soon as I do which WILL be tomorrow at 9).
But I wonder, in those crowds, or at home, or out and about, how many people are floating around just like me? They’re planning to get to it, but they just haven’t yet. They want to avoid the long lines on November 4th, but they haven’t done the things necessary to do that. If you are like that, and your state has early voting, this message is for you: VOTE! VOTE EARLY! VOTE NOW!
This election has gone on for 2 years, but it only counts if you VOTE! That’s the reason Obama has been raising all this money, and campaigning and debating for all these months. That’s what the phone calls are for, the SNL skits, the advertisements, the news stories, the t-shirts, the Youtube videos, the emails, the forums, the myspace pages and facebook groups. It’s all about YOU VOTING! SO VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!
And if you have to wait until Nov. 4th, show up early and VOTE VOTE VOTE!! Don’t let the lines discourage you. Don’t let anything distract you. Don’t get overconfident. Don’t think it’s over anyways. VOTE! You must VOTE! VOTE like your VOTE could determine this election. VOTE VOTE VOTE!!
Bring your ipod, a book, snacks, your friends & family, your laptop, vote for Starbucks carts to come out, bring a portable electronic massager, bring chairs, bring sunglasses, bring jackets and hats, bring water, bring an umbrella, bring whatever you need to bring to be comfortable in those lines so you can VOTE!
With that, I’m off to bed. I’ve got to be up to vote in the morning!
Not surprisingly, McCain supporters have LIED once again to smear Obama. Come on America, we’re smarter than to fall for this garbage. Let’s move back to reality and away from these hateful fantasies.
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you’ll “kick their fuckin’ ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office–since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s–while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you’re black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do–like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor–and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college–you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a “light” burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”
* If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you’re a quintessential American story.
* If your name is Barack, you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* If you name your kids Bristol, Trig, and Track, you’re a maverick.
* If you graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable.
* If you attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system, while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you’re very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s.
* If you’re husband is nicknamed “First Dude”, with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
Upon first watching this video, it is easy to get caught up in raw emotion. A young US ‘Iraq war’ veteran speaks passionately about his service, the service of our troops, and the importance of sacrifice for freedom. He lectures Senator Barack Obama for saying our invasion of Iraq was a mistake, claiming that the sacrifices made by our troops has brought the Iraqis freedom that they haven’t had before. He says Obama’s criticism dishonors the service of our troops, and that Obama doesn’t understand that freedom comes with a price. Because of all this, the soldier says he’s backing John McCain, who has served our country and understands what it means to sacrifice for country.
Near the end of the video, the solider walks away from the camera to reveal what we can assume to be his wounds acquired from battle. The man has lost a leg, and he has had it replaced with an artificial one. As walks in the distance, the music “I’m proud to be an American” beings to play. Then an image of John McCain comes up with the text “The day we lose our will to fight is the day we lose our freedom.”
I would first like to state that any criticism of this video is not intended in any way to demean or dishonor the service and sacrifice of this soldier or any of our troops. We can honor their service without supporting this political video. So I hope no one takes what I am about to say as an attack on our brave men and women in uniform.
Having said that, I can honestly say that this video is absolutely disgusting. There is a reason that politicians are not supposed to use our troops for political gain. Regardless of who wins, democrat or republican, our troops must serve in a non-partisan fashion under the Commander in Chief to protect our nation. Senator Obama could very well be our next Commander in Chief, and it is dangerously harmful to our nation for those in our military to believe he dishonors or disrespects the troops. Those sentiments are divisive and leave our troops weaker and more vulnerable.
The argument made in the video is really pretty silly. There is a big difference between the decision a President makes to go to war, and the service and sacrifice our troops make when they are deployed to war. It is like saying someone is disrespecting engineers and construction workers when they are critical of the “bridge to no where”. It makes no sense. This soldier might very well see some “thankful” Iraqi citizens who appreciate their new “freedoms” we’ve brought them in Iraq (at the expense of 4000+ American lives and who knows how many Iraqi and Iraqi citizens lives). But that doesn’t mean the decision to go into Iraq following 9/11 was a good one. We all know that Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda are still on the loose and have actually grown stronger since the US has been fighting in Iraq. In a recent interview with FOX News, right wing news anchor Bill O’reilly told Obama that he was right in his judgment in 2002 that going into Iraq was a mistake. So will this soldier also make a video bashing O’reilly?
