You'd Think Reverend Wright Was Leroy Brown

Do people really think that if your pastor or priest or rabbi says something you disagree with that you should get up and leave forever. I disagree with plenty of what I hear in church but I stay put. I'm sure they don't consider me an agent for them nor do I consider them agents for me. We coexist because I accept that on balance they mean well and do more good than bad. Remember, it's about God, we're the the imperfect ones.
And isn't respect for individual thinking what should really trump here. If not, then why isn't every loony family member, friend, professor, staff member or supporter paid more attention to. What about Billy Carter's influence on Jimmy Carter or Roger Clinton on Bill Clinton. What about Geraldine Ferraro's influence on Senator Clinton? I find her words about Senator Obama more cleverly chosen but no less disturbing. In case you didn't hear, let me repeat it here for you. "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."
Senator Clinton's response was, "Well, I don't believe in that, and I think it's important that we try and stay focused on issues that matter to the American people." Senator Clinton, this issue does matter to a lot of people and it's why Reverend Wrights audiences like to hear about it occasionally, if for nothing else than to let them know that they are not alone in their struggles.
Isn't that what every church provides. Some just do it differently than others.
Reverend Wright shouldn't have dropped the n-bomb or used profanity of any kind and should have used his brain a little more but he did not invalidate the fact that for the most part white Americans enjoy the advantage of being first judged for their deeds-a luxury not yet afforded all African Americans.
Fire and brimstone style prophetic oratory was not invented by African American preachers and in fact early evangelical preachers like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were allowed to draw and quarter America for it's sins and their deeds went unpunished. They even had actual victims-perceived threats like Jews, gays and pro-choice supporters and so on.
Beyond that remember that religion is a business because without donations it doesn't exist. For lack of a better word, entertainment brings people into church and that is why Reverend Wright was there. He built the membership up by giving patrons what they wanted. And like it or not that is how mortal humans behave even when given divine responsibilities.
Sure I'd like to see them all stick to matters of religion and faith but that genie was never in the bottle.
So with their newly found fodder we'll have to endure all those who wouldn't have ever voted for a black man named Barrack Obama in the first place. They will seize vigorously every opportunity to destroy his chances.
I know one thing for sure; the loudest of them I will listen to least.

Enjoy It While It Lasts

I got lucky and scored some good tickets to a Laker game the other night. They played Sacramento who I am a fan of because I lived in that area for several years. If you haven't tried it, suffice to say that it's not a comfortable thing to sit amongst a bunch of enthusiastic home team fans and want the other team to win. Making matters worse, Sacramento lead most of the game and in a dramatic ending won by a single point. I had to choose the middle ground and didn't root for either team because I didn't want to subject my family members to a fracas. It took a lot of self restraint and took a little of the fun out of it but it was a great game with mediocre defense which provided for a lot of made plays which is my favorite thing to watch.
What is so remarkable is that no matter how breathtakingly good the visiting teams plays were, it was met with dead silence.
To me the game of basketball can take on a near performance art quality when played well and viewed up close. But their is no mistaking that, all being equal, your favorite teams well executed plays are the best.
Being the political season and me being glued to it, you had to expect that I would transform this into something to do with politics, right? Well sure enough, my point is that like basketball fans the media and everyone else on the planet is biased about their picks in this Presidential election. I find that only when this is really taken to heart and accepted as fact can I step back and see this thing for what it really is.
For example, and it is hard to say this as an Obama supporter but, Saturday Night Live had it right in their season opener suggesting that the media was biased against Senator Clinton. To me it was very obvious. There were many excuses but I don't think any reasonable person could deny it. SNL being a New York City product and treasure consciously or unconsciously came to their Senators aid in pointing out the obvious. There has now been a call of foul from Obama supporters that SNL is biased against Senator Obama.
With a little introspection many in the media have now rushed to the starboard side of the S.S. Neutral. She'll likely list there for a while until a bigger story comes along.
One thing you can be sure of is that the power brokers, the ones who are compelled to put their opinions out there in an effort to convince others, be it the media or through the media, have already made up their minds. One fortunate byproduct is that this is as close to egalitarianism as we ever get around here because the common folk have something they need very badly and that is our vote. It's usually the other way around so being unaccustomed to this role and unsure how to convince us they make plenty mistakes. These stumbles and blunders tell us a lot about them and their real intent and makes watching that much more fun. Enjoy it while it lasts.

