One of McCain's last, pathetic ads

This one was predictable times 10. The only thing surprising is that the GOP (Read: McCain) decided to run this ad so late. But, desperate times call for desperate measures. I've been seeing this ad multiple times during the last few days all over Philadelphia media outlets.

My guess? It will resonate about as well as Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, the Madrassa Story, countless stories about the Obamas' patriotism, etc. In the end, I don't think it will mean anything, because none of it has anything to do with Barack Obama's PATRIOTISM or his ability to lead this country. We'll know very, very soon.

Mika Brzezinski must be mixing medications

When I saw the footage above, my first thought was that Mika Brzezinski must have done some morning blow* before appearing on Morning Joe.

C&L covered this pretty extensively yesterday, and I don't have much to add, other than to say that Brzezinski's observations are, to be charitable, a wild departure from reality, and the truth. Yesterday, while reading viewer e-mail regarding Obama's resignation from the Trinity Unity Church of Christ (and most of the letters were not happy with the media's coverage), Brzezinski let loose with this whopper:

"Okay, umm... first of all, I think we covered the Hagee story as much, umm... the Reverend Wright situation injected itself into the news cycle for sure, but having said that, don't you think that there is a difference or is there not, especially given the fact that he resigned from his church."

She should have said, "Excuse me," for passing all of that hot air.

Not only MSNBC (Keith Olbermann aside), but all the spokes in our corporate media wheel treated the Jeremiah Wright story like it was a national emergency for weeks on end. Anyone who thinks otherwise (including Brzezinski) is either lying, has Alzheimer's (or a horrific memory), or is a rabid Republican. It's also a good time to remember just how badly distorted Wright's sermons were, too, and how those distortions got started - the uneducated Sean Hannity and the GOP shill himself, troll Matt Drudge.

Anyway, you don't even have to be an avid viewer and reader of news to know that McCain's ties to controversial people in the clergy like John Hagee and Rod Parsley has received passing mentions at best in most instances.

Quite frankly, I'm bored and sick to death with these insipid "minister stories" - they don't affect me in any way, nor do they affect the American electorate. They merely serve as a distraction to bigger and much more significant issues - the war(s), the economy and just how badly many people are suffering in this country (and in Iraq!) right now.

* - It's a joke, people. Calm down. I don't know if Brzezinski does blow, but I'm pretty sure she's a moron.

The Daily Show on Rev. Wright

Only The Daily Show could pull off commentary like this about Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Billy Graham and get away with it. It's mostly funny, but there is a point here, too.

I can't believe they missed an opportunity to go after Nancy Reagan's astrologer. A golden opportunity, lost!

Russert & Matthews on McSame's free ride

This is a pretty telling piece of footage from a few days ago, and again (!) I find myself agreeing with Chris Matthews. (I know - that's twice in one week!) Anyway, I have to applaud Matthews for raising the question, which in so many words was, "Is McCain getting a free ride?" Even more shocking is that Russert agrees with him that indeed he is. Of course, that doesn't suggest that much will change, starting with Cindy McCain's startling defiance yesterday that she will "never" release her tax returns, even if she becomes first lady.

Hmm - so far, I'm seeing and hearing very little in the way of outrage or backlash over that. And before you think it's not that big of a deal, again I ask you to consider and remember what big news the tax returns of BOTH the Clintons and Obamas was, just weeks ago.

What's more, the McCains have both "filed separate tax returns for the last 28 years," according the Cindy McCain yesterday. According to several reports I have seen in the last few days, all of the couple's assets are in her name. No way should all of this come out in the wash. What's more, there's mounting evidence that McCain is using his wife's wealth to skirt campaign finance laws. More on that a bit later in a separate post.

As far as the press giving McCain the same amount of scrutiny that Obama and Clinton have received, don't hold your breath. There are many reasons I feel this way, but the biggest is this - our multi-media conglomerate companies are just about all run by corporate, greedy Republicans. Asking them to give McCain the same amount of scrutiny as the Democrats would be akin to these media corporations shooting themselves in the foot. It isn't going to happen, folks. And guess what? It's why the Internet, and Net Neutrality, is so vitally important to our democracy right now - it's about all we have left, until the corporations and the lobbyists take the 'Net over. If we let them. That's not paranoia - it's a fact - there are numerous movements afoot to let ISPs do just that. Read more about Net Neutrality Here.

And that's precisely why the two most important topics that MUST be addressed in the next administration, no matter WHO wins the White House (including, heaven help us, McCain) are these:

1. Election Reform - electronic ballots, paperless voting, computers that can be easily hacked - these all need to be reformed, and massively.

2. Media Ownership - these media mergers must stop, and NOW. The next president has to put a stop to this - pretty soon, there will be only a handful of radio station owners (oops - that's already here), television station owners and newspaper publishers. Fewer and fewer media outlets now have more and more power, and this problem seems to grow by the day.

These two issues are and will continue to be a recurring theme in 2008 (and beyond) on this Website, because I really do feel that they threaten our democracy's very existence as we know it. That last sentence is not hyperbolic in any way - think about it - without free and fair elections, or a free press, the rest of our democracy is simply a sham, a house of cards, and both of these are being threatened right now, as you read this.

Do I think that Hillary or Obama will dramatically reverse these two troubling trends as if by magic if either of them wins the White House? Absolutely not. That's why we have to fight for it and demand it. However, I give reform of these two issues (and a whole lot more) a much better shot with either of those two than if McSame wins in November.

This Modern World tackles the Wright stuff

[Click on the image for the full cartoon]

Tom Tomorrow's latest This Modern World tackles the Jeremiah Wright issue with as much poignancy as I could only hope to achieve. I've been meaning to write about Obama's connection to Wright, which I will do later today.

Fox protests: a dog-and-pony show?

This past week, there were some high-profile mini-protests, and dare I say it on-air backlash against Fox's incessant Barack barrage. The first one was Chris Wallace, who took issue with how the network was "covering" the Obama-Jeremiah Wright connection.

However, maybe I'm just too far gone and cynical when it comes to the mainstream media, but there's a part of me who wonders if these Fox on-air protests are indeed faux-Fox protests. It's pretty hard to not be cynical about the network (and really, any sort of TV news, but Fox is the biggest offender). Is really isn't hard to imagine Roger Ailes hatching a plan to increase Fox's credibility, since it has so little these days, save the far right sheeple who will agree with anything they see on Fox anyway.

I'm really trying to give Wallace the benefit of the doubt, I guess because I like his father, Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes so much. But, Fox is just so transparent in its network coverage, and so partisan, I have a very hard time believing that we will ever hear a genuine argument about the network's portrayal of Obama on the air.

Above is another sort of on-air protest, this time anchor Brian Kilmeade walks off the set after he tries to explain how the network was mischaracterizing Obama's quotations, only to be repeatedly talked over.

Again I wonder, is this genuine? I just have a hard time believing it. Network execs were probably in the back high fiving, and shouting, "We just bought ourselves credibility that advertising could never buy!"

Back to the top video - I got a kick out of one of the anchors telling Chris Matthews that he applauds him for bringing "the disagreement on air instead of sending an e-mail" because "viewers deserve to hear the disagreement." Ummm Hmmm.

Who does State TV Fox think it's kidding?

Bill Clinton & Jeremiah Wright pic - BFD

This picture appeared in The New York Times yesterday, which shows President Clinton shaking hands with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Evidently, this picture was released by the Obama campaign. (You will need a NYT premium account to view this article after one week.)

My only question about this picture is, "Where's the news?" (My college newspaper adviser used to say this to us when we ran a non-newsy story, or one that hadn't been adequately updated with the latest developments; I'll cop to running more of those than I should, but I was learning.)

Anyway, the fact that this is such a non-story is really the story here; that the media would even devote any time or space to it says a great deal about the levels the media will go to to get a "story" in this hotly contested Democratic primary.

First of all, it's a rather pathetic attempt by the Obama camp to divert attention away from the issue of Wright's relationship with him. I've gone on record as saying I think it's a problem, but not one that should disqualify Obama from becoming president. His speech earlier this week went a long way toward his moving past this pseudo-scandal, as I've called it. But, this is the sort of Clinton-like tactic that Obama has been complaining about since the beginning of the year. Pretty amateurish.

What's even more damning, though, is the absurd coverage the Times gives this picture - it's amazing that they actually found stuff to write about, including going so far as to post copies of the invitation from the president. (Full disclosure - it's on the Times' blog for the '08 race, The Caucus, but I question its newsworthiness.) I'm just disappointed that I didn't find out what the party favors were, or how tasty the food was, or if Rev. Wright put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (actually, that WOULD be newsworthy, now that I think about it), or if the president put his napkin in his lap and talked with his mouth full or not.

Cripes - I don't know who's more desperate in this campaign - the press to find some sort of scoop, any scoop, or the Clinton & Obama camps, clawing, kicking and screaming to finally come out on top with the nomination.

Obama hits one out of the park

I just finished listening to Barack Obama's speech on race relations that he delivered earlier today at the Constitutional Center in Philadelphia.

In short, I was pretty blown away with his speech - I really was. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that as I was driving in my car yesterday, I had a few twinges of doubt about whether Obama was going to survive this pseudo-scandal and I was listening to Bill Press on Sirius Satellite Radio. I have never personally believed Reverend Wright's highly offensive words to be any real reflection on Obama the man, but for a time, I felt that point of view was the minority opinion.

Quite frankly, this is one of the greatest political speeches I've heard, ever, and certainly the best one on race in my lifetime. I sincerely doubt that it will placate the right-wing nuts, and that's fine; nothing he says will ever satisfy them anyway. But, I'm thinking it will help him move beyond this controversy.

Since the presidential primaries began at the beginning of this year, it's nothing short of remarkable (and outrageous) about the press treatment that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have received. From my chair, it seems that the press vilified and slammed Hillary at every turn with overt misogyny by treating unfavorable opinions of her as fact, and also by bringing up every "scandal" ever associated with the Clintons, true or not. Clinton's early front runner status even presented the vapid Gennifer Flowers with another business opportunity to profit off the Clintons' public service.

And now, the press is all Obama, all the time, and not in a good way. And many of the negative stories are the result of a concerted effort by two of the most dominant and popular media outlets - Faux News and The Drudge Report. I've already written a great deal about this - Click Here. It still amazes me that major media networks and outlets report what they see and read on Drudge as if it is fact. This has happened so frequently in the past few years that it receives little if any attention, but it should. This right wing hack and provocateur has been doing the bidding of the Republican Party leadership for years, not to mention the numerous times he's taken stuff down from his Website that proved to be either false or riddled with half-truths. And apologies? Forget it - this guy apologizes less than my uncouth stepfather.

Here are some excerpts that I found particularly poignant and powerful, with my highlighted comments:

Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. [Bill O'Lielly, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, anyone?]

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. [Sorry, Fox News - looks like Obama is humble and human after all. I can almost hear Roger Ailes screaming, "How dare he be humble! He wants humble? Get me more dirt on this Barack bin Laden and I'll show him humble!]

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

[...]

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way. [You mean there is possibly more to Reverend Wright than those 30-second YouTube clips? What a no doubt disappointing thought for the likes of Sean Hannity, Michael Wiener, O'Lielly and Limbaugh, but I'm sure this won't deter the throng of "the Obamas hate America" crowd.]

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

[...]

Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. [Good - Obama is sticking by him, which shows guts and political courage - it would have been quick and expedient for Obama to throw him to the wolves, but he didn't do it.]

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. [Sustained Applause]

[...]

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their world view in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

[...]

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; [Applause] they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

[...]

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

[...]

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. [Yes! This is a theme that Democrats need to hammer over and over again - when the press spends time on someone a candidate is associated with a long time ago, we aren't spending time talking about the real issues that are affecting us: the wars, the deficit, lack of health care, etc. and this is just how Repubes want it. In '04, gay marriage was the big wedge issue. This year, it looks like it's race and (surprise) the Clinton scandals.]