There are a few fundamental American traits that the right wing has tried to hi-jack as strictly and exclusively belonging to their party. Attributes like honor, patriotism, love of country, integrity, morality and family values. By making these false claims of exclusive ownership, they indirectly paint their opponents (the democrats) as dishonorable, unpatriotic, not loving America, lacking integrity, immoral and lacking family values. It appears this political spin (aka falsehood and propaganda) has affected the mind of this young soldier.
I wonder if he did he research and learned that, despite his opposition to the war, Obama voted consistently to fund the troops so they could have the equipment they needed in battle. I wonder if he learned that Obama supported the new GI Bill that George Bush reluctantly passed and John McCain opposed. I wonder if he took time to learn about the plans Obama has to reduce homelessness amongst veterans, and provide health care for those with PTSD. I wonder if he learned that Obama’s grandfather (who helped raise him) was a WWII veteran, and his uncle was in the service as well (so he knows the value of service in his own family). I wonder if that young soldier read a newspaper overseas, and saw how unpopular this war is even amongst our allies, and how it has dropped George Bush’s reputation both here in the US and around the world. I wonder if that soldier learned of how popular Barack Obama is in America and overseas and how a strong part of why he is the nominee over Hillary is because of his judgment on Iraq.
I wonder if that soldier has been paying attention to the leadership in Iraq, which along with the Bush administration is now following Obama’s advice to set a timetable in Iraq to withdraw our troops. I wonder if that soldier realized how arrogant and ridiculous he sounded to accuse Barack Obama of dishonoring our troops when even our troops are donating to the Obama campaign 6-to-1 over John McCain because they recognize Obama has better leadership ability and judgment than even this former POW.
In conclusion, this soldier dishonored his own servive by politicizing it to help John McCain. Service is service, not a campaign ad. I hope that young soldier realized that he wasn’t fighting for the Republican party, he was fighting for the United States. Barack Obama is just as much a part of the United States as John McCain is. And while you might disagree with him on his policies, it’s way below the belt to accuse him of dishonoring our troops because of that. These baseless, insulting, false, and disgusting attacks have no place in our politics. That US soldier should be ashamed of his political video.
Once again, the media lies to build up a controversy that shouldn’t be there. Oprah has said she will not have Sarah Palin on her show UNTIL the elections are over. Was this a knock against Sarah Palin? Was Sarah Palin snubbed because Oprah supports Obama? NO! Oprah hasn’t had ANY candidate on during this election. She didn’t have Obama on, nor McCain, nor Hillary, nor Rudy, nor Mitt, nor John Edwards, nor Joe Biden, nor Chris Dodd, nor Huckabee, nor Thompson, nor Richardson, nor any other Presidential candidate during this election. To put Sarah Palin on would be to snub all of the rest of these candidates. Therefore Oprahs decision NOT to put Sarah Palin on her show until after the elections are over is a FAIR decision.
Now someone will say that Barack Obama has been on the Oprah show before. However, both appearances, in January 2005 and October 2006, were before he announced his candidacy for President of the United States. In the past, like the 2000 election, Oprah has had on Presidential candidates. Everyone should remember that kiss she received from George W. Bush. But this election, she’s decided against doing that, and she’s held to that position from the start of it.
The media should report the truth on this matter, that having Sarah Palin on at this time, less than 2 months away from the elections, would be bias and unfair and a slap to all of the other candidates in this race. Joe Biden also has a compelling story, but he hasn’t been invited on either.
As for Oprah supporting Obama, that’s a personal decision, not a business decision connected to her show. Everyone has a job, but that doesn’t mean every decision you make is related to your job or on behalf of your job. Oprah is a human being too, and people should respect her right as an individual American citizen to make her own choices in her personal life. But as for the show, Oprah is being FAIR in NOT having Sarah Palin on during the elections.
I think consistently bringing up racism in this electon is too simplistic of an answer. Yes, some of it exists, but I think there are much larger social issues that Obama would have to deal with. There is a large segment of the population that seems to think in extremes. They are the ones that keep FOX News as the #1 viewed station (if it really is that). They’re scared (very scared, easily scared), they’re paranoid, they can be close minded, they’re cynical and pessimistic, they’re hot tempered & easily angered, they passionately believe talking points, they practice labeling (ie: labeling people “liberals” or “radical leftists”) and they don’t seem to embrace complexity. Just take a look at this:
For them, political debates become battles between good and evil, life and death, God and Satan, freedom and slavery. These are the people that say Obama is a fascist, Obama is a terrorist, Obama supports Osama, Obama wants to enslave us, Obama is the anti Christ, Obama will bring this nation to hell, etc.
They dismiss any and all positive or sound minded messages of hope, unity and change as “empty rhetoric”, while embracing smear SPAM emails and out-of-context remarks or photos as 100% credible.
Their greatest joy is to be against something or against someone, at least that’s where the majority of their focus is. They are controlled by fear, and like a cornered cat fighting for its life, they lash out against all who aren’t like them.
Appealing to such people is very very challenging, and would be so for just about anyone who isn’t a carbon copy of them. They seem loyal to the few that do appeal to them, even if that group exploits them.
I think this is the real challenge that keeps this race close. It is dealing with adults who aren’t adults, at least when it comes to politics. They might be the passionate Hillary supporters who just want someone with a vagina in office, regardless of what she believes. They might be a single-issue conservative, who is blind to the faults in their own party because they’ve believed all evil comes from the Democrats.
This is the real challenge for Obama, or any cool headed, intelligent, rational, objective person. Getting his message out to these voters requires patience. This goes beyond issues of race, and into issues of maturity. This culture is easy to exploit by feeding them the fear they desire, but it’s really hard to reason with.
EDIT: I know racism exists and it’s an issue in this election. The title of this thread is intended to be provocative because all too often things are oversimplified as “racist” when I think a larger cultural issue is at work. Fear is the greatest tool for manipulation, and those who exercise it regularly know exactly what they are doing (because fear mongering is an incredibly lucrative career in this country).
If you listen to mainstream media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.), it seems like they have left this election to cover an imaginary one, in which Barack Obama is not running against John McCain, but is running against perfection. Every aspect of Obama, his campaign, his church, his faith, his upbringing, his wife, his fitness routines, etc. has been placed under the highest scrutiny and searched for any perceived imperfection that can be magnefied and blasted across our nation’s airwaves.
The media will travel half way across the world to interview Obama’s youngest half brother living in Kenya, but haven’t (to my knowledge) done ONE single sitdown interview with John McCain’s first wife, whom he cheated on and left injured for a woman 20 years younger than him.
The media has blasted the name Tony Rezco into the minds of every single American, even though his dealings with Obama revealed no legal wrongdoing by Obama, YET John McCain’s Keating 5 scandal has remained so secretive that most Americans know little or anything about it.
A recent independent survey (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,1029224,full.story) reveals that 72% of the coverage and comments about Barack Obama were negative. McCain’s coverage was pretty evenly split, with 57% negative reporting. To cover this up, the news media has decided to ask themselves repeatedly why they gie such bias “rockstar” coverage to Obama, and willingly accept the fact that they do give bias to him, when in reality it’s the exact opposite.
Everyone’s heard of Bill Ayers, who’s crimes against America happened when Obama was 6 years old. The media reports as if this English professor who happened to sit on a board once with Obama somehow has mindcontrol over him. Ironically (and hypocritically), this same media has FAILED from 2000-2008 to give adequate scrutiny and attention to George Bush’s business ties to the Bin Laden family and the Saudis. That means while fighting against the “war on terror” initiated by Osama Bin Laden, and interrogating innocent civilians at airports nationwidde, neither Geroge W. Bush, the Bush family, nor even the Bin Laden family members living in the US post 9/11 were brought in for questioning (and the media doesn’t care).
The media even found time to run a negative story about Obama working out in the gym, as if physical fitness was a bad thing. Yet, there has been to scrutiny or followups on John McCain’s potential skin cancer, nor extensive investigations into his medical history.
Bring up the Tony Rezco incident again, the media fails to report on the ILLEGAL activity of Cindy McCain, whom set up a charity and then stole from it to fund her own drug addiction. They have also failed to report on government favors and lobbyists Cindy’s beer company benefits from and how that would play out in a McCain presidency.
