Sunday News Shows

I watched several of the news shows today - notably the Chris Matthews Show, ABC Sunday Morning, and Face the Nation. I could have caught some of Meet the Press, but does in anyone in their right minds think that the CIA Director is going to come on national TV and say anything near the truth? Geez. Why waste your time, and we didn't. 

Of course, the big discussion is about how the Dems are going to resolve the presidential nomination process. One thing that everyone was agreed upon is that Sen. Clinton is going to stay in the race until the end of the primaries - Puerto Rico. I guess that will be true, unless Sen. Obama wins Pennsylvania. If that happens, then Sen. Clinton will feel a lot of political pressure to concede and I think she will. Other than that, although I have endorsed Obama on this site, I think Clinton still has a chance to win, and therefore she has a right to stay in. 

If Sen. Clinton wins all of the remaining primaries by large margins, she would be in a position to argue that Sen. Obama has been damaged too badly by the Rev. Wright sermons and his failure to have left that congregation in protest long ago that his viability has been seriously compromised, and that she should be considered as a serious alternative. A lot of the pundits and most of my friends tell me that isn't going to happen. While I do have the audacity to hope that our country has evolved to the point where there is enough understanding about the racial divide in the country to reject the mainstream media soundbite pounding brainwashing that they do by playing the same few second snippets of Wright's firey preaching over and over and over and over again, deep down inside I have my doubts, and wonder if Obama isn't mortally wounded politically. Afterall, when AIPAC gets after a political candidate, especially an African-American one, that they perceive as an "enemy" they have tremendous resources and little regard for nuance in beliefs. It's search and destroy - just look at what they have done to Cynthia McKinney.

Speaking of Cynthia McKinney, I found one discussion on the McLaughlin Group on Friday evening to be totally wrong. It was a discussion about Ralph Nader's run. McLaughlin and the others said that Nader would be best poised to pick up support from disenfranchised voters if it is perceived that Sen. Obama got robbed of the nomination. Personally, I believe that Cynthia McKinney, the presumtive Green Party nominee for president inr many of the major states stands most ready to benefit from such a scenario. I believe that the Democratic leaders that are now starting to pat Sen. Clinton on the back and tell her, "great effort, but time to move on," are worried about. If African-Americans start to leave the Dems in any kind of significant numbers, they will have a hard time taking the presidency. That's just the facts. McLaughlin and his group's failure to even acknowledge the McKinney candidacy when it is in fact relevant to the discussion shows the impact of the major corporate money even on PBS. (yeah, and let's admit it, AIPAC's influence also.) 

But one wild card in the future that the mainstream media has been silent on but I have been thinking about is the scenario of when Rev. Wright finally addresses, publicly, all of the criticism of a few snippets of statements played ad naseum on national media while ignoring the 99.9% of the rest of his career where he has been able to build one of the strongest churches in the Second City. He gets no credit for that? Oh, this man is much more powerful than we realize. I have very close contacts that live in the neighborhood of that church, and they tell me that Oprah is a member of that church. Has that been reported? NO! Why not? Selective character assassination? Figure it out for yourself. 

But, when I think about it, I think, Rev. Wright is probably spending a lot of time thinking, praying, meditating, whatever you call it. He is going to, sometime soon, I am willing to bet, set up a public appearance, where his safety can be pretty well protected, and he is going to present a speech to respond to all of this. Of course he loves Sen. Obama and his family - he has watched them grow up and Obama become this international powerhouse. I predict that he is going to craft a speech that is going to turn this country up side down, and I think it will be in a positive way overall. He will get media like he never dreamed. When Warhol said "15 minutes of fame" he didn't envision the kind of worldwide press that this event will garner. Wright will have a worldwide forum, which will put his words in international context, and that is a context that the Republicans don't want to deal with. It's because they have ruined our national reputation in the international context. This international context will make it extremely difficult for the Republicans to make this a serious campaign issue without making our international standing even worse - something that most citizens don't want to happen in the related international context of ever absurdly increasing oil prices, an absurdly low dollar, and an every increasing call for taking money from social and infrastructure programs and putting into our military to "protect" us from these increasing "threats." (we already spend so much more on military than the rest of the world combined that it is beyond absurd.)

I predict that this will happen before the Pennsylvania primary. Who knows. I could be totally wrong, but if I was them that's what I'd be planning. A person only gets a setup for the kind of media that Wright would get once in a lifetime. He should take advantage of it. 