AFL/CIO Dem Debate

MSNBC went with their entertainment newsman Kieth Oberman to referee this event. His day job is being MSNBC'S counter-weight to Fox News where he slings mud and generally takes the low road in challenging the competition. Luckily we were spared the insufferable sermonized drivel he has become famous for. In fact in last nights role and in others, to be fair, he's done a decent enough job. I guess that was the Kieth Oberman who was influenced by Hal Fishman who he duly thanked at the end of the debate. Fishman, a 46 year TV news veteran from Los Angeles, died yesterday. He was an old school, quality newsman who will be missed.
Anyway, may I go backwards because I'm forgetting this thing so fast that soon I'll have nothing to say. Probably not a good sign.
Question? What exactly is the point in interviewing candidates campaign managers, media strategists and the like as we are routinely subjected to with last night being no exception? Chris Mathews did the honors this time. What a ridiculous way to try to learn anything. Chris, bring their mothers on next time. At least there would be a slight chance to hear something less than glowing.
Then there are the experts that size up what just happened. Now tell me something-how do you feel when someone says they know what you want? A little irritated maybe? Let's face it, people don't tell other people this unless they want an argument or worse. So why do the so called political experts do it all the time. This time it was Pat Buchanan and Willie Brown who said over and over, "what the American people want..." I understand that they each were candidates in campaigns and have insight but that is the extent of it. To claim they know what people want is flagrantly false and when they say it I find it insulting and stop listening.
Now to the debate. I think that one objective and informative way to judge this debate is to look at how they handled the pandering. The event host was the AFL/CIO so let's look at who pulled the blue collar stuff off the shelf with the greatest of ease. With potentially millions watching it is interesting to see what balance they strike between the spirited live audience and the inanimate yet important home viewers. I'm after a shamelessness quotient here and there were five winners. The shared award goes to Rep. Kucinich, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton, more or less in that order.
From opening sympathies expressed for the Utah Mine Workers through bad toys and human rights violations in China it seemed that these candidates decided to go for the bird in the hand. I am not saying that these issues or NAFTA, outsourcing, trade, corporate aid, health care, medicaid, lobbyist, or exporting jobs etc. are not important and my heart sincerely does go out to the Utah mine workers and their families but you can't be or promise everything to everyone without looking somewhat disingenuous and they did. Rep. Kucinich, the self proclaimed card carrying member of the AFL/CIO promised so much I was left to wonder if there was going to be anything left for me when he was done. He said he would withdraw from NAFTA in his first week in office and asked, "why do you need an infrastructure?" Then said, "so you can create a base for new jobs." In one way or another he seemed to try to make the AFL/CIO the center of the universe and he made me want to grab my wallet thinking about how he will pay for it all. Sen. Dodd said such things as he would ban outsourcing of jobs and China is our adversary. Gov. Richardson repeated many of the same promises along with Sen.Edwards blaming lobbyists for everything including NAFTA and even telling of a time when, "no scab can cross a picket line." Mr. Oberman had to settle him down by reminding Sen. Edwards that he came from a right to work state. Sen. Edwards conceded that North Carolina does have a very small organized labor movement. What I heard from most of these candidates was the usher to protectionism and I wonder if anyone remembered the pitfalls of the past.
Sen. Clinton was far more clever but chimed in with a broad study of NAFTA and said it needed broad reform and smart trade, trade prosecutors, renewable energy for jobs to lift the American worker and criticized China by agreeing with Sen. Bidens comments.
So how did Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden do on the pandering test? Better, I believe. Sen. Obama said there are some winners and some losers in matters of trade and he thought NAFTA needed to be amended. He said no one wants to lose their job but globalization is here and we have to address special interests and a tax code that favors corporations. In regards to China he said we have to recognize arguments on both sides. He said it is hard to negotiate when they are our bankers.
Sen. Biden spoke of his attempts to deal with the infrastructure problem with a proposed 20 billion dollar bill. He said we don't need anymore studies. The subways in New York along with 27% of the bridges are unsafe. He said that it's a presidents job to create jobs not export jobs and there is a lack of presidential leadership. He also repeated Sen. Obama's statement about China in a slightly different way saying that China holds the mortgage on our house.
You can see here that these candidates are thoughtful when answering questions of this nature. Where the other candidates showed little restraint and tried to please everyone, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden met self imposed resistance to such temptations. This to me is a sign of integrity and general good character and I found this to be the case through the whole debate.That's what I'll be looking for come election time.
On the other hand the craft of politics has begun in earnest. Sen.Clinton is now trying every trick in the book to bury Sen.Obama but so far not succeeding. Her position on Pakistan and actionable intelligence that she criticized Sen. Obama for is shrewed but deceitful. She previously was on the record with a position identical to Sen. Obama's and as Sen. Biden pointed out, when it comes to actionable intelligence, this is the policy of this Government if not the law. The statement about not being able to say what you think does seem as Sen. Obama points out, an insider approach. And check out her odd man out game. "Chris Dodd and I were on a panel..." or "amen to Joe Biden," and this was for a point Sen. Biden took from Sen. Obama's about China being our bankers and changed it to holding the mortgage on our house. And she thinks it unwise to telegraph your game plan. Hers is as clear as it gets. How about her "3 point plan.'' The back door here is Al Qaeda. To be used conveniently should you get in a jamb. Wonder where she learned that one? In the mean time Sen. Obama nails a question about immigration reform and clarifies to Mr.Oberman that he does not have federal lobbyists bundling for him nor does he accept PAC money. He also defended a two pronged attack from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Dodd on the Pakistan issue. He did try to change what he said previously about Pakistan's President Musharraf and I've duly taken note of this.
Finally, from her fathers dream baseball stadium fable to "if you want to fight the right wing machine, I'm your girl," comment, this is one high gloss politician. What kind of arrogance would make her want to utter the words right wing anything. Recall who started the whole right wing conspiracy counter attack strategy while obstructing justice over the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Does Tammy Wynette and stand (or not) by your man ring a bell. Anyway you cut it, it shows poor judgement.
Because this was so damn cynical my promise to you is that my next post will be light hearted. How's that, a promise I can keep.

