So now we have the major news media jumping all over the words of Senator Obama. This time it’s in reference to his elitist comments about how small town voters across America seem to feel and are acting. While the comments are harsh, there is some truth in them.

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Barack Obama

Having lived some 5 years no in a small town (that residents of the area consider a city for some reason) I have noticed that many are clinging and bitter. There is no question that in this town with approximately 6% non-whites and a large community of college students, there are bitter feelings. The average income is about $28,000 and jobs are scarce. Most jobs pay minimum wage, the downtown district is littered with empty buildings, and more than just a few homes are in disrepair even in the best neighborhoods.

There is a huge hunting community though, and there are an abundance of churches and church groups. The main activity outside of these events is drinking. In a recent article in the local paper there was a story (during Black History month) describing that one of the local major companies recruited new workers and when asked what the recreational activities were in the area they stated ‘there are a lot of bars’. Such is this small town in central New York, and that is better than the surrounding smaller towns and villages.

That says nothing of the rampant racism and prejudice. I have heard numerous stories from non-whites over the years, and experienced several myself. From failure to be served for over 15 minutes only to be skipped over to serve a White patron that walked up, to being called the N-word for speaking to a White person of the opposite sex, to having a drunk guy picking a fight – using the N-word to provoke the situation – and being told at the end that it was due to dressing better than those around [which happened to me]. Binghamton is a city dying for lack of good jobs, lack of foresight from the city council, and the failure of Senator Clinton to live up to her promise to generate 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York [in fact upstate New York has lost 30,000 jobs since she has been elected].

So is Senator Obama wrong in what he said? From what I have seen here and in the area, no. The citizenry is quite bitter and angry. They want to see less jobs going overseas, fewer immigrants keeping job wages down, and virtually hate anyone – especially of color – that is living here and doing better. Mind you that is not everyone here, but it is more than enough to make things uncomfortable is you walk into the wrong place on the wrong day.

But let’s consider this. If Senator Obama is out of touch or as Senator Clinton states

“I do not think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you, and not looks down on you," said Hillary Clinton. "And after seven years of Americans feeling invisible to this president, President Bush, it is time that we leveled the playing field.”

Is Senator Clinton better?

Well we know as fact that she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Sinbad and videotaped footage of the event have proven that – thus it’s not a misspoken statement as the polispeak would have you believe. We know that she had no impact or input to the Ireland peace talks, those who did have told us about that lie as well.

We know that in the 7+ years that Senator Clinton has been representing New York State she has lied about new jobs, and her voting record reflects changing polls consistently. We know Senator Clinton is against guns, in speeches and votes. We know that the Clinton campaign has consistently and directly, in the form of Bill Clinton, used race as a factor in generating votes. The Clinton campaign has directly pandered gender as a solitary reason for votes. Is this “standing up” or “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?

But perhaps most important is her connection to the people. Senator Clinton, along with former President Bill Clinton, made $109 million. They paid only $34 million in taxes. That may be a lot, but it is far less than the highest tax bracket so they took tax breaks available to them. They also donated $10 million to charity – the Clinton Library – in effect giving them a tax break and keeping the money. All from those that claim that the rich (which she obviously qualifies as) don’t pay enough in taxes and voted to increase the taxes paid of everyone making $31,850 or more (which I know none that would qualify this as rich).

Now both of the Democratic candidates have gone to good colleges and have law degrees. Senator Clinton spent her time after graduating on the board of Wal-Mart (which has fought unions – a big issue for Democrats) and being the wife of a rising political husband. Senator Obama spent his time working for the Chicago community and entering politics at the state level. Which sounds like it benefits the average guy more? Which sounds closer, since neither is similar, to the life average Joe lives?

Of course if we were to really be fair about this Senator McCain really stands out. While his wife does have wealth, he was a soldier. While he was an officer and a pilot, he did serve his nation at a time of war, and stood by his fellow soldiers while having years of torture. He has served the public for 25 years, longer than some of my readers have been alive. He has never lied about being shot at, nor has he made a donation to a charity he runs. He has not voted to raise taxes of those that are obviously in the middle class (though he did balk initially at giving them a tax cut). He is not known for looking down at anyone, though he is known for his temper. But he is also known for breaking party lines to make deals he feels benefit the American public – which the Democratic candidates have not done, ever.

So really, who sounds like they are looking down on the average American? Who is the least connected? Who has lied the least – or as the spin likes to say “misspoke”. Who has stood their ground and served the public the most, or in other word has experience?

Obviously for the Republicans that is Senator McCain. For the Democrats I leave the choice to you, based on the facts. And as for the election, well that is your choice. No matter what you believe, your vote makes a difference. If we all are involved, since we all will live with the results, then I believe we will get the best choice for America. But if not, there will be no way to explain the next 4 years in some polispeak spin of “misspoke” or “mistake”.

Labels: Binghamton NY, Chicago, Democratic Party, middle class, President Bill Clinton, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax increase, Wal-Mart

I recently received a link that I found interesting. Since there is a bit of time before the March 4th Primaries I thought I’d delve into this a bit. But let me first state that I have nothing against a woman as President. Like any man that may wish to hold the highest office in the nation, my only concern is that it is the best person that receives the Presidency. I must also disclose that I have previously stated that I am locked between Senators McCain and Obama as my choices, which is based on their political profiles only.

This post will be addressing a column by N.O.W. President Kim Gandy. The full post can be found on the N.O.W. site.

To start with I have no doubt that there are women that face sexism in their fields of work. I don’t doubt this because I know that there is still massive and pervasive racial bias in the media, business, and politics with examples of this being displayed nationally everyday. So to say women still face similar difficulties is neither a surprise nor a reach.

But I will say that I think Kim Gandy protests too much on a couple of points, and seeks the election of Senator Clinton more to make a point than her actual qualifications. This is not a fault that is uncommon, as there are many African Americans that vote for Senator Obama for no reason other than the color of his skin. Neither is a reason for the candidates to receive the nomination nor Presidency.

Kim Gandy starts her column stating that Senator Clinton is the object of venom from media, in television and print, and receiving an unfair amount of negative coverage. In part I would say that is correct, as several pundits have made their comments personal and not relevant to Senator Clinton’s qualifications or they unfairly involve the Clinton family. But at the same time some of the coverage is fair and according to national polls taken from 2007 to now reflects the 47% of the nation that dislikes Senator Clinton. In politics, if polls say you are unliked the media will make their tone less favorable, no matter what your sex or color.

As for her 4 common themes used against Senator Clinton:

“First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system…His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?”

While I will agree that Senator Clinton has been criticized about her apparel and mannerisms there is more to this. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen posts and articles that have critiqued the colors and clothing that all the candidates wear. I feel that it is perhaps the least effective or useful reason to judge anyone for any position. I admit that several pundits have focused more on Senator Clinton for these reasons. But in a society where multiple organizations run and directly focused on women consistently choose to evaluate and critique the apparel of famous women in all walks of life then that is to be expected. Were there less interest in the clothes worn during red carpet events, as an example, I would agree whole-heartedly. But when there are dozens of television programs and magazines that exists solely to critique women on this basis, to complain when the highest profile woman in America at the moment is placed under that same flimsy microscope is silly. I don’t think it has anything to do with Senator Clintons abilities, but it is a reality that many women (apparently) find important or at least of interest.

As for the emotional outbursts, this is unfair. Several of the Presidential candidates have been singled out for their emotional reactions. Notably there are the numerous comments on Senator McCain. Whether it is commentary on his attempts at joviality (Bomb Iran) or his well known temper, his outbursts are well covered, as are most of the candidates.

And there are none that I think do not believe that Senator Clinton knows how to use the political system. Consistently Senator Clinton has been shown to use the media and polls to gain attention and political clout without actually doing anything. In looking at Senator Clinton’s record as a Senator, votes on both sides of issues and correlating directly to changes in polling positions exists. Do you recall the “Hot Coffee” scandal? Senator Clinton was prominent in her denouncement of a truly overblown subject, yet she did nothing about it and walked away from the issue immediately after it stopped gaining press attention. It is this kind of use of the media to improve her image that is considered manipulative, and she is not the only Senator to do so. But to call her on that is not a gender based reasoning, it’s just honest.

“In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election -- strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil.”

Well that’s not exactly true either. All politicians are calculating to some degree. Whether is campaigning in areas more favorable to their voter base, or picking to campaign in this state over another is politics today. Rudy did it when he picked Florida as his main focus; Mitt Romney did it in Wyoming, and so on. All the candidates calculate what is in their best interest and strategize, organize, compare and contrast to that end. What might be considered fake or evil are actions like promoting a half-conceived idea, like the $5,000 bond for every child in America towards their college education, and dropping it after it has gained her press coverage and positive voter sentiment. Promoting ideas that are infeasible and not having the ability to answer reasonable questions on such a plan is pandering to gain votes, and any candidate that does such needs to be called on it.

“Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today because of her husband, Bill.”

To a degree that is a true statement. There is no question that the fame and recognition of President Bill Clinton elevated the political hopes of Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton had no official, and questionable unofficial, political experience prior to Bill Clinton gaining prominent political positions. There is no question that either Clinton has no ties or connection to New York State. Thus her initial claim to fame in that election was that she was the former-First Lady and the headlines in New York City at that time was the fact that Bill Clinton was considering taking an office in Harlem. Often in this election cycle, Bill Clinton has dominated the media coverage, beyond any other spouse of a candidate – and most of the other candidates, because of his former office. This drew media coverage to the Clinton campaign, for good or ill and thus benefited the Senator. While an argument can be made today that Bill Clinton’s status is not the sole reason for Hillary’s current Presidential race, it is undeniably a factor and significant in her ability to be elected initially in New York State. To deny these facts is to deny modern politics and the power of political clout and endorsements in electing any official to office.

“Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters. Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to intimate (at least about the women who are voting for Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all voters are stupid and shallow.”

I am unaware of any pundit that has belittled voters. Nor have I heard that women voting for Senator Clinton are “irrational and biased”. That may be my own inability to follow every pundit and talking-head in the media. Any that might have made such a statement is wrong and I agree that such statements are unfair.

“Hillary Clinton and women in general, aren't the only ones subject to gender-based assessments. Barack Obama and John Edwards have also been degraded when the media detect in them "feminine" characteristics or behaviors (like paying attention to your appearance) that supposedly are unbecoming in men.”

It is true that John Edwards in particular was criticized by the media for his notorious $400 haircuts. But this criticism was not about priming himself in some feminine manner. It was the obvious disconnect from his stance about 2 Americas. It seems odd when someone states they care about the poor, and is then seen paying for haircuts that are equivalent to the weekly paycheck of some Americans. And any candidate that wishes to state they are “looking out for the common worker” is at a disadvantage if they lavishly spend money on common grooming. That seems hypocritical and deserving of comment.

“Regarding women and men and politics, we really ought to be past the tree house-years. It's not just those in the public eye who are hurt when the media promote sex stereotypes. Daughters everywhere are hearing the message that a woman can't be as competent and effective a leader as a man.”

Obviously America is not beyond many things. Racism and gender bias are just a few of those things. Since both exist and are promoted on the media daily, it’s no surprise when they appear in politics. African Americans should not be presumed to be poor, violent, drug-addicted felons yet most Black men are. If we cannot get past color, is it s surprise we cannot get past gender on some issues?

Again I will ask, who has said women can’t be effective leaders? There are many women in political office. Nancy Pelosi leads the House. There are many women that lead major corporations, or own them. Oprah Winfrey is perhaps the best known, but she is not singular. Could there be more? Definitely, just as there should be more African American, Hispanics/Latinos and people of color. But to depict the political landscape or the general one at that, as devoid of women in leadership positions across the world is to be blind and instilling gloom and downtrodden view that is inaccurate in my opinion.

The column goes on to then quote several pundits and talking heads that have made various statements. Some are bad, and others depend entirely on the way you wish to perceive them. (I do find it interesting that they are virtually all from organizations that are considered highly liberal and pro-Democrat) One in particular I think is accurate.

“Tucker Carlson, MSNBC's Tucker, Jan. 22, 2008
"It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination. . . . She hasn't driven her own car in almost 20 years and she's a victim of discrimination? I mean can't we both agree that's just BS?"

There is no question that Senator Clinton is rich. There is equally no question of her political prominence. And from what I have read about her, she has not had to endure the difficulties 90% of Americans combat daily in over 3 decades at least. I’m not sure how much pity I am supposed to feel for Senator Clinton when she has sat on the board of Wal-Mart, a partner of a law firm, indulged in commodities trading, and had the ability to, questionably, influence public policy. My mother and sisters on the other hand have strived against discrimination and they don’t ask for any special recognition for their achievements.