One last moment of interest in the shows this morning. George Will at one point during the ABC roundtable said that CEO's from companies that get government bailouts should be limited in their salary to that of a G 15 Civil Service rating, which he said was less than $200K a year. Former labor secretary Robert Reich, and columnist Paul Krugman all laughed and said they agreed. Wow! That was a moment to remember. 

I made my prediction in May that Obama would get the nomination for the Dems. I was ridiculed by my buddies and political associates pretty good over that prediction. I'm still not ready to claim victory. But it does seem that the momentum is in his court. But race issues are deep and unpredictable. I hope that the young people who don't want this kind of racially divided country and world will turn out in big numbers in Pennsylvania and end it. If Obama wins Pennsylvania, it's over. It could happen, but not without a lot of people working together.

News Shows

I watched parts of the Chris Matthews Show, Meet the Press, This Week on ABC, and Face the Nation. Of course, they are fixated on the presidential race. And, while McCain made some news this week, the majority of the discussion was about Obama and Clinton. It was an interesting discussion.

There seemed to be a loose consensus among the Washington TV pundits that we are in uncharted waters in regard to the politics of race in U.S. Some of them thought that perhaps Obama would have long term ramifications from the Rev. Wright videos, but pretty much they all said they didn't know what was going to happen. 

I can't figure out why the mainstream media, who kept playing clips of people calling Obama "Barak Hussein Obama" and reporting about emails sent around saying he was a closet Muslim, and showing photos of him in traditional African dress, and then saying that, after playing them, it was an absurd notion, hasn't jumped on the fact that maybe Obama was in a church with a preacher that crossed the line on occasion, but at least it was a Christian church! Come on guys and gals, you're missing the obvious! 

But, while they all said that it wasn't a great week for Obama, they all said that Clinton had a worse week. Her week was tainted by the collapse of the possibility of revotes in Florida and Michigan - her best chance to make up the popular vote deficit, something she desperately needs to have a chance. And, papers relating to what she did as first lady were released, and they showed that she wasn't as intimately involved in certain things - or at least on the "official" level, as she had bragged about. She also appears to be more of a cheerleader for NAFTA than she had admitted. So the pundits all said that Clinton had a worse week, albeit under the radar, than Obama. Wow, that surprised me!

It did seem like the pundits are moving closer to accepting that Obama is the likely nominee for the Democrats. But, they all still are not willing to say that Clinton is out of it. But, now the "bar" has been moved for Hillary so that now she has to win not only Pennsylvania by more than 60%, but also North Carolina. If she can't do that, she will not get the nomination. That's the feeling of the pundits pretty much across networks and across the board. 

The media tattled on itself though, repeatedly, in regard to McCain. McCain went to the middle east, travelling with that enviro-nut Sen. Joe Liebermann. Thank God he had Liebermann, and know it all S. Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, when he said that Iran was training Al Quaeda. Of course, Al Quaeda is a Sunni organization, and Iran is a Shiite administration. Liebermann whispers in McCain's ear, and McCain comes back and totally contradicts what he had just said. Oh so presidential! 

But, for the most part, the mainstream media gives him a free ride on this. They say, and the Sunday news show pundits actually consistently supported this, that they automatically "forgave" McCain for this, because "they know" that he is a foreign policy expert. (They all said that if a Dem had made the same mistake, that the mainstream media would be playing it over and over again. Oh yeah? So you're admitting your bias? Yes, and did repeatedly today.)

Say what? If the dude is a foreign policy expert and top of things, is he going to make such a huge mistake that someone from another party has to correct him in a news conference in front of cameras? Give me a break! The guy is either uninformed or his memory is slipping because of his age. It's one of the other. And for the media to "assume" that he is a foreign policy expert because he was a POW and let him off the hook when they admit that they would crucify a Dem for the same thing is just kind of weird isn't it? To me it perfectly demostrates what the mainstream media is made of. It's made of YUCK for the most part!

Obama's speech on racism

I'm going to comment on the Obama race speech cause everyone else is and I thought he showed that is truly an intelligent man. But I think what I'm going to comment about is a little different than what the mainstreamers have commented about.