The Press has been banned from the McCain bus, blamed for bias by the McCain campaign, and mocked in a McCain web video, yet they apparently don’t seem to mind. The same can’t be said about Obama’s campaign, which has subtley been threatened by the media for granting limited access and having a slight dress code for their international trip.
We all know about the Obama children, we even know them by name, why haven’t we heard anything about the McCain kids? Did McCain have kids from his first marriage, and if so, why haven’t we heard from them? Why was the Access Hollywood story on the Obama family controversial, but the running blog (a campaign aid of John McCain) of McCain’s daughter Meghan is not?
This list could go on and on, but in short the media is doing a great disservice to America. By insisting that this election is not about John McCain, but ti’s all about Barack Obama, they help John McCain. They cover his gaffes as irrelevant, while illuminating and magnefying perceived misteps by Obama. Their basic message is, if Obama isn’t compeltely flawless in all he does, then McCain will be the next President. The media will even seek to rain on great successes by Obama, like his trip overseas. They report as if being liked in Europe (our ally) means he won’t be like in America. They mention that the because the media covered the event, some how they love Obama, hiding the fact that their coverage included healthy dosages of “will Obama gaffe?” “Why won’t Obama admit the surge worked” “Is this reception overseas a bad thing back here in America?”
Even time the media asks “why isn’t Obama doing better in the polls”, it’s laughable. They have been doing everything possible to help him slip in the polls. In conclusion, don’t be fooled by the media. This election is not an election in which we see if Barack Obama is flawless and perfect in every imaginable way. This election is not about seeing if his charisma, his choice of Biden as VP, his support of issues favored by most Americans in the polls (like ending the war in Iraq and economic policy) will some how overcome the deepseeded racism, hatred, and bigotry present in many white and rural Americans. This election is not about black people becoming full 100% equals in America and ending racism completely. This election is between Barack Obama and John McCain. Find out what each one stands for and who they are as leaders, then make your decision from there.
CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX News, MSNBC, all of the major networks along with newspapers and pundits have questioned constantly whether Obama flip flopped on the Iraq War. Above is the full speech Obama gave on the subject back on March 20, 2008. Oddly, few in the press seem to remember it, because from 10:38 on, Obama takes on similar charges from Hillary Clinton during the primaries.
If you can see the whole thing, please do. If not, watch 10:38-12:20
…in the minds and imaginations of racist, stupid, ignorant morons who hate our Declaration of Independence which states that “All men are created equal”. So they cling to antipathy towards those who aren’t like them, and invent lies and believe lies and garbage to justify, in their own puny minds, their racism.
Unfortunately for Obama, these nutcases are not all in mental institutions or jail, so some of them can and do actually vote. They do not love America, they love themselves and anything that physically resembles themselves, that’s all. So to overcome them, Obama will have to work harder, and he’s begun with the link posted above, to bring truth to the fence riders who have yet to fall into the self-destructive pit of racism.
I am proud as an American to see not only the tremendous record breaking campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, but also the progressive, fair-minded and objective patriotic spirit Americans in every state. This was not just a win for Obama or for African Americans, it was a win for America. It shows that our ideals and values are not merely expressed in writing, but lived out in the lives of people in every state in our nation.
NFC Championship
Chicago Obamas vs. New York Clintons
4th Quarter
0:18 seconds to play
Team Obama 31
Team Clinton 21
Team Obama has the ball at the 35 yard line and it’s 2nd down.
Marv Albert declares this is over.
Team Clinton has called a time out and is raising hell to the refs, Clinton fans are blaming the announcers, crying foul against the Obama Team and they insist that they will be the NFC Champions and face Team McCain in the SuperBowl because they are winning in net yards and have fewer total turnovers.
Reasonable viewers are puzzled that team Clinton would think they should go on to the SuperBowl based off of net yards and turnovers, because games are decided based off of points. Yet the Clintons believe they are the strongest team in the NFC to challenge Team McCain at the SuperBowl (I know Arizona is in the NFC, but play along like it’s AFC or McCain is from Denver or something).
It doesn’t matter how many yards were rushed if you don’t score.