Democrats Round Two

A better Democratic debate this time to be sure. But not because of CNN as they would have you believe. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite on the air, basking in adulation from colleagues just for doing his job. Wolf Blitzer did it, and for me whether or not he did his job is questionable. Take his show of hands approach when questioning on such critical issues as firing missiles at a suspected Osama Bin Laden target or the use of force in Sudan. It was thoughtless at best and perhaps purposefully contrived. To her credit, Senator Clinton refused to take the bait.
Then there was the thinly veiled question about how the candidates would use President Clinton in their administration. Why be phony? Why not just ask the question of the person it was intended for, Senator Clinton, and get on with it. Like I've said before, President Clinton is not revered nearly as much as some would have you think and CNN knows that candidates will answer this type of question affirmatively even if it hurts their campaign. I guess this is their idea of cutting edge reporting. Don't hold your breath waiting for a similar question about President Bush asked of the Republican candidates by CNN.
Some of his follow-up questions sounded like Blitzer hadn't been listening to the answers. At one point Rep. Kucinich gave an appropriate answer, right or wrong, to a question about restoring the military, Blitzer says "but the question was..." and repeats it. Kucinich, looking stunned rephrased his answer. Maybe Blitzer preferred another answer but he clearly didn't listen to what Kucinich had just said.
I'm sure they would argue as journalists that these questions were designed to find "the best obtainable version of the truth" but they missed the mark. The whole event seemed out of balance. CNN will have to start getting up a lot earlier if they think they're going to out smart these candidates, Democrat or Republican.
The bottom line is that CNN is chasing Fox news. Hopefully they're only envious of their ratings. They appear to be willing to try anything including heaping kudos on themselves to catch up, maybe thinking that a certain number of people watching will mindlessly agree. It's sad to watch the process of a formerly respected news source go the way of an entertainment show. Particularly when their competition never had to go through such humiliation. Yep and let me just take a moment to say goodbye to any Fox news fans who should ever stumble on this site.
After the debate there was a lot of comparing the candidates to their last performance which is alarming because therein lies some of the negative value of these early parades through the paddocks. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen people promoted or bestowed with bonuses, honors or other rewards for being "most improved" and they still didn't meet the necessary standard that those who were overlooked routinely met. The media gets sucked into this all the time. A reference point makes their job easier I suspect but it has no place in evaluating someones performance or abilities.
As usual the most substantive answers seemed to come from what they call the second tier candidates. But the style masters or front runners did well enough to hold their leads. For reasons I'll never understand, we like to play what we think is the safest bet and that's just the way it is. So even if Governor Richardson is a proven diplomat and we badly need one, or Rep. Kucinich is the least war mongering when that might come in handy, all we can hope for is that one of the front runners will remember their names when it comes time to fill positions requiring those skills.
A few other things stuck with me about this debate. First the negatives. I know it occurred on both sides to be fair but I'll never understand how someone could vote on the authorization to attack Iraq without reading the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate. And one of them was Senator Clinton who keeps repeating her famous line "if I knew then what I know now" statement. Go figure. Then there is John Edwards trying to differentiate himself from himself, I guess. He's the one guy who would keep me up at night if his numbers started improving.
And finally the positives. I was glad to see Senator Dodd repeatedly emphasize how grateful Democrats are to our troops. The opposition loves to say otherwise and saying this over and over is the only way to dispel this insinuation. I also liked Senator Bidens perspective on Iran and his attempt to moth ball "regime change" as a policy toward that country.
Then there was Senator Obama, perhaps the best orator of the group who said things like "it erodes our moral claims to act on broader universal principles" or " The strength of our military has to be matched with the power of our diplomacy to build alliances around the world." These are from memory so excuse me if they're not just right but I eat that stuff up and he is still holding my attention.
Finally, it's reassuring that the candidates, both Republican and Democrat are about the smartest bunch I've ever seen run. Most of them, quite likely could do a good job for America. So we have an interesting race with little downside and plenty of upside. It should be fun to watch. Goodnight.