Not so Subtle

No, Barack Obama did not visit my church personally. *Insert thoughtless right wing pun about no bigot pastors being around here.* Obama visited my church in the discussion that is being held about race. That’s right. We had a discussion about race relations in this country in the middle of a church service.

This is one of the things I love about my church. (New Community Covenant Church) The forum on race generated so many questions that the segment ran longer. Our pastor decided to forgo communion this week in order to allow time for more discussion on the issue, even though we will be continuing the series for the next few weeks. How many churches do you know that will push communion back in order to have a lengthy discussion on racism in society that has been brought to the forefront by Barack Obama’s candidacy?

There were no politics discussed, only a frank and honest forum where people of different ethnicities sat down and told their history with racial relations. This is what this country needs. Badly. As recently as last week I wrote about the need for an open dialogue on race in politics. When more of us are willing to admit to our own shortcomings and prejudices, we will start the long, hard work of healing these divisions.

The forum consisted of a a Korean, an African-American, a Latino, an Indian who grew up in the Emirates, and a Caucasian. These people represented the core of our church, which is the most diverse that I have ever seen. I don’t have any numbers, but I’m going to guess that the congregation is about half Asian, a third white, and the rest equally divided up between African Americans and Hispanics.

One of the best points made was that the idea that we are living in a post-racial society is both untrue and unhealthy. We are NOT living in a post-racial utopia where race is not a factor. You can say that you don’t see Obama as black or Mccain as white until you’re bluish-pink in the face: the fact is that we do see them in the context of skin color, and it DOES effect the way that we think about them.

Like it or not, Barack Obama is now the focal point, the very epicenter of race relations in the United States, and he will be at least until this November. Now you know that I’m no big fan of Obama, but of course this weight isn’t fair to him: he is only a man and to shoulder the history of hundreds of years of racism is an incredible burden.

America, this issue is not going to go away even if Obama is elected. In fact it may get even more heated. It’s time that we start a real conversation about this. So, I’ll start with a question.

If Barack Obama is elected, will it change the way you think about racial tensions and relations in this country?

Much has been said about how little the American public knows about Barack Obama. He’s a new face, with only a few years of national political experience, and people just really aren’t sure what he’s all about.

On the other hand, almost nothing has been said about how well the country knows John Mccain.

I’d like to put forth the idea that we know just as much about Mccain than we do about Obama. This may seem strange, given that he’s been in the public eye for 40 years, and he has an extensive voting record that he can be judged by, but a closer examination reveals that we might not be getting the same John Mccain that we hope for, and that can apply to both sides.

The only universal quality for the Senator that both conservatives and liberals respect is his service during Vietnam: we admire his courage in facing the tortures of Hanoi Hilton. In fact, whenever Obama addresses Mccain, the first thing he says is how much he appreciates his sacrifices for the country.

But when you go beyond his military record, things get fuzzy. For a long time, Mccain was considered to be a Maverick. He was derided by conservatives as being a traitor when he sided with the Democrats on legislation from immigration to campaign finance reform. He earned a great deal of admiration from progressives for his willingness to vote based on his conscience and judgment, not party affiliation.

And yet when you look at his overall voting record, he’s been one of the most consistently conservative voices in the Senate since he came into office. This has never been more apparent since he decided to run for President on the Republican platform. The Bush tax cuts he voted against twice because he found them personally immoral, he voted for this time around. When pressure came from all over the right wing, he changed his stance on immigration from amnesty and open borders to securing the border, maybe even building a fence.

Is this shrewd political maneuvering, or is Mccain a sellout? Will he sell his principles to get a seat in the White House?

I am on the fence. If John Mccain wins the election and returns to his Maverick persona, I will rejoice. But which side will we see? Does John Mccain really hate war as much as he professes to, or will he rush into more wars, and continue Bush’s imperial nightmare? As President, will he finally outlaw torture in terror interrogations, or will he spout a line about defending the nation by any means necessary? Is he an honest straight-talker, or a slimy pol with an even slimier tongue? Is his judgment sound, or will his infamous temper get the best of him in moments of crisis? Is John Mccain a tried and true small government conservative or an empire builder? These are questions that Republican voters need to ask themselves.

The world will be a better place with Mccain at the helm of the free world, rather than Bush. But that may not be saying much, if Mccain forsakes his independent roots and goes the way of the neocon.

It appears that tonight, finally, the Democratic primaries are going to end, with Hillary Clinton admitting that Obama has won enough delegates to secure the nomination, while stopping short of actually conceding the race, whatever in the blue hell that means.

Now that the race is over, alot of people (mainly Hillary supporters) are very, very PO’d.