It doesn’t matter how few turnovers you have if you don’t score
And it doesn’t matter how you split up the popular vote using Hillary math if you don’t have the delegates.
Fascinating and insightful video. Whoever wins the Presidency should bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Ronald Reagan so foolishly and selfishly eliminated. It’s a real shame that this subject didn’t come up in the debates, but then again, guess who runs the debates? MAINSTREAM MEDIA!! Thank God for PBS, CSPAN, and the Internet! As citizens of the US, we must not tolerate this garbage. We have a right to know what goes on in our country, and (as ABC so profoundly showed in their “debate” with Obama and Hillary) MSM needs to be reformed badly. Please help make this topic viral. I will continue to post more on this subject as I find out about it.
Edit: Looks like Obama is looking to improve this. Check out this link.
UPDATE! Below is an article from PBS about the history of the Fairness Doctrine. And here is the link to it.
History of the Fairness Doctrine
You may remember hearing about Sinclair Broadcast Group in October 2004. They attracted attention from other media outlets when they announced plans to air STOLEN HONOR, described by some as an “anti-Kerry documentary.” Ultimately, the documentary was not aired, as critics called for balance from Sinclair by way of programming that showed the other side of the story, calling on a principle called the “fairness doctrine.” While this doctrine is no longer enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it hasn’t faded from public discourse. What is the history behind this doctrine?
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, called for stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates running for office. (Learn about the history of televised presidential debates.) The idea was to ensure even-handedness in a time when available frequencies were limited. This federal law did not apply to news programs, interviews, and documentaries. During the 1940s, stations were prevented by the FCC’s “Mayflower Doctrine” from editorializing, but by the end of the decade, the ban had softened to allow editorializing only if other points of view were also aired to balance those of the station.
In 1949, the FCC adopted the fairness doctrine, a policy that viewed station licensees as “public trustees” and, as such, responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance. The key requirement was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on these issues.
Later, in 1967, two corollary doctrines were added. The first was the political editorial rule, requiring that if a station editorialized either for or against a candidate for public office, the station had to notify the disfavored candidate within 24 hours and allow him/her to reply to the editorial; the second was the personal attack rule, which states that when a person or group’s character or integrity is impugned during the discussion of a controversial issue, the station must notify the person within one week, and offer a reasonable time for response.
By the 1980s, many stations saw the FCC rules as an unnecessary burden. Some journalists considered the fairness doctrine a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press; they felt reporters should be able to make their own decisions about balancing stories. In order to avoid the requirement of presenting contrasting viewpoints, some journalists chose not to cover certain controversial issues at all. In addition, the political climate of the Reagan administration favored deregulation. When the fairness doctrine came before the courts in 1987, they decided that since the doctrine was not mandated by Congress, it did not have to be enforced. FCC suspended all but the two corollary doctrines at this time.
As this was happening, Congress passed a bill to make the fairness doctrine into law. However, President Reagan vetoed the legislation and there were insufficient votes to override the veto. In 2000, when the FCC failed to justify the two remaining corollary rules, the political editorial rule and the personal attack rule were repealed.
Efforts to resurrect the fairness doctrine have come up again and again before Congress, but no bill has yet been passed. Read a conversation between Bill Moyers and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter about her latest effort, The MEDIA Act.
This debate over debates had me curious. Was ABC’s debate really in a lowly class of its own? Or were Obama backers (inside the press and out) just being overly-sensitive? So I went through each of the four one-on-one contests between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, starting with CNN’s debate way back on January 31…
What if Barack Obama was not Barack Obama, but Barry O’bama (or simply Barry O.), a tall, slim white haired white man with the same view points and charisma of Obama. Would there be a stir over his comments in San Francisco? Would his pastor have been vetted? Has scrutiny of a candidates Christian church happened in the last 30 years? Would the issue of his race or background (Irish in this case) even be an issue? Would he face issues with any voters of any ethnicity that say “I won’t vote for a white man?” Would anyone call him too white, or not white enough? Would the media discuss the “black vote”, the “black-brown divide”. Would there be an exit poll question about whether race mattered in people’s votes?