So while Kim Gandy has some points, the real issue boils down simply to is Senator Clinton deserving of being the first female President. Based on her abilities as expressed as her actions in political office (which is limited to her time as a Senator since she held no elected office or political position prior) I would say no.

I would say the same for why I would not support John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and others. It’s not a bias against women to say she is not the best option; it’s just honest in my opinion. That’s the same as saying Jesse Jackson was not the best option for a potential Black President. Nor does it preclude a future candidate that is more worthy attaining the office.

Labels: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Kim Gandy, Mitt Romney, NOW, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Wal-Mart

Oh how the facts just get in the way. There have been released tapes that reveal Democratic Presidential candidate and NY Senator Hillary Clinton’s position on labor unions while she was a board member of Wal-Mart. As a Democrat, Senator Clinton has been outspoken about her support of unions, and has several that have endorsed her campaign.

But back in the late 1980’s through early 1990’s it seems that Senator Hillary Clinton had other views. It has been proven that in several meetings of the board members, of which she was a member for 6 years, she NEVER took a stance to help unionize or support unions in the company. Board members have been quoted as stating that beyond the recordings, they have zero memory of a single confrontation or commitment by Senator Clinton on behalf of Unions.

Now in general I’m not a big fan of unions. In general I don’t care what board members do or do not think of, if they are not stocks that I own. But I am interested in who will be the next President of the United States. And I do note hypocrisy in the Presidential candidates.

As a proponent of unions Senator Clinton has attacked Wal-mart and its policies. That’s fine, as it’s the big enemy of ultra-liberal Democrats these days, and that’s an opinion some have. But considering that she was a member of this same company and did nothing to improve their corporate actions, it’s too faced.

Add to this fact, that she has publicly refused campaign donations from this company, and then quietly taken 4x as much money ($20,000) from executives and lobbyists of that same company privately.

Last year Senator Clinton stated

“Now I know that Wal-Mart's policies do not reflect the best way of doing business and the values that I think are important in America.”

So in over a decade, on top of 6 years as a board member of the company Senator Clinton had no knowledge of the anti-union policies of Wal-Mart. And as she has stated she was an advocate of women in the company.

“I don't doubt the sincerity of her efforts, but we don't see much evidence that conditions for women at Wal-Mart changed much during the late 1980s and early 1990s," said Joe Sellers, one of the lawyers suing Wal-Mart on behalf of the women.”

So a question that might show her sincerity would be if Senator Clinton would return the $20,000. But she has stated through her campaign that “no basis to return the money.”

That sounds incredibly like when it was found that Senator Clinton’s campaign took $1 million from legal fugitive Norman Hsu or the questionable Abdul Rehman Jinna.

“To summarize Mr. Hsu was wanted with a warrant for his arrest from California for over a decade. Mr. Hsu recently started to bundle funds for donation to Sen. Clinton. Initially, when his identity and warrant came to public attention, the Clinton campaign first stated their surprise, and then as pressure mounted offered to give back roughly $32,000. Then as the media checked into the story and it was found that the actual donations made totaled 1 million dollars which was possibly gotten from funds scammed from 3rd parties. The Clinton campaign offered to give the money to charity. The answer was they had not known he made the donations.”

All of this seems to go back to a thought I had back in November 2005. I would suggest that members of unions, and Democrats consider the following, and the apparent election year flip mentioned above, as well as the questionable acceptance of funding from active criminals evading prosecution.

“There are more votes, my point is Sen. Clinton seems very confused on several issues. Sen. Clinton promotes the idea that she is for families and individuals (ie raise wages, leaving SS alone, improving bicycle safety) yet she also has voted to do the opposite (no motorcycle safety, repeal '93 tax, ethanol, AIDS funding). My thoughts are not about the outcome of the actual votes, but how Sen. Clinton has voted. That is far more important. It seems to project an image of someone looking to say anything to get elected, but not caring what the constiuents want as much once elected.”

I hope everyone that can will vote on Super Tuesday. I hope even more vote in the Presidential election in November. I just hope that the candidates of both political parties are worthy choices for the American public.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, New York, Norman Hsu, Presidential primaries, Senator Clinton, Super Tuesday, Wal-Mart