They have every right to be. People were calling for their candidate to exit the race months ago, and the media has trashed Hillary at every turn. (She has certainly deserved some of it, but the extremes to which the MSM has gone to degrade her are absurd.) What the DNC chose to do with the delegates from Michigan was undemocratic, unfair, and unreasonable. While there may have been no clean way to sort that mess out, the fact is that now the Democratic Party has a huge problem on its hands. Hillary’s people are ready to jump ship and vote for Mccain.

Folks, I have supported Hillary’s right to stay in the race until the very end, I have tried to defend her from personal attacks, and I am one of the last people who would vote for Obama, but voting for John Mccain in November is not the answer.

The only way to solve this may be to force Barack Obama to take Hillary Clinton on his ticket for vice-president. That may go a long way to bringing back her supporters into the fold, but it shouldn’t be necessary.

I am not a supporter of party politics. But just because you’re completely, completely disappointed with the Democrats doesn’t mean that the grass is greener on the other side. In fact, that grass is brown, dried out, rather disgusting, and the country is tired of eating it.

If they don’t put Hillary in as VP, why don’t you come up with a better response than just voting for the other guy? If you’re a true Clinton supporter, there’s no way that you can believe John Mccain represents your interests more than Obama does.

Or, even better yet, vote Third party and teach BOTH the Dems and the Reps a lesson.

Today comes the latest batch of All-Star votes for the American League, and it is completely dominated by Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees.

First Base: Kevin Youkilis is leading

2nd base: Dustin Pedroia, followed by Robinson Canoe

3rd: Alex Rodriguez, followed by Mike Lowell

Short: Derek Jeter

Catcher: Jason Varitek

DH: David Ortiz, followed by Hideki Matsui

Outfield: Manny Ramirez

What does this tell us about the voting process? For one thing, the media shows just how powerful it is in selecting candidates for baseball and for the President of the United States. See, the choices for the people on the ballot are made even before the season begins, much like our primary campaigns. Before a single vote has been cast, before our voice has been heard, someone has already chosen who is electable and who is not for us. This means that only big names will be on the ballot and candidates who are just as qualified, if not even more-so, will be left out in the dark, and the people who choose to vote for them will have their needs ignored.

Case in point: Carlos Quentin of the Chicago White Sox is not even in the top 15 vote-getters for the outfield position, despite leading the AL in home runs, and being 2nd in RBI. Why? Because when the ballots were put together, baseball decided there was no way Carlos Quentin could put together an All-Star year. So despite having the best credentials, Quentin will not be voted in by the fans.

Who does make it? The two party system. Baseball coverage is dominated by Red Sox and Yankees highlights, just like media coverage is monopolized by Democrats and Republicans. Because we have been told that the Red Sox and Yankees are the only teams that really matter by the main-stream media, those are the ones that get the votes. So even though they might not perform, *As of today, the Yankees are in last place in their division* they will still be selected to represent baseball’s best.

This is the same phenomenon that has pushed out legitimate candidates who have agendas that do not match the powers’ that be on both sides, and from 3rd parties. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Ralph Nader have all been repeatedly shut out by the media and have been effectively forced out of the race.

Hillary Clinton, John Mccain and Barack Obama are ALL the establishment’s candidates. If you want a President who can really change things, and if you want to see your team’s best represent your town in the All-Star game, it’s time to start ignoring what the media tells you and start making choices on your own.

The Obamas may have doomed their chances of living in the White House a long time ago.

Today comes a report that Republican strategists have scoured through decades of sermons by Jeremiah Wright, all tape-recorded, and have found something big. The video will likely not be made available until the fall, but apparently it contains footage of Michelle Obama making racist remarks. The only term that they use in quotations is “whitey.”

I don’t want to speculate too much because I haven’t seen the video- though I guarantee it will be leaked before, or soon after the Democratic Convention- I think this has the potential to be more damaging for Obama than any of his other previous problems.

1. Tony Rezko, the Chicago slumlord was the first bump in the road for Obama, which has gone largely ignored by the national media.

2. Jeremiah Wright has been, thus far, the biggest obstacle to Obama’s campaign, and he will continue to be so, even if this video never came up.

3. Cling-gate: the speech in which Obama claimed people in small towns in Pennsylvannia were clinging to religion and guns has heavily damaged his credibility with working class voters, who already weren’t too fond of him.

4. A racist rant by his by-and-large respected wife could be a death knell for the Obama campaign. All of his ability to “transcend race” will go out the window, and we could be in for a very dirty, race-driven general election.

If the video causes a major stir (which it almost certainly will) then a large number of people who have supported Hillary Clinton may side with John Mccain, and earn him a landslide victory in November.

It’s very sad that the Democratic party can’t come up with a candidate to win in 2008, which will be the best opportunity they will EVER have of regaining the White House.

 Yes we Can, but No I Won’t.

First of all, I am a racist fundamentalist who clings to guns and religion and could never vote for a black man and besides, I think he might be a secret Muslim communist sympathizer, who should have left that evil, evil church a long time ago.

Now that that’s out of the way, here are the real reasons why I will not vote for Obama:

1. Bad Fruit from a Bad Tree

The tree I refer to here is not his mixed heritage or unconventional upbringing. The bad tree that has borne Barack Obama is the Democratic Party. For one, the notion that we have to choose the Democrats over the Republicans because they’re the lesser of two evils is flawed and ignorant. If you got your political coverage from somewhere other than the idiot box or major newspapers, you might discover that there are a whole number of political parties, and if, God forbid, you do some research, I’m certain that you’ll find one that reflects your values more than the Democrats and Republicans, no matter what your values are.

The Democrats have failed at every turn to stop the funding for Bush’s war, they have failed to impeach a President and Vice President that have broken the law and the Geneva conventions, and they have failed to convince me that they will truly change the way business is done in Washington. The donkey party has had it’s fair share of scandals, and I’m not talking about oral sex in the Oval office, here. Once they are back in power, we will quickly be reminded that they can be just as corrupt, inept, and smug as the Republican machine. The party is a bad tree, and anyone who comes out of it can only be bad fruit.

2. Realism

The realism here is not what most people complain about in regards to Obama’s ideas. Many of his critics say that he’s naive for promising to end the war in Iraq, to bring more Americans healthcare, and to heal the divisions in Washington. I say that we would be naive to believe him. If you listen carefully to his speeches and read his policy statements, you will find nothing radical in his rhetoric. His promises of bipartisanship are nothing that a hundred slick political anglers haven’t peddled to the American public a thousand times already. Critics will say that he has a radical voting record, that he is by far the most liberal member of the senate. Other than his extremely creepy voting record on abortion, I see nothing radical at all in his proposals. He’s progressive on abortion, gun control, and immigration. But I don’t see Obama being progressive on the issues that really matter.

When you hear him wax on foreign policy, he’s so eloquent compared to Bush that you can easily believe that he will end our destructive imperialist policies. But he promises to do no such thing. Barack Obama has no intentions of ending the permanent state of militarization in this country; Obama has made no promises to address the military industrial complex, which is the single greatest impediment to our own democracy, and to the lives and freedom of people around the world. Obama speaks of managing America’s image and empire in a more responsible fashion, but he never has shown a desire to “end the mentality that got us into war in the first place,” as he has promised so many times.

The realism needs to come from the American people here. Are we going to believe that one charismatic man can solve every foreign policy issue we have, just because his name is Barack Obama? Talking to terrorists and rogue states is not a radical idea, we have been doing so for decades without any serious intention of engaging their interests. Talk is hollow when it is done from a point of unprecedented military leverage. Obama has no grandiose notions like nuclear disarmament or withdrawing the hundreds of thousands of troops that we have stationed all over the globe. No, there is nothing radical about his ideas at all.

3. Arrogance

The issue of character will rear its ugly head again and again during this election. I am not going to claim that Obama has any less character than the lying Clintons or pandering Mccains, but one thing I do take issue with is the fact that his entire candidacy is based on a platform of arrogance.

Talk to any supporter of Barack Obama and try to see if they can find any flaws in him. I’ve tried, and I’ve come up short every time. Obama has done a superb job of convincing us that he is the coolest fucking thing that has ever walked the Earth. The groundswell of his support comes not from people who desire a real change in American ideas and actions, but from people who believe with all their hearts, minds, and souls, that Barack Obama can fix anything. It’s a point that he has hammered home again and again by claiming he feels the most qualified in the realm of foreign policy, when the man has absolutely no experience in the arena. There is no doubt that Obama is a confident man, and people line up behind confidence like sheep line up to get skinned. My problem is that Mr. Obama’s arrogance has become the driving point of this campaign season, and almost everyone down the line has fallen for it, except for the radical conservatives who will despise him no matter what he does or says.

The media loves Barack Obama. The people love Barack Obama. But don’t forget that the person who is most enamored with the Barack Obama phenomenon, is one Barack Obama.

Ralph Nader will not be our next President. But I’d rather back a humble civil servant over an egomaniacal, slick snake-oil salesman any day of the week.

It’s the most tired of cliches, but it’s perfect to describe the Democratic race. Somebody had to lose. Yes, there are still a few primaries left, and yes, I have called the game for Obama prematurely before, but now with superdelegates lining up behind him, I don’t see any scenario in which he can lose the nomination. So those fireworks are finally dying down, and it’s time to focus on the next stage.

Or is it?

Obama v. Mccain is going to be intriguing on a number of levels, but I feel the biggest change now will be the focus of the media. Now that we’re officially in general election mode, there will be a much greater focus on George W. Bush and his legacy. He’s been ignored largely because he’s a lame deck President in his last year, and also because of the compelling primary races. But as the focus shifts to the next President, it will inevitably shine back on the Decider.

Oliver Stone is ahead of the curve, as he has a biopic in the works. I’m a pretty big fan of his workand it sounds like an interesting flick. We shall see.

I don’t know the man and while I have called him an expletiving expletive idiot on more than one occasion, I don’t think it’s fair to judge a person when you don’t know them personally. This is the person I’m talking about, not his Presidency. People will be quick to judge him on both accounts; for entering Iraq, or being an alcoholic, for failing during Katrina’s crisis or for being arrogant.

History will have to decide these things, and perhaps it’s best to leave it to historians who will have more perspective than us living in these polarized times.

While I don’t vote based on a candidate’s personal character, I know alot of you out there do. So let’s take a moment and examine the “character” of our 3 presidential hopefuls.

1. John Mccain called his wife a cunt in public. While I’m the last person who can call someone out for having a dirty mouth, I think that’s a bit extreme. He was a sailor, so you have to expect that, but still.

2. Hillary Clinton lies about anything she can.

3. Barack Obama is the most popular because you don’t know him. He’s a new face and we have yet to see his personal flaws, beyond the obligatory arrogance. If knowing that he’s Dick Cheney’s cousin doesn’t bother you, perhaps this will: it turns out that Obama has roots to the British Royal family. If you really want to get creeped out, look up the heraldic symbolism of the British coat of arms.

So there you have it. The establishment presents us with 3 options for the President:

1. The sexist sailor with a temper worse than Albert Belle’s.

2. The woman who is incapable of telling the truth.

3. The guy who has ties to the monarchy.

Awesome.

I really would love to list a full 365 ways to bury your head in the sand, or up your ass, but I don’t have that much time. Instead, I will explore the 3 most common and politically infamous ways of ignoring reality or lacking any grasp on the way things work here in this country.

1. Be a conservative who supports the free market but wants a border fence. These two ideas are about as incompatible as it gets. Opening up the market means opening up borders to anyone who wants to participate in the global economy; and the global economy depends on the cheap labor that immigrants provide, especially here in the States. The same people who talk about big government interfering with hard-working Americans generally use the same tone of disdain when talking about Mexicans who come up here and take away (white) Americans’ jobs. I’m sorry folks, but you just can’t have it both ways. The free market ensures that labor costs and immigration policies will be linked.

Today thousands of immigrants and their families and friends are marching through Chicago and other cities, because they want to participate in this great American experiment of democratic voting and markets. Are you going to deny them that? Well, you can’t anyway. A border fence cannot stop the flow of immigrants into this country anymore than it can stop the thousands of tons of drugs that come across as well. You’re just going to have to accept the notion that you won’t be fulfilling your life-long dream of being a bus-boy. The Mexicans have just as much of a right to be here as the Jews, Asians, Irish, and Germans that came before them. They’re not going away. Just accept it.

2. Believe that the surge is really working. I myself have fallen into this fallacy. But a temporary decrease in spectacular attacks do not prove that the strategy can work. There is no way that the surge can work. And for the inevitable idiot claims that I am somehow disrespecting the troops by saying this, I have no reason to even answer you, but the fact is that the surge is yet another impossible burden that has been placed on our troops. The reason I was opposed to this war from the beginning is because I support the troops who fight it. End of story.

The reason that the surge cannot work is because, just like the entire Iraqi mission, it is a flawed idea to begin with. Democracy cannot be forced upon people with a gun anymore than political reconciliation can be achieved through massive troop buildups. The violence has lessened since the surge began, but that’s not the question here. Without a permanent, comprehensive solution that is worked out by the IRAQIS there will be no end to this war. To expect the American soldier to keep carrying that burden while the corrupt, inept, illegitimate Iraqi government works towards “peace” is the true meaning of not supporting the troops. And for those of you who claim that we just need to give them more time, let me remind you that 5 years ago today, our President stood on the deck of a naval vessel in front of a giant banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” Don’t believe it for a second; then or now.

3. Believing that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Mccain will truly change things. The very fact that these 3 candidates have come as far as they have proves that their interests lie with the wealthy elite, not with the average American. For all his talk of campaign finance reform, John Mccain has taken millions from PAC’s and corporations and hasn’t apologized for it. Barack Obama claims that he has stayed away from this dirty money but it’s only a twisting of terms; the truth is that he has taken far more money from corporate America than any other candidate. Hillary Clinton is about as entrenched in the Washington power structure as you can get, and all her talk about health care is hallow as hell; in 1994 she may have really meant it, but since she has taken millions of dollars from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

For hundreds of years people have been running on the platform of change and hope, and very very few of them have actually followed through. In order to affect any real change in America, we need to change the way campaigns are funded, and stop voting for a pack of bloated elephants and jackasses.