Would Geraldine Ferraro say Barry is only where he’s at because he’s a white male? Would Barry have to explain that while every US President in the history of the United States of America has been a white male, and every US Vice President in the history of the United States of America has been a white male, he is not privileged by his race? Would Jesse Jackson have been mentioned, or MLK vs. LBJ? Would anyone use the word “fairy tale”? Would he be called a kid or a boy? We already know how African Americans can strongly support white candidates, as they did for Bill Clinton’s Presidency, the “first black President”. So, gaining that loyally democratic vote would be very possible, while not being analyzed through racial lenses.
Would concerns over the voting habits of rural Ohioans, Pennsylvanians, Latinos, seniors, or Floridians of Jacksonville be analyzed by race?
This isn’t to suggest that Obama has it so hard because he’s black. That simply isn’t true. He has alot of support from people of every age and ethnicity, and the excitement he’s generated both locally and abroad is also fueled by the uniqueness and historic nature of his candidacy because of race. Obama also has a freedom to speak boldly about racial topics that he would most likely lose if he were not black (whether that’s fair or not).
The point of this post is to consider what we believe to be “controversial” and ask why we think that way? Is it controversial because of what was said, or is it because of who said it? Jesse Ventura, in a CNN interview with Larry King, compared America to Nazi Germany. That is immensely more controversial than anything Obama has ever dared to say, but where was the outrage? Who called Jesse anti-American, or racist, or anti-Semitic? John McCain voted against MLK’s birthday, and pretty much supported South African apartheid early in his career. Obama has never done anything like that, but he is called racist (by some) for parsed words about his grandmother? (taken out of context of course)
If we are going to move towards perfecting our union, we have to embrace fairness and rational, unbiased thinking. We have to uphold morals and values, in other words, that don’t set a higher standard for those of a different hue. The Golden rule demands that’s what we do, treat others as we would like to be treated. And part of that is to seek to see things from someone else perspective. Empathize, that is.
As we seek to understand others, and be understood ourselves, and as we reject mischaracterizations, lies, deceits, and distortions of truth, we will heal and strengthen our nation. And, I am excited to say, for many in this election, we are doing just that. Let that trend continue.
Here’s the quote at the heart of this “controversy”
“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,” Obama said. “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.”
The comments made by Sen. Barack Obama in San Francisco were made a week ago, so why is it they’ve only caused a stir now?
First, national gallup polls have shown Obama significantly ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton for a while now.
It is in the best interests of the media to keep this story going as long as they can because it boost their views. Controversies, however negligible, gain viewership, and the media therefore exploits whatever it can whenever it can (to the degree that they can get away with it) because it’s good for their business. As for Clinton and McCain, they both trail Obama and are on the look out for anything they can find to bring him down in the polls. The truth is, there’s so little dirt on Obama, that they have to magnify statements like this, or the fact that Obama drank orange juice over coffee, to try to show why he should not be our next President.
Second reason this is getting covered is that Obama is doing better in Pennsylvania than he was expected to. He is closing the gap, and a few pundits have even predicted an upset in Pennsylvania. If Obama wins, the race is virtually over.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
And the last reason this story is getting covered is because former vice president Al Gore and former president Jimmy Carter have been in talks about coming out together to ask Hillary to drop out of the race for the good of the Democratic Party. This is huge news, but would help to end the battle the media is profiting off of covering, it would help viewers focus more on John McCain (who has largely been getting a free pass), and it would help take Hillary out of the race.
One of the most refreshing things about Barack Obama is his fearlessness when it comes to voicing a hard truth. It’s an ice cold glass of unsweetened lemonade: hard to swallow, but unmistakably pure. The truth is, if you aren’t bitter, you’re probably voting for someone who is going to give us more of what we’ve been getting all along.
THIS is the context in which Obama’s statements have been reported as “controversial:
What is controversial about that? What about that shows elitism? Can you honestly say that you are taken aback and completely offended by this video (above)?
As of late, the media (CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc.) has been trying to stir controversy over Barack Obama making the (true) statement that people in Pennsylvania (and the rest of America) are bitter. So, they are now questioning whether that makes him an elitist. Naturally, John McCain & Hillary Clinton, both of whom trail Obama in the polls, pounced on this opportunity to see if they could lower Obama’s support. So this story is all over the news now. However what is not all over the news is:
Stories about our crumbling schools in America and the state of public education
Stories of how the Iraq War is hurting American families (both personally and financially)
Stories of our troops, and how our military is strained in this war that has outlasted WWI, WWII, and the Civil War.
Stories about homeless veterans who served their country honorably, but now live on the street
Stories of our reputation in the world, in light of this war in Iraq under George W. Bush
Stories of the obesity crisis and how government subsidies to agriculture & the food industry help fuel it
Stories of our failing health care system and how crucial it is that we fix it
Stories of the state of social security in America
Stories of Bin Laden and how after 7+ years, and a trillion dollar war, we still haven’t caught him
Stories of working class families and how government trade deals have affected their lives
Stories of current-day segregation and vast disparities in our schools along racial lines.
Stories of Universal Health Care overseas and how that compares to what our candidates are proposing
And on and on and on.
The media rarely picks up on any of this. Yet they find ample time to report on whether Obama said people are bitter in San Francisco, whether he drank orange juice over coffee, whether was a pro at bowling and so on. In contrasts, Obama speaks on these issues all the time on the campaign trail. They are part of his stump speech and he often addresses them in town hall meetings and question/answer sessions.
So who is out of touch, and who is in touch?
Looks like we not only need a change in Washington, but we also need a change in news media.
Edit:
This CNN panel is pretty good about things usually. And, in fairness, I think they got it completely right this time.
“For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service…”
From the host who conducted the interview spun as “controversial”, Angelo Cataldi tells how Barack Obama’s remarks were not racist and were no big deal. He also reports how CNN decided to drop their plans on interviewing a host of the show because his honest answer (of “no big deal”) did not “fit” into their story on Obama. Here’s the link or you can click the “read more” link below.
We have just opened our new t-shirt store. The links and information are available below, and there is also another link on our new “STORE Page” located in the navigation links. Comments, suggestions, and feedback are welcomed.
The Philadelphia Interview with the “typical white” comment that the media is hyping as “controversial”.
This interview was conducted on 610 WIP Sports talk radio in Philadelphia. As you can clearly see, he impressed the host of the show, who said he would do anything he can to help get Obama elected.
In what might be the greatest speech on race relations in America since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke “I have a dream”, presidential hopeful Barack Obama boldly and honestly and openly addresses the controversies of pastor Rev. Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, segregated Sunday worship, and race relations in the USA. History was made today.
Yes, whites and blacks and all Americans must look carefully at their own definitions of the word “black” if we are ever to truly unite as a country. Just as whites should not be labeled racist simply for being white, blacks should not be seen as a stereotype simply for being black. And those blacks that do reach high levels of success are still black. If they marry outside of their race, they are still black. Even if they came from mixed marriages, in America, they are still black.
Barack Obama Jimmy Carter Al Gore bitter Hillary Clinto
The REAL reasons for the Obama “bitter” so-called “controversy”
In barack obama on April 13, 2008 at 10:55 amHere’s the quote at the heart of this “controversy”
The comments made by Sen. Barack Obama in San Francisco were made a week ago, so why is it they’ve only caused a stir now?
First, national gallup polls have shown Obama significantly ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton for a while now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106432/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Leads-Clinton-49-42.aspx
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24082568#24082568
It is in the best interests of the media to keep this story going as long as they can because it boost their views. Controversies, however negligible, gain viewership, and the media therefore exploits whatever it can whenever it can (to the degree that they can get away with it) because it’s good for their business. As for Clinton and McCain, they both trail Obama and are on the look out for anything they can find to bring him down in the polls. The truth is, there’s so little dirt on Obama, that they have to magnify statements like this, or the fact that Obama drank orange juice over coffee, to try to show why he should not be our next President.
Second reason this is getting covered is that Obama is doing better in Pennsylvania than he was expected to. He is closing the gap, and a few pundits have even predicted an upset in Pennsylvania. If Obama wins, the race is virtually over.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
And the last reason this story is getting covered is because former vice president Al Gore and former president Jimmy Carter have been in talks about coming out together to ask Hillary to drop out of the race for the good of the Democratic Party. This is huge news, but would help to end the battle the media is profiting off of covering, it would help viewers focus more on John McCain (who has largely been getting a free pass), and it would help take Hillary out of the race.
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/It39s-Obama-stupid-Carter-and.3976738.jp