Liberty and Justice for All!

Much has been said about Obama’s former pastor and his comments about America and white people. Those comments should not be excused (and Obama denounced them). However, if Wright was white, and he spoke badly about gay people in his church, how much outrage would there be? How many hateful things are said by clergy in white, extremist, evangelical churches about homosexuals? How many of those offended by the words of Wright will agree with (or even cheer for) the anti-gay statements made in their own church? Isn’t it hypocritical of someone to be offended at the same thing they are guilty of supporting?

Just sayin

I cannot cite who said this because the person who posted it on another forum did not cite it as well. I am sure the author, whoever he is, would not mind the argument in support of Obama not leaving his church or abandoning his pastor to be spread on the net:

Obama could have distanced himself from his Mother and Grandmother. I know too many individuals who have done that very thing… for lesser issues.

This is, obviously (to me), not Obama’s style, rhetoric, or history.

Apparently, from what I understand, all of Obama’s life he has resisted the temptations he may have experienced to distance himself from those with whom he disagrees and instead he continues to interact with them in ways that help bridge any political and religious (and other) gaps that may exist between Obama and others with whom he interacts.

His relationship with his minister, obviously (to me), reflects this outlook Obama has regarding human relationships. His failing to alienate himself from his minister, and his church, due to some important and profound differences in their outlook, is consistent with his beliefs that our differences are not nearly as important as are our shared goals.

Obama has been consistently preaching this idea for a long time… ever since I have been watching him. Why should it be a surprise or a shock to me, or to anyone else, that he practices what he preaches, even when it comes to his Church and his Minister?

Had Obama decided to separate himself from his church and his minister, that would have been behavior that is, obviously (to me), antithetical to his message and the way he has conducted his life heretofore.

If Obama had separated himself from his church and his minister, that would render his message of unity, tolerance, and understanding, nothing less than rank hypocrisy on his part.

There is the also the argument that i have been making in that we are not blaming people who have not left the Catholic Church even though the clergy has shown a history of tolerating child molesters. Why havn’t they left? Well, because they still believe in the core beliefs of the church even though some of the people in charge have done things they do not agree with. And as the argument above states, they also find the common ground shared instead of focusing on the differences.

Perhaps if more people looked at the common ground that they share instead of the differences we would be in a much better place.

I had heard this once before, but again the Florida Democrats are claiming that the reason why their primary was held before it was supposed to because the Republican controlled legislature gave them no choice. On the issue of a re-vote:

A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it’s simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option.

On the issue of following the rules:

“The rules are the rules.” Unfortunately, the rules did not apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina when they, too, violated the DNC calendar by moving from their assigned dates.

So if certain states violated the rules and have their delegates count then Florida should absolutely have theirs count as well, especially if the reason why they lost their vote is because the Republican controlled legislature controlled the date.

On the issue of race he stated:

“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,”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. There are people today who got attacked by dogs, who got hit with fire hoses, who had to sit at the back of the bus. To expect them to not be angry over the past failures of our country is absurd. And while the conclusions that some reach that are based on that anger are sometimes wrong, that doesn’t make the anger any less justified.

“But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.”

Exactly.

In response to a question on why Barack Obama is the front-runner, she said:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept

Again, Democrats need to invest in people who will help them say things the right way. First of all, there is no way to claim to know what position the mythical “white Barack Obama” would be in if he was running for President. As a caller to WWL rightly said this afternoon, it is highly possible that the mythical ”white Barack Obama” would have already locked up the nomination since there are still, unfortunately, some people who still look at race when walking into the voting booth.

What Ferraro should have said, and what I think she meant, was that Barack Obama has been successful in many states because of his race. The polling numbers clearly show that voters who are black are coming out to vote and a super-majority of them are voting for Obama. Clearly, Obama is doing well in Southern States where a large percentage of the Democratic Party are Black. His success in those races have enabled him to obtain and retain the lead. So his race may very well have HELPED.

However, her assumption that those voters would not have come out in support of the mythical “white Barack Obama” is clearly flawed because there is no way to know what voters who are Black may have done. Barack Obama is an exceptional person and I feel that he would likely be a star in the party if he was blue.

Obama’s response shows he really doesn’t understand what she was saying.

If you were to get a handbook on what’s the path to the presidency, I don’t think that the handbook would start by saying, ‘Be an African American named Barack Obama.’ I don’t think that would be generally considered an advantage, and it certainly wasn’t when I was running for the United States Senate or the presidency

Of course such a handbook would not say that. However, it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Obama’s race has not helped him. It is just also foolish to claim that Obama would not be in the lead if he was another race, or a woman.

And where do we get that handbook…..

According to a report by truthout, the Democrats believe they have a shot to give a Democratic President a 60 vote, filibuster proof, Senate. This will be the first time since Carter that such a Senate would exist. This would mean that the Democrats would have to get 10 new Democratic Senators. Someone in the article stated that 60 would be the target and that only 9 seats will be needed. However, on issues pertaining to the war, I believe Joe Lieberman would aid the filibuster of legislation he disagrees with. So if we want a truly filibuster proof Senate, we need 10 new Democrats. Here is a map of the seats that are up for grabs, the darkest red states have two Senate races.

Now lets look at the Obama electoral map and the Clinton electoral map.

Obama has the lead in WA/NM/CO/WI/VA/ME/NH and is very close in TX. 

Clinton has the lead in NM/WI/ME.

Assuming that the Democrats can hold on to their red state senators, a Hillary campaign may help the Democrats gain 3 seats. However, an Obama campaign may be able to gain 7 (or possibly even 8) seats. This, of course, doesn’t take into consideration the strength of the Democratic candidate in those races. It only takes into consideration the coattails that someone may be able to ride if a particular candidate is the Democratic nominee.

The bottom line is that most likely, the Democrats will probably not be able to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate. However, I do applaud people in the party for aiming high. Getting 54-57 seats would be nothing to sneeze at. However, in aiming high, we need to make sure we do not lose any seats. The Republican goal of gaining 2 seats is much more modest than our goal of getting 60. I would hate to see us shoot for the stars and in doing so cause the Senate to turn Republican for our next Democratic President.

The threat of terrorist attacks has been used by this administration to justify its actions and to win their 2004 election with fear. Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, is it any surprise that a new terrorist threat has been revealed?

[Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of the U.S. Northern Command] did, however, repeat his assertion — which he first made in July — that he believes there are al-Qaida cells or sympathizers within the United States.

President Bush, in a speech Thursday, also said the United States remained under threat from terrorists.

Bush will continue to discuss the terrorist threats that face our country to try and scare us. McCain will use the same scare tactics to try and convince people to vote for him. However, while they try and scare us, they reveal the fact that the threat still exists despite their actions. So what I want to know is this. When will the American public stop thinking “oh no, the terrorists are going to get us if we elect a Democrat” and start thinking “wow, this Republican Administration is incapable of eliminating the terrorist threat and perhaps we need to elect a Democrat to try something different”.

Albert Einstein stated that to repeat the same thing over and over again and expect different results is the definition of insanity. Believing that Republicans can eliminate the terrorist threat after 7 years of failure is also insanity.

About a month ago I asked why they can’t produce a “meaningful poll”. To me, national polls do not tell the picture since we elect our president based on the electoral college. An example is a poll done by SurveyUSA showing Hillary having a better nationwide result than Obama over McCain.

Well, thanks to oyster, we now have meaningful polls taken in the presidential race. These polls are done on a state by state basis and, while not perfect, show a snapshot of how the country is leaning.

According to the newest SurveyUSA poll, Barack Obama beats John McCain with an electoral vote count of 280-258. Hillary Clinton beats John McCain with an electoral vote count of 276-262. What is even more impressive is that they take into account the way that some states split electoral college votes.

Hillary does what she needs to do in this poll and wins all three “swing states” (OH/PA/FL)  and also wins AK/WV but loses WA/OR/MI. Obama loses PA, FL, and NJ! However, Obama wins by swinging VA/NV/CO/ND/IA into the blue corner. Both candidats pick up NM.

The polls do not reflect the possible theory that Obama would be able to pick up southern states because of a Republican disinterst in McCain and a large minority turnout. Obama loses the deep south and barely wins VA. Of course, Hillary also loses most of the south as well.

But the bottom line is that at the moment, dispite the nationwide poll showing Hillary as having the advantage, Obama is actually polling better in the electoral college and I feel much better about the possibility of an Obama nomination.

Hillary is doing it. Obama is not. Hillary Clinton is winning Ohio, a swing state that Democrats need to win in the fall. With 80% of the precincts reporting, Hillary is beating Obama by 14% in. Hillary has also won California, New York, Massachusetts, and Florida (even though the vote did not count, and they may be holding new elections there).

What is even more important is that Hillary with 80% of the vote reporting has more votes than all the other Republican candidates combined, Obama does not. Now, it is possible that other, more conservative, areas of the state may still report and when the vote reaches 100% that fact may not be true. However, the goal here (as I have said from day one) is to elect the most electable Democratic candidate. I had my doubts about Hillary initially. However, it is clear that she is winning the states that she will need to win in the fall and Obama is winning states that he will not win in the fall.

Change is great. If Obama wins I will support him 100%. However, I fear that the idealism that people are feeling for Barack Obama is a lot like the blind following that a certain Governor of Louisiana had in his election. Louisiana is learning, some faster than others, that the blind faith they put in Jindal was misplaced. If Obama cannot rally enough support in states where the Democrats need him to win, but he still manages to win the primaries, will his victory be a Phyrric (Olbermann’s new favorite word) one? Obama supporters need to take a long hard look in the mirror and really consider whether an Obama victory will mean a Democratic victory in the fall. We should not blindly support ”change” if at the end of the day we end up with more of the same.   

And of course, Hillary can “win” Texas and Obama could get more delegates out of Texas, something the political spinsters will love and will make this race into even more of a headache.

MSNBC is also reporing that there was a supposed call from Obama to Clinton tonight. Im sure that if this did happen it really meant nothing other than perhaps a “congrats” on winning Ohio.

Barack Obama was interviewed and he said that he wants Will Smith to play him. One reason he said that was because of the ears. But I still think that Dwayne “the rock” Johnson is a better choice, especially for the voice.