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." [Emphasis Mine] This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time. [Emphasis Mine]

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

I can't even think of much to add to this speech, other than to say I think it hit just the right note, and now hopefully Obama can get started on putting this behind him. There's little doubt it will continue to get flogged on Drudge, Fox News and the like, but I believe that once people begin making reasoned, thought-out opinions on whether they should vote for Obama because of what his Reverend has said, he should be fine. I still believe he has too many delegates to not get the nomination.

I began poking around on Huff Po and YouTube for reactions to his speech, and to my surprise just about all of them were very encouraged by his speech and were generally positive. That alone qualifies as a "Wow," because those comment and message board areas can be fertile ground for cranks and intolerant rubes. Here's one of my favorite comments that I found: It's sad that a lot of these posters are cynical, angry, resentful and don't understand the history of America and the country and they want to sooooo much be proud in the superficial way, that they hate anybody that says anything bad about it.

Hmm - sound familiar? Michelle Obama, anyone? How dare she say that she hasn't been proud of her country in a long time?!? The NERVE!

This is why neo-con men need fact checking

I just read this from Marc Ambinder's blog over at The Atlantic Monthly: Bill Kristol, another conservative genius who obviously does lots of research before recurring bouts of political diarrhea that he spreads via print and broadcast appearances, has got one of his "facts" wrong in the Obama dust-up over Jeremiah Wright.

In his column this morning, Kristol claims:

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright's ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That's when Wright blamed the "arrogance" of the "United States of White America" for much of the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright's preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

Oops. I guess Kristol doesn't know to fact check his sources. I would think that a graduate of Harvard would know the importance of doing just that, especially when it's a political smear. But, I guess since it's a Democrat, the truth takes a backseat to a good 'ole fashioned hit piece.

Oh, and Kressler? His original piece, Obama Attended Hate America Sermon, reads that Obama "nodded" his head while Wright preached these lines:

Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, "Young African-American men" were "dying for nothing." The "illegal war," he shouted, was "based on Bush's lies" and is being "fought for oil money."

Both articles now have corrections. Here's Kristol's:

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

Yea, I bet you do, Bill.

As the saying goes, the damage is done. I wonder how many people will go right on believing that Obama was at that ceremony. It's a safe bet that more than a few Fox News viewers, will.

The pseudo-scandal of Jeremiah Wright

(Photo from The New York Times)

I'm loathe to bathe in the sewer of he said/she said stuff of the various supporters of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from the past week, but it's a pretty big issue, and I'm full of anger about it, so here goes. ...

First, presidential candidates cannot possibly be held responsible for what their various supporters say, feel and do. When some of those things happen to be idiotic, the candidates will distance themselves, and rightfully so.

I have some pretty strong opinions about the pseudo-Jeremiah Wright scandal. And YES, I'm calling it a "pseudo-scandal," dug up by the GOP's official disinformation station, Fox News, and some other networks of the so-called "liberal media." ABC News purchased many of Wright's sermons following his retirement when they were offered for sale, reportedly to look for "controversial material."

This is a stupid, transparent attempt to find dirt on Barack Obama, a powerful and popular candidate, who will likely be the Democratic presidential nominee.

First, what has Wright said that's so controversial? Plenty, and much of it I find outrageous and despicable. But not all of it.

Wright has said that Zionism has elements of "white racism," and that the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of violent American policies and proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Yikes. First of all, I'm sick and tired of the Antisemitism that is lobbed by the Jew haters in America and around the world, most notably by people like Louis Farrakhan, linked to Obama via Wright. Does that make Obama an Anti-Semite? Hardly.

Wright's reasoning that 9/11 is a consequence of violent American policies has more than a kernel of truth in it, but I don't feel America's policies in the past in any way justifies the attacks. No way. It does, however, partially explain them. Of course, this is unfashionable to say, especially in the eyes of many neocons, who are wrapped, packaged, draped and cloaked in belligerent patriotism.

Recently on CNN, the bloated, gambling addict William Bennett, a GOP talking head, was visibly miffed when someone (Michelle Obama) insinuated that America isn't the greatest country in the world. "It is," harrumphed Bennett. I'm so tired of that empty statement, and I'm even more tired of people accusing someone who won't go along with it of being unpatriotic. There are many things I don't like about America, and if you don't like that or think I'm unpatriotic, then I've got some suggestions about where you can go and how to get there.

Many African-American churches are pretty angry at how blacks have been treated in this country for, oh, about 300 years. Even a blind man can see that African-Americans still suffer some social injustices and have disadvantages in this country. Sure, some progress has been made, but we still have a long way to go. Our country has a long, painful history of racism and sexism - since our country's founding, Native-Americans, women and African-Americans all have plenty of stories to tell over three centuries of being mistreated, discriminated against and even murdered. Because I'm pointing out the obvious doesn't mean that I hate America, despite what some who disagree with me would undoubtedly say.

Sure, Wright has said some stupid things, no doubt designed to stir up his audience into a frenzy. Obama has publicly condemned those comments.

From a April 30, 2007 article in The New York Times (Subscription Required to access NYT archives):

"The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification," [Obama] said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but "it sounds like he was trying to be provocative."

"Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through," Mr. Obama said. "He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality."

Despite the canceled invocation, Mr. Wright prayed with the Obama family just before his presidential announcement. Asked later about the incident, the Obama campaign said in a statement, "Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church."

Does that disqualify Obama to be president? Surely it does not. The last time I checked, you can be proud of someone and have a relationship with someone without agreeing with everything that person says or does. But, as far as the neocons are concerned, this isn't possible if you're a presidential candidate. (Click the above link - I blogged about this yesterday - while I was growing up, the pastor of my church had some personal issues, but that doesn't mean he's a bad person or that I wouldn't associate with him today. But, that doesn't mean I think adultery is acceptable, either.)

For instance, I'm proud of the fact that I voted for Bill Clinton twice, in 1992 and in 1996. Am I proud of the fact that he had an adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky and lied about it? Of course not. But, does the fact that I voted for Clinton, and that I am to this day, an admirer of his make me a believer in adultery? Please. Am I proud that I twice voted for him? You're damn right I am. Hopefully, you see how stupid this argument quickly becomes upon reasoned analysis.

Speaking of analysis, let's do a little of it that you won't see on Faux News (or probably another other network, for that matter). Are Wright's comments any more offensive than some of the radical religious right's comments following 9/11? Specifically on September 13, 2001? Well, let's listen to them, shall we? ...

Both Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's comments are despicable, outrageous, inexcusable and yes, unforgivable. Of course, the next day a contrite Falwell apologized, but I think few took that apology sincerely, considering his track record of repeatedly spewing intolerant stuff like this and then subsequently apologizing when enough people were angry. I hope Falwell, rest in peace, is keeping Timothy McVeigh company.

How is any of this relevant to the Wright pseudo-controversy? You tell me...

In 2000, McCain rightfully called Falwell and those like him "agents of intolerance," but the 2007 version of McCain (when the picture above was taken) will pander and do anything to become president.

If Obama (or Hillary) is smart, during the fall campaign, if Fox and the right wing noise machine keeps up with the Jeremiah Wright propaganda, the picture above ought to be used extensively in political ads, along with the video of Falwell and that idiotic rube Robertson offering up their 9/11 blame games.

Anyway, does McCain's public embrace of Falwell disqualify him to be president? Nope - no more than Wright's comments disqualify Obama, and they don't.

Is there any chance that we could get back to the issues that are affecting tens of millions of Americans any time soon? That would really be nice.

In addition to the War in Iraq, where American deaths are now on the brink of 4,000, we have a mounting debt, an impending economic crisis, and a million other problems that are getting zero play in the press. More on what issues I consider important in a bit.

If anything, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns have not been nearly forceful or timely enough to distance themselves from the stupid remarks of their supporters. Hopefully, these are lessons that are learned and applied to the fall campaign, because one thing's for sure - if it's this ugly now, it's going to be infinitely uglier in the summer and fall.

It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Picking the Fox scab, & finding lots of pus

What's been going on for over a year is now beginning to pick up steam - the Swiftboating of Barack Obama. There is so much crap and misinformation floating about on the Internet now, and I just hope Obama's campaign (or Hillary's, if she is the nominee) acts swiftly (pardon the pun) to refute the lies and misinformation. Anyway, the people over at Fox Attacks have put together a number of insightful videos that are great montages of the attacks against Obama over the last year and a half or so by Fox and its talking heads.

Evidence of Fox's smear campaign against Obama is not hard to unearth - the difficult part is documenting it all, since there's so much of it: the bogus madrassa story, lies about his not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and his egregious offense of not wearing an American flag lapel pin every minute of every day, and so on. In many ways, Fox and its disciples are like the ocean tides - it just keeps on coming. But that doesn't mean the truth should remain hidden behind the network's blatantly obvious partisan and biased reporting.

This one's a blast from the past - Part I from February '07...

(I know I just posted Part I last week, but in case you missed it (or even if you didn't), it's worth another look.)

My personal favorites from Part I:

"Barack Obama in a bathing suit!"

"...The network America trusts for fair and balanced reporting." *Snicker*

All of the "he's a black candidate" crap, as well as the fact that Obama is "surrounding himself with white people."

"Barack... HUSSEIN... Obama"

"He is, get this... a cigarette smoker" [Emphasis in Original]

"Apparently when he was a little boy, he attended a Muslim school, a madrassa... THIS... IS... HU-YOOGE!" [Emphasis in Original]

"We're gonna be the headquarters for the 2008 election..."

Um, yea, maybe the '08 headquarters for intellectual midgets and right wing neo-cons who want to practice cognitive dissonance by listening to O'Lielly blathering about the Nazis, or Sean Insanity blubbering endlessly about Obama's middle name. I don't know many people outside of those categories who take Fox seriously. But, there are enough people who do for it to be necessary to refute these distortions and outright lies.

And here's Part II, just released by Fox Attacks...

Yep, the latest installment has some pretty good highlights, too. Here are my favorites, in no particular order:

"He's a 'half-rican' anyway..." Really? This Rush Limbaugh-ism is so overtly childish and racist it defies description, but I'll try. Of course, some would say, "but Obama is!" but that doesn't necessitate bringing it up. For instance, I don't hear anyone calling Limbaugh "Limbephant" because of his pachyderm-like appearance. Bringing up Obama's ethnicity, that he's half black, is the same reason that all Fox announcers never miss an opportunity to say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"; it's to exploit people's fears and prejudices about race and religion, PERIOD.

"People are literally passing out at Obama rallies." First of all, I haven't heard that, but if it's true, it's almost as if the talking heads at Fox are jealous of Obama's surging popularity. Even if it is true, it still contrasts pretty nicely to McCain rallies, where people pass out because they haven't had their afternoon nap. Okay, that was low, but hopefully you get my point.

"...the kind of popularity that Chairman Mao only dreamed of." Which is it? Is he a Muslim or a communist? Maybe both? I haven't heard of many Muslim Communists, but I guess the do exist. Far-right Repubes really need to come up with better material than calling someone a communist; that's so, um, 1950.

"Will President Obama blame America first?" This was in the aftermath of Michelle Obama having the temerity to say that she wasn't proud of her country. In the aftermath of this, it also became an "issue" that Obama doesn't consistently wear a "flag lapel pin." (the faux "necessity" of wearing something representing an American flag reminds me of something else [at right], at the risk of inciting Goodwin's Law.) Obama has sagely pointed out on numerous occasions that you "don't have to wear a lapel pin to be patriotic," and he's absolutely right. Brit Hume's assertion that outright displays of patriotism for the Obamas is "a little icky" is, sadly, exactly the type of churlish comment I've come to expect from a once-respected journalist. I really wonder how these people at Fox look at themselves in the mirror every morning - making no doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions to intentionally distort, deceive and lie. I couldn't do it.

However, my personal favorite from the above vid - the "Jeremiah Wright" mention by college drop-out Sean Hannity. I guess it's not enough that Obama has repeatedly distanced himself from and denounced Wright's controversial comments. Since when does a church member follow or believe everything that his/her member of the clergy practices or preaches? It's ridiculous. For example, the pastor of the church I went to when I was young had a sexual affair with a young staffer, and as a result, his wife divorced him and he was kicked out of my church. Does that mean I support or believe in adultery? No. Put differently, should certain Catholic congregation members be accused of supporting or condoning pedophilia because their priest has a penchant for altar boys? Please. This is simply a sad, pathetic, transparent attempt to find dirt on Obama - sadly, this "controversy" seems to "have legs" as the saying goes, in the non-Fox mainstream media - it's been all over the news lately, including NBC News, Time Magazine, CNN, etc. Here's hoping that Americans who think for themselves (non-Fox viewers) will see it for what it is - a network with an agenda that will stop at nothing to smear Obama. It's Bill Clinton all over again. Sadly, many will believe what they see and hear on Fox.

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq, there are a record number of mortgage foreclosures, oil is trading above $110 a barrel & our economy is collapsing, yet Fox wants to insult its viewers with tales of what Obama's pastor said years ago? I just don't believe these "Karl Rove" tactics are going to wash in 2008. I pray I'm right. But, Democrats cannot and must not take anything for granted - there are millions who believe all of this stuff. Speaking of Rove, is it ANY SURPRISE that Fox has hired this guy? The "network" really is a disgrace.

I find it astounding, but not surprising, that Repubes consistently whine and complain about the "librul media" (Bush pronunciation) when the highest rated cable news network is Fox, and one of the most visited Websites on the 'Net, and definitely the most visited political site, is the Drudge Report. Both of these propaganda media drive the rest of the media - Tim Russert taking his cues from Fox News in Part II above is a stark example of this.

And the Russert example above is not an exaggeration - it happens all the time. There are numerous examples of stories that first appear on Drudge, and it quickly makes its way into the rest of the media, reported as news.

By the way, guess which current federal office holder holds the record for Meet the Press appearances - it's John McCain, with 52 appearances. The media must be librul, right?

Yet, despite these truths, even some smart people drink the Fox Kool-Aid. I received this e-mail from one of my best friends yesterday about Obama:

Coming Home to Roost

Jeremiah Wright = Swift Boating 2008

As I said in my last e-mail - Obama needs to somehow sidestep his 20-year relationship with this time bomb, and even if he does, this one is not going away. What was a whisper is not being shouted from major networks.

First, he mentions "Swift Boating 2008" as if it's a good thing. My ill-informed friend no doubt has not seen the video comparison above, nor has probably seen any of the Democratic debates. Even if he has, his mind has no doubt been polluted by the intellectually dishonest snake oil salesmen at Fox, and its disciples.
~~~
However, the best interpretation of just what Fox, Roger Ailes & Rupert Murdoch are up to comes from the aforementioned Fox Attacks in a recent blog entry:

I had a very disturbing talk with my dad about Barack Obama.

I was on the phone with my parents telling them about the video I was working on, FOX ATTACKS! Obama Part 2: Spreading the Virus, and brought up how FOX (Sean Hannity, in particular) has been desperately trying to create a connection between Louis Farrakhan and Barack Obama because a magazine founded by Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and run by Wright's daughters recently gave Louis Farrakhan an award. I told my parents how Hannity went from saying the magazine gave Farrakhan the award to claiming Wright gave him the award (which he didn't) to saying that Obama "associated" with Farrakhan (which he hasn't). Hannity would mostly use these "stories" so he could rattle off some of Farrakhan's most offensive comments and mention Obama in the same breath, effectively linking the two in the minds of FOX viewers. He just wants to say, "Obama — Farrakhan — racist — anti-Semite" over and over again until they are linked, just as FOX did with "Iraq — Al Qaeda — 9/11 — terrorism" in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Of course, Hannity almost never mentions that Obama has repeatedly denounced Farrakhan's racist, anti-semitic, and inflammatory remarks, has called for more cooperation between the black and Jewish communities, has spoken before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and has been defended by the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and other prominent Jewish organizations. But Hannity doesn't want his viewers to know this. He just wants them to have a vague impression that Obama is an anti-semite and a black separatist.

When I mentioned this example to my parents, my dad said, "Wait, didn't Louis Farrakhan give Obama an award and Obama accepted it?" When I told him that this was completely off, he said, "Oh, I guess I must have heard it wrong."

Somewhere, Sean Hannity, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are poking holes in an Obama voodoo doll, laughing.