The mainstreamers have focused on whether or not he explained his relationship with the Rev. Wright well enough. It's so lame that it's laughable. These are all white guys that probably have never been in a black church, and don't have a clue about what reality is. And then they have the nerve to ask these assinine questions to Obama about why he doesn't "repudiate him" more. Geez, what is he supposed to do, waterboard him until he says that he is wrong and that everything that has gone on in the past on behalf of our government is just perfect? Gag me with a spoon, to use an old anachronism. Give me a break, to use another. But I already wrote about that.

But what I find of interest in the wake of the Wright media frenzy is that Obama showed that he truly is part white. And, frankly, I think it does distinguish him from "Jesse Jackson" (the, undeservedly because he was and is an historic figure) into the candidate that truly has an opportunity, whether he can do it or not, to help bridge the serious racial divide in our nation.

What I thought was most interesting was that Obama delivered the speech much as a white person would. Geez, we're so boring and starchy in our speech compared with the African Americans, but that's just how it is. But Obama, knowing that the constant repetitive playing of the videos of Wright across all the news channels, showing him in his most firey modes, but never showing him when he got quiet and sacred, to an equally intense level, which I know he did, was feeding false stereotypes of the African American culture, toned down his speech and delivered it in his white half. Gone were the shouts of "are you fired up?" Gone were the intense, voice raised, fever pitched phrases of some of his victory speeches after primary victories, including the historical victory in Iowa. He was speaking to a national audience - an audience that is a majority white and where the majority whites are in strong control. And he spoke from the white side of his brain. Interesting.

Then he made mention of the frustrations in the low income segment of white society. And, in combination with that, he had the row of U.S. flags behind him - other moves to cater to the white side of his brain. But to tell you the truth, what really impresses me is that I don't believe that it was contrived. I think the guy actually does understand white culture. And he understands black culture. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the U.S. is comprehending the significance of this. I hope so. I still am cautious about just giving a blank check to Obama, because he is still to a large degree unknown. But he is showing that he has the steel to take the pressure and deliver, that he does have a broad understanding of some of the most challenging and fundamental problems facing our society, and that he does represent a new generation that is trying to step up and assume some responsibility. I say, let him. He can't do any worse than what is currently going on.

Sunday News Show

The Sunday news shows were full of Obama/Clinton. No doubt, there is a concerted effort to bring Obama down. This week Geraldine Ferraro made some of the most incredible comments about Obama that one could imagine. She actually had the nerve to say that Obama is where is today BECAUSE he is African-American. What country has she been living in?

Has she never heard of "driving while black?" Has she never heard of the racial imbalance in our prison system, the disproportionate unemployment rates for African-American males? Come on Geraldine! Even though I admire you, and Kristi and I actually drove up to West Frankfort, Illinois, to hear you speak during your Vice-presidential run, because we recognized the historic importance of what you were doing, you are acting like a hack politician. This is unbecoming of you. You know better.

Then, somehow, although this is really not new, these videos of Obama's preacher surfaced. The mainstream media is jumping all over this. Theses videos show a very, what might be described as a "fire and brimstone" (although that phrase is generally more aimed at white preachers who take a similar excited delivery) style of preaching. If someone has ever taken the effort to hear an African-American preacher, and attend an African-American church, you know that this isn't that uncommon. And it isn't all that uncommon in white churches, although a much higher percent of white preachers are boring and drab, no doubt.

So criticizing Obama's preacher for his style is dumb. But ok, let's look at the words. One of the clips that is getting played shows the preacher, in his fire and brimstone mode, proclaiming with great vigor, that god is damning America, because we have killed lot of innocent people with our aggressive foreign policy based on military interventions. Another one of the favorite clips of the mainstream media talks about how our foreign policy brought on the hatred that is coming at us from around the world. The media has interpreted that as meaning that he is saying that we deserved to be attacked during 911, but he didn't say that. No man of God is going to try to justify the 911 attacks. But, for us as a society to be absolutely unwilling to consider our own behavior around the world and how that might have created to the climate which resulted in the attack is foolish and unrealistic. We need to figure out how to avoid this happening again, and we have to have the courage as a society to look at everything. Our unrealistic and extreme self-righteousness as a nation over the centuries has not served us well.

Nevertheless, Obama disavowed his statements. You know that can't be easy. It's like telling your mom to keep her mouth shut at your wedding reception so she won't offend you. Obama says that he didn't hear any of the most controversial rhetoric while sitting in the pew at the church. Some of the pundits suggested that there will be a full court press to find video of him sitting there while that preacher said things that will be characterized as "extremeist." If they find such a video, it was suggested, Obama is in big trouble. The wildcard here is whether or not there will be a backlash from people that like Obama that come to think that the system is doing everything they can to stop him because they want to maintain their advantages. If enough people believe that, it could actually benefit Obama. I just can't predict it. But it is going to be facinating. There is a lot of time before the next round of primaries, and, as it is often said, 24 hours can be forever in politics. When it's 5 weeks in such a heated race, it's totally unpredictable.

But these kind of things have resonance with certain parts of our society. The polls show that Clinton is favored by the "lower income" brackets, like $50K and under. That's Kristi and I, actually. We would be in the lower half of that bracket, individually. That's non-college educated folks, like us. I probably will get in trouble for writing this, but it's what I have observed here in the mid-south - it isn't the college educated folks in general that you see driving around with confederate flags in and on their trucks. I know that is a generalization, but I think I make a point that should be made, and I make it from experience.

The irony here of course, and perhaps the reason, is because the African-American male for the most part is in that lower income bracket from which Hillary is attracting a core of her support. I think there is a good bit of competition for the crumbs of society that is causing animosity, and there is some, whether conscious or not, exploitation of that competition. What is needed is to try and sweep all of that kind of economic "divide and conquer" mentality out the door. I just don't see the Clinton's trying to do that. She's trying, and somewhat successfully, to make this primary election one about race, and not try to unite the entire economic class. I think Obama is doing a better job at trying to do that.

But no doubt, Obama has been distracted this week. I guess he figured when it rains it pours, because he also decided to release all of his earmarks, and he visited the Chicago Tribune's editorial board and leveled with them about the full extent of the donations given to him by indicted Chicago businessman, Tony Resko. I would assume the thinking is to get it out now, while there is still time for people to forget before Pennsylvania, and to gather a little ammo to be able to turn this argument against Clinton. We got some hint of this today, as Obama supporters are now saying, "OK, Clinton, Obama has released his tax returns, has released his earmarks, and has come clean on Resko. What about you?"

A lot of this just comes down to just how much residual racism remains in the mainstream of the U.S. Is it enough to block a majority? I guess we will see. But I didn't see Clinton facing this kind of sustained, multi-faceted attack. The only thing she had to do was to distance herself from Ferraro - which she did in the most gentle of ways. She fudged, just like she did when asked about what she thought about allegations that Obama was a Muslim. She's a machine politician. No doubt about it. She knows how to play dirty politics. It is a challenge for Obama to try and change the tone of politics when faced with these kind of attacks. But, if he can't meet the challenge, he won't be president.

 

Kentucky Steelworker leader say McCain is no moderate on labor issues

BERRY CRAIG IS A LONG TIME WRITER FROM MAYFIELD, KENTUCKY. WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE HIM CONTRIBUTE TO RURAL THOUGHTS. M.D.

Kentucky Steelworker leader say McCain is no moderate on labor issues
By BERRY CRAIG
PADUCAH, Ky. – The media's fondness for fawning over “moderate” Arizona Sen. John McCain is making news in Great Britain.

He is commonly cast as “the Republican liberals can live with,” Johann Hari wrote in the Independent of London. “He is ‘a bipartisan progressive,’ ‘a principled hard liberal’, ‘a decent man’ – in the words of liberal newspapers.”

Even so, McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, is about as far right as Republicans go, he added. “If we don’t start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we might sleepwalk into four more years of Republicanism,” Hari warned.

On most issues -- including almost every important labor issue – McCain croons in the GOP’s conservative choir.

Ella Fitzgerald was a crooner, too. “It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it,” she sang in 1939.

McCain does it anti-labor and conservative. He makes it look moderate, thanks to a big boost from a mirating media.

But is McCain is making any headway with union voters? That's hard to say. No doubt union members appreciate him as a genuine Vietnam War hero. On the campaign trail, he seems soft-spoken and a nice fellow.

Yet on labor issues, he’s as mean as a junkyard dog. He voted against the Employee Free Choice Act and for a national right-to-work law, according to the AFL-CIO.

“He is not on our side – no way,” said Jeff Wiggins, president of the Paducah-based Western Kentucky Area Council, AFL-CIO. “He’s as anti-union as Bush.”

Numbers back up Wiggins, a member of Steelworkers Local 9447-5. McCain has voted “right” on labor legislation only 16 percent of the time, according to the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education.

McCain's COPE number ranks him as one of the most anti-labor lawmakers in Washington. By comparison, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the top two contenders for the Democratic nomination, are among the strongest union supporters on Capitol Hill. Obama's COPE rating is 98 percent; Clinton's is 94.

Wiggins’ union endorsed John Edwards. A former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate, he dropped out of this year’s presidential contest.

“We [the Steelworkers] aren't picking sides,” said Wiggins, who is also on the Kentucky State AFL-CIO Executive Board. “We’re not saying vote for Obama or Clinton. But we want to define McCain for what he really is before he starts defining himself as a friend to labor, which he is not.”

To that end, Wiggins and other Kentucky labor leaders are circulating via email “General Talking Points on John McCain.” He said the email is based on a flyer that Wisconsin unions put out in the Dairy State’s presidential primary.

“…. John McCain’s record on working family issues is close to identical to the record of George Bush,” the “core message” says. “He’s voted with the President 88% of the time. John McCain has consistently voted on the side of corporations, often at working people’s expense…across the country.”

The email asks, “Why is John McCain bad for working people?” It answers with bullet points:

“-- John McCain came out…singing the same tune as years of Republican leadership: that good jobs were leaving the country and there was nothing he could do about it. We’ve heard his excuses before – that workers are ‘competing in a global market.’ We know it just means more of the same – the loss of family supporting jobs while leaders shrug their shoulders.
“-- Repeatedly, John McCain supported free trade agreements and has said agreements like NAFTA are good for Americans. In fact, he’s called himself the most free-trade member of the US Senate. He isn’t listening to the voices of working families on the impact free trade has had on our once strong and stable communities.
“-- Meanwhile, workers are being forced to work longer hours just to get by. Workers are forced to spend more time at work instead of with their families. But John McCain turned his back by voting against protecting overtime pay.
“-- John McCain continues to support the privatization of Social Security. Never mind that privatization would leave seniors vulnerable to ending up with no retirement security at all.
“-- As the country is coming around to the idea that the health care crisis is not going to change unless we make change happen, John McCain does not support a health care system that would ensure health care for all. Instead, he’s chosen a different path – privatization.
“-- John McCain cast his vote to give the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and has said the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be made permanent – all the while voting against a raise for minimum wage workers.
“-- Sen. John McCain’s record on the economy tells us that as a President, he would be disastrous for working people. We deserve better. We deserve real change. It’s time to turn around America.”

America will keep turning right if McCain gets elected, Hari wrote. American journalist Peter Dreier agrees that you wouldn't know that from the American media.

“…With some exceptions, the mainstream media have given McCain a free pass, allowing his right-wing opponents [like Rush Limbaugh and religious conservatives] to define him as a moderate, without scrutinizing his record,” he wrote on the "Huffington Post" Internet website. “Perhaps because McCain is a somewhat avuncular, charming, grandfatherly guy with a sense of humor who occasionally shows up on 'The Daily Show,' he doesn't come off as an angry right-wing curmudgeon.”

Dreier's post is headlined, "If McCain's A Moderate, I'm The Easter Bunny." The author added, “Perhaps because he cosponsored a handful of bills with Democrats, and occasionally broke ranks with GOP litmus tests, reporters think he's a real maverick. Or maybe reporters' love affair with McCain stems from the fact that he battled and beat cancer, or that he was a prisoner of war during the Viet Nam war.”

Dreier concluded that journalists would have to be on a different planet to not see that McCain's positions on health care reform, global warming and the Iraq war put him firmly in the camp of the conservatives. “Yes, there are some Republican senators who have even higher conservative scores, showing how far right the party has moved in the past decade,” he wrote. “But to call McCain a ‘centrist’ or a ‘moderate’ is to remove any meaning from those terms. In terms of what McCain would be like as President, think William McKinley, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush. His agenda would please the Chamber of Commerce and the social conservatives.”

Dreier called the media to task for helping McCain make himself look like a moderate. The media,” he argued, “…have a responsibility to report objectively about McCain's views, the corporate interests he has served, and his voting record, rather than simply echoing the spin of his own campaign or of the ultra-right. In that context, McCain remains today, as he's been his entire political career, far outside the American mainstream.”

Obama, Clinton, and the news shows

I haven’t posted anything for several days, but I have been keeping track of things in the news. I watched the Friday news shows, such as McLaughlin Group, and also the shows that play Sunday morning, such as Chris Matthews, Sunday Morning, Meet the Press, and Face the Nation.

Not surprisingly, the main topic of conversation was the Abomey/Clinton race. Of course the mainstream media loves this, and is going to try and milk the close race for what it’s worth, not worrying about the facts so much. Of course, they will duck and hide behind any and all accusations of bias, and act in a way that sustains the controversy. That is what is in their self interest. (But, I just have to drop in that when commentators like Pat Buchanan go off on the McLaughlin Group and state that Obama is getting votes from white people because of "white guilt," that goes way too far. McLaughlin should have come down harder on that. That was racist, I think.)

No doubt the race is tight. And, it isn’t completely clear yet who will emerge with the nomination. Three main questions have arisen that I think are worthy of thinking about. (1) who wins the elected delegate count, (2) who wins the overall popular vote across the country, and (3) what about Florida and Michigan?

These are good questions. Howard Dean made several mainstream media appearances this morning, and said that the rules have to be followed. This apparently means that (1) he will not allow the Michigan and Florida votes as they were be counted, and (2) the superdelegates will be able to vote for whomever they want, regardless of it is for someone who didn’t win the most elected delegates. These are the rules going in, and they will be the rules going out, according to Dean.

It would be a travesty of justice to allow the current results in Michigan and Florida to stand. Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan, and no one campaigned in Florida. The Clinton campaign knows that this is true, yet they keep pushing, including so-called “respected” elders of the party, such as Sen. Levin (and even to a lesser extent, Sen. Nelson,) for the current results to stand. This is repugnant and unbecoming of such respected leaders. It just would not be fair. It’s like officials calling two teams for the championship game and telling them it’s cancelled. One team shows up, shoots a few baskets without any opposition, and claim victory. It’s absurd. If the Dems stoop to this to keep the current power structure in place, then pox on their house.

The worst situation is Florida. There, the Republican controlled legislature and governor, fully aware of what the DNC had done, purposefully put the Florida primary up ahead of the deadline. There are more details of this, including a less than vigorous fight put up by the state Dems, but nevertheless, it was a bad deal for the Dems. But, to allow Clinton to bag a bunch of the state delegates in a state where no campaigning occurred and which was deemed to be “illegal” by the DNC, so early in the campaign seems hardly fair. I think Obama should oppose that strongly.

But, Obama needs to be careful about being perceived as trying to manipulate in any way those folks’ ability to have a compliant primary. Find a way to redo the primary. Give the candidates a decent amount of time to campaign, and then have another vote. It will be more representative than the original non-compliant primaries. But, I do agree that in some way or another, the Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated.

It looks pretty certain that Obama will end up the primaries with the most elected delegates. That normally should entitled him to a majority of the superdelegates. However, if the elected delegate count is very close - say within a couple percent, and Clinton actually can show that she won the overall nationwide popular vote, that would legitamiately cloud the waters. At that point, more details of the entire election cycle would have to be analyzed.

The Clinton camp makes a big deal out of the fact that they have carried these big states. Honestly, all that tells me is that when there are so many people out there that a more personal contact becomes impossible, that machine politics becomes very important, and no doubt about it, the Clintons have a big advantage in that regard. But the more important question is, whether or not the percent of people that Obama is bringing into the Democratic primaries that will vote for Clinton in the general if she becomes nominee is more or less than the percent of people that are voting for Clinton that will vote for Obama in the general. I have to think that the people voting for Clinton are more the base Democrats, and that they will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless. Obama brings in new people, and I think it is likely that a much larger percent of them won’t vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, especially if it is perceived that political heavy handedness choose Clinton and screwed Obama.

We’ll just have to wait to see how things come out. But there is no doubt that Clinton is on the attack. It’s sad to see her get down in the dirt in desperation to win. And this faux olive branch, offering to allow Obama to be VP for her, is, in her own words as she spoke to Jon Steward the other night, “pathetic.”

As I wrote several weeks ago, if it is perceived that the big shots of the party - the Machine politicians - rob Obama of what he rightfully earned, we will see the biggest split of the Democratic party that we have seen in our lifetimes. It may be the end of the Democrats. But every end is a beginning. We definitely need a new direction in our country, but let’s face it - a lot of the system Dems don’t want that much change. They like the money coming in from the PACs, and they don’t want no upstarts changing that. Obama may seem like a threat because he hasn’t been in long enough to owe all the old timers enough for them to control him. But that’s exactly what the public wants and needs. Unfortunately, much of the public is susceptible to the fear tactics that we have seen, and the Clintons and their team are masters of political campaigns. I still think Obama is going to win the nomination, but I may be wrong. It’s going to be an interesting several weeks.

Obama and the allegations that he is "muslim."

For months it has been reported that there has been a whisper campaign around the country that Barack Obama is actually a Muslim. Obama himself says that he prays to Jesus every night. The one bit of proof that the accusers show is that Obama's middle name is Hussein.

On "60 Minutes" last night, Hillary Clinton was questioned about this. No doubt about it folks, she fudged. I was watching. She would not come right out and say, "that's ridiculous." She said, "well, I have no reason not believe him..." and things like that. She fudged on it, leading the question on rather than putting it absolutely to rest. She can't get away with excuses like, "oh no, I wouldn't do that." It doesn't fly. She did it and she should be ashamed of herself.

The reason this is so bad is that it feeds into the christian/muslim divide. Already we are on the verge of all out global war between christians and muslims. To promote this kind of divide is unbecoming of the Democratic party. The Democratic party should be the "big tent" party. To be the location of a whisper campaign against the religion of Islam is not where the Democrats should be. That will not lead them to future larger and larger majorities. What will lead them to such majorities is being the party of inclusion.

Tomorrow is going to be interesting. I actually am not even going to try and call it. What's bad is if it is widely believed that Obama lost for some unscrupulous reason, the party that is now so excited and drawing new faces across the country, would shrink immediately and lose the excitement. That would be a shame.

Sunday News Shows

I only saw parts of Stephanopolous and Russert, because they now are showing at the same time on our TV, and Face the Nation. Also, Paxton Media has either cancelled Chris Matthews or moved to an even less prominent place than 6:30am on Sunday morning. Of course, Paxton media is about as unconcerned as you can get when it comes to actually informing the people about something important, not that the Chris Matthews show is important. But, it's more important than what they replaced it with, that's for sure.

The big news today of course is the upcoming primaries in Ohio and Texas, as well as some other smaller states, including Rhode Island and Vermont. That isn't surprising. It is interesting to see where the discussion is going within the Democratic party. It seems as if most of the people in the part are hoping that Obama just wins Texas and Ohio which will make it obvious that Clinton has to go. But, it may not happen that way.

The Clintons are putting the full court press on here in the closing minutes. One of their last minute campaign tactics is one of playing on the sympathies in the female community that females don't get a fair shake. She demonstrates this by targeted complaints about, for example, how she always gets called to answer the first question in the debates. I'm not sure to what extent her complaints are valid. They may be. But, the media seems to be trying to make sure they don't do that, and so Clinton has had a few softballs pitched at her in the last few days, including the Saturday Nite Live performance.

It may be that this will resonate with the females. I think in general females do have a harder time getting to the top jobs in society, and if she was running against a rich, powerful white male, I think that she would be getting a lot more support in this type of sympathy campaign. Against a mixed race/black individual, that kind of sympathy campaign loses a lot of sympathy, especially if the white female used to live in the white house.

But I think that it is possible, although improbable , that Hillary will win both Ohio and Texas. If she does, even by slim margins, it presents a real problem for the Dems. Obama will still lead clearly in delegates, although not by a landslide margin. But, Hillary will have the momentum and the support of the majority of the large states. It's going to be interesting.

Bill Richardson was on Face the Nation. He has grown a bit of a beard. He looks good. He said that who ever has a clear delegate lead after Tuesday should get the nomination. He refused to endorse anyone, but said he might. He definitely spoke highly of Obama, and it seemed to me that he was hoping that Obama would get the nomination. He needs to endorse someone. So does John Edwards. Come on guys, quit playing it safe. Take a stand.

I do think that Clinton is drawing the more core Democrats as a whole, and Obama is drawing new people. I think that most of Clinton supporters will support Obama if he gets the nomination. I'm not sure all of Obama voters will support Clinton. I think that is a legitimate concern of the Democrats. But, if Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio, even by small margins, there is going to be a lot of heavy handed pressure to move her up in the line. Whether the party will do it, bypassing the elected "delegates" county, I'm not sure. But if they do, they risk alienating the very new people that the party wants and Obama is bringing in. That would be dumb. But, bigger, more powerful organizations than the Democratic party have made bigger mistakes, so it is possible.

Stop lights need timing in Paducah bad

Of course, the City Council in