Ok, so is it just me or has anyone else noticed the way the Democrats are rewarding each other? President-elect Obama took the Democratic Primaries, and to reward Senator Hillary Clinton for not fighting out the DNC he gave her the Secretary of State position.

In doing so he swallowed all of the comments of former President Bill Clinton - most regarding President Obama as secondary and racially questionable. He has effectively ignored all the attempts of the Clinton campaign to paint him as a Muslim, and drug dealer. And he has taken the most ambitious and willing -to-do-anything political viper into his cabinet.

All Senator Clinton had to do was make a complete political 180-degree turn around on what she had spent months and millions of dollars stating. Not that such actions are unusual for her.

And the public got a Secretary of State that derives part of her income from monies donated to charities she and her husband run, from countries what have dubious at best relations with the U.S. We received a Secretary of State that was willing to have a major fundraiser that was a known fugitive from the law, and tried to keep the money he provided, which was known to be stolen.

President-elect Obama has just rewarded Gov. Richardson with a Secretary of Commerce position. Gov. Richardson was the first to back Obama and run from the Clinton campaign. For such political shrewedness it was expected he would get the State position. But Latinos are not as important as donor money, 18 million supporters, and a backdoor deal (made just after Hillary conceded).

One of the things that has really gone unmentioned is Representative Charles Rangel. He was the key Democrat that push Senator Clinton into conceding the Democratic Primary. He is known as a staunch Clintonite, so his doing so made him a visible example.

Shortly after blasting Hillary (politically) it was found that Representative Rangel had homes in the Dominican Republic that he paid no tax on, that he had several rent-subsidized apartments in new York City though he claims Washington DC as his residence. Add to that the fact he is now also being investigated for receiving $1 million in donations to his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service from the CEO of Nabors Industries after he got them a tax break.

Most of his tax and residence issues all existed for years. And not a single person in Congress ever made not of this. The IRS never questioned it. Everyone in politics were completely fine with his actions, until he pissed of Hillary Clinton.

So what are we seeing in the Obama Administration?

Old politics in the embodiment of past figures from the Clinton Administration. Partisan politics in the number and degree of down-the-line Democrat political figures. People (Like Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton) that are known for their spiteful actions to those that oppose their views. People that are willing to accept funds and favors from anyone that can advance their political goals. People that will seemingly say anything, and reverse their publicly stated opinions at the drop of a hat, for political favor.

And we have an Administration that is filled with crossed political agendas. Vice President-elect Biden opposed President-elect Obama on several foreign policy and economic views - which he reportedly believes in and wants to support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposes President Obama on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and a number of goals that she has sworn repeatedly to uphold for her 18 million voters. And Secretary of Commerce Richardson is not without his disputes and objectives.

This is an Administration that was primarily loyal to the Clinton's, hates any policy that is not left-wing liberal, blindly pro-Democrat, with little to no positive experience with economic issues. Several of the key figures all have opposing and partisan agendas - none of which match the stated goals of President Obama.

The in-fighting that will occur will be unmatched by any Administration I can recall in my lifetime. And we the people will get the rewarding opportunity to watch this all unfold via television and blogs. The only price of admission will be the economy at large and the national debt. Not too big a price some might say.

And for those that oppose any part of this, this Administration has enough venom to kill a African Black Mamba. Just ask Rep. Rangel. Too bad Iran, Al Quida, Indian extremists, Russian expansionists, OPEC, the stock market, NATO and many others could give a damn less about American internal political oneupmanship.

Labels: American politics, Congressman Charles Rangel, Democratic Party, Gov. Bill Richardson, Obama Administration, President Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Senator Hillary Clinton, Vice President Biden

As the nation moves on to the news of Bill Richardson endorsing Senator Obama in a move to probably get a nod at the Vice-Presidential I want to step back. The fact is that Senator Obama needs the change of direction to be nominated, but the issue is too important to fade.

The immediate anger that was expressed across the media, and the nation via poll results, makes it clear that America has issues with people of color. When a couple of words, spoken by someone other than Senator Obama, creates a furor it is obvious why. And let’s get the facts straight.

Rev. Wright was a pastor for 35 years. He has made perhaps thousands of sermons in that time, each perhaps 1 or 2 hours long. But the media was able to find roughly 5 sermons, and within those sermons 1 or 2 snippets of 10 seconds each, to crucify the entirety of his career. And what was so objectionable in those 10 seconds of commentary without context? That America is run by White Americans, that Senator Clinton has never been called the N-word, that American government did nothing to retard crack until the drug spilled over to White neighborhoods, and so on. In effect, many got angry over hearing truthful comments – and to be fair there were a couple of 2 second blurbs that were a bit harsher that I did not agree with, from my own research.

Then Senator Obama was forced to respond. Though the media did not provide coverage of what was said by the pastors of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, or any other elected official. Not even the most recent and current comments. Because they were fine – at least we are lead to believe so in the absence of coverage.

So Senator Obama made a speech about race. And it was a good one. And the nation was astounded, it would seem, that the Civil Rights movement did not resolve every issue for people of color any more than the Equal Rights movement for women resolved issues of pay or treatment. And as the conversation continued it was warped.

I have already had several personal conversations where the actual words of Rev. Wright or Senator Obama have been misquoted towards a more racial bent. Some are angry at what they chose to hear, and not what was said. And the Clinton campaign delighted as they finally achieved a goal they have struggled to employ for months. The polling for Senator Obama dropped.

Then Senator Obama made a reference to “a typical White person”. Oh, the outrage. How dare he lump White Americans like this. I mean the fact that television and movies are dominated, as they always have been, with these amorphous amalglamations of society is not important. The fact that across the country people of color can tell the same exact kinds of stories of racism, prejudice and hate is not important. The fact that the deaths and beatings of people like Diallo and Bell are so similar to deaths and beatings in California like Rodney King is just a coincidence I suppose. Actual acts against me personally based on race are just an oddity, though I cannot count the number of people of color that have had the same experiences across the nation over the last 40 years.

Nope, it is just a horrible thing to point out truth in America. And responses like this one are seen

“Poor guy – whose middle name and lack of executive experience we’re never supposed to mention, and who was not aware of the insane, anti-American, racist rantings of his spiritual advisor of 20 years – now blabbering incoherently about “typical white persons,” simply needed a little shut-eye.

Perhaps Sen. Trent Lott was tired when – at Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party in 2002 – he paid Thurmond an innocuous off-the-cuff compliment by mentioning the aging senator’s run for the presidency more than a half century earlier.

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him,” Lott said. “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

Lott’s statement meant absolutely nothing. It carried no weight. It wasn’t meant to. It was simply an innocent “attaboy” for an old man who was at the end of his career and nearing the end of life.”

This was in response to the typical white person comment of Senator Obama. The above quoted writer is obviously upset. And a bit obfuscating of the truth.

The reason that Senator Obama’s middle name is an issue is that – 1. none of the other middle names of candidates are ever used, 2. His name is used in a manner to imply and provoke fear in those less educated and more prejudicial in America.

The experience issue is commented about constantly. By and about both Democratic candidates. Neither has experience. And every one mentions it.

As for Rev. Wright, he is far from insane (just like Jerry Falwell, Robert Grant, or Pat Robertson), was American enough to fight in the Marines, and never made a disparaging comment about race or gender to my knowledge. That fact was apparent when Greta van Sister of Fox News was challenged to find racist comments while in an interview with Rev. Sharp ton, and 24 hours later was incapable of doing so.

And the comparison fails with the comments supporting the Senator best know for his racist stance for the last half of the last century. Sen. Strom Thurmond’s Presidential bid was hardly nothing or innocent. It was an attempt to support and reinforce segregation. That is a historical fact (which the writer touches on briefly) as is the fact that Sen. Thurmond changed his stance after privately coming to terms with his illegitimate Black daughter.

The point is that America wants to hide its head in the sand, and deny any negative about race in current days (let alone the past). This is the real 3rd rail of American politics, and potentially Senator Obama’s biggest hurdle.

Is it important that Gov. Richardson endorses and/or joins Sen. Obama on a Presidential ticket? Sure, because it’s about race. Getting Hispanic/Latinos to be active in his campaign. Because the Clinton campaign assumes they are already going to get those votes, as they assumed they would get the Black, White male, and college educated vote. But if you say that this vote is about race, prepare to be shunned.

Because I cannot tell you how many of the “typical White people” that I know who have come to me and are upset about Senator Obama’s comment and Rev. Wright. How often they misquote both, and how few actually ever heard of Rev. Wright before the mishmash of videoclips. Nor can I tell you how many of these same people cannot understand the privilege and advantage they enjoy simply because of the color of their skin. But I can tell you, that long before this current debate over my 40 years of life, maybe 10% of these same people have confided in me that they do act in exactly the same manner as Obama’s grandmother from time to time. It’s just the fact that it’s being brought into the light that is the problem I suppose.

So let’s do this. Accept that race is a continuing issue in America. It has been since the 1619 and it has not ended though the degree and manner has changed. And because of that White Americans are not the shining images that movies and television wishes to portray. Equally people of color are not without fault either, and they are not the images of poverty, violence and anger that television, movies and the news media try to convey to the world.

Given that, this election should not be about the race or gender of the candidates. It’s about what is best for America. Issues like oil dependency, pollution, Social Security, mortgages, the economy, jobs and others are all colorblind. Only the best choice for America will resolve even some of these issues.

If we focus only on the least important factor of the candidates, we may lose as a nation. So vote, not for your race or gender, but for the best choice for America. And if that vote is for a non-White male, so what. America is neither one color (no matter what the media portrays) nor gender. If we remember that we remember that we are the greatest nation in the world because of that fact.

Vote and keep America great. Vote and pick the best choice for the nation’s path to the future.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Civil Rights, Fox News, Gov. Bill Richardson, race in America, racial controversy, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama

I was writing about Stephen Colbert recently at Presidential Race Blog, and I wanted to say a bit more about him. The fact he is running for President is a statement. And that statement is making an impact.

Already in a poll of potential voters Mr. Colbert has gained better numbers (he received 2.3 percent of the vote with a 5 percent margin of error) than Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent). Considering the margin of error that potentially places him just behind former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and easily the closely ranked Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent).

On the Republican side, Mr. Colbert is running on both ballots, he had less than 1% of the potential voters, but again Ron Paul is hardly a frontrunner either. Even Senator John McCain has only 10 percent of potential votes.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties in South Carolina say that Mr. Colbert could run. In fact,

“Mr. Werner said, “our executive council would have a hard time not putting him on the ballot.’’

And it gets more serious when you consider Colbert’s viewers tend to be young, white, educated, and male. Their median age is 37 and there’s a 60/40 male-female split. So far this year, he’s drawn a nightly audience that averages 1.3 million viewers nationwide, 874,000 of them in the 18-49 year-old demographic. The U.S. Census bureau says South Carolina has about 1.4 percent of the nation’s population, which would suggest that Colbert has about 12,200 viewers there.

Greater minds than my own have found that Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Mike Huckabee, and yes Ron Paul too, are all potentially doomed by Mr. Colbert making any attempt to further his chances in South Carolina. Isn’t that interesting?

So what do we take from this?

The current political landscape is a horrible mess with as much truthiness coming from pundits and satirists as from the candidates themselves. There is reason for concern. Because this highlights how little many believe in the ability of our politicians in providing a cohesive and functional answer to the problems of the nation.

I want Mr. Colbert to get a delegate in either or both parties. I want him to be able to shake the stolid and grave foundations that both political parties are firmly entrenched in. I want there to be a question of ‘Who the hell did that happen’ in the media.

The point is that what we see politics today is little better than 30 seconds of showmanship. At least Stephen Colbert provides the honesty of absolute incredulity. That makes him more consistent and honest than any politician in decades perhaps.
If Mr. Colbert is able to get a delegate, or even a better than 10% vote total, the message will be clear. Politics has devolved as badly as major news media. This will be confirmation of how substance has been thrown to the wayside, with showmanship the guide to future elections. And with that, the degradation of the American quality of life will be apparent.

Sometimes it takes a slap in the face, or a joke in the worst of taste to wake people up about what is before them. I don’t think that is the intention, nor the fact, of what Mr. Stephen Colbert has done. But it’s close enough to both, that perhaps it will make a difference.

Maybe.

Labels: Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Gov. Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Presidential candidates, Presidential Race Blog, Ron Paul, Stephan Colbert

Continued from What are Democratic Presidential candidates saying about Scooter Libby? Part 1...

Mr. Edwards stated,

“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today…”

If this was a mistake, then the crime was incidental. Therefore the punishment should not be as severe. Even so, there are consequences that are being enacted on Mr. Libby. Unless losing the career that was the basis of one’s life is inconsequential.

Senator Obama stated,

“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law…”

Mr. Libby did not commit treason. He was convicted of saying he spoke to people he told the FBI he did not speak to. National security was never an issue or question and was never considered in the charge against him.

Gov. Richardson is quoted,

“There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking….”

President Bush followed the law, commutation is one of his priviledges. The President did not reverse the collective wisdom of the jury, there was no pardon. The one individual he did modify was the judge who imposed the punishment. I do not see how this is disdain.

Senator Clinton said,

“Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent….”

This is an interesting person to be speaking about a commutation after the well publicized pardon of Mr. Mark Rich that President Clinton made. Even so, again the President (Bush) was well within the law in commuting PART of the sentence. Again, there has been no connection to a cover-up or politicizing of national security in over a year plus of this case. What one man lying to the FBI about who he spoke to months prior has to do with the Iraq war is beyond me.

I have not written this as a pro-Republican view, nor is it against the Democratic candidates. I seek to work through the soundbites and rhetoric to reach the actual fact and comments being made. Politicians love to evoke emotion to obscure the facts of an issue, or to divert the conversation to a subject they prefer to speak about. That is not good enough for ANY candidate that wishes to be President of the United States in my opinion.

Perhaps I am alone in this thought, but this seems to have been a waste of the governments funds. The use of our taxes has a better use than a multi-year snipe hunt, the capture of one individual in a lie that affects nothing, and rhetoric from candidates that is meant to whip up emotions for the exclusive benefit of the politicians themselves.

I felt it was a waste when President Clinton was being persecuted for lying to the nation, on live television, about getting oral sex, I think no different now. There are far more important issues that need to be discussed, in depth, and far better uses of our money.

Just something to keep in mind as you hear the Republicans and Democrats waste our time and your donations speaking (or making ads) about this issue.

Labels: Gov. Bill Richardson, President Bush, President Clinton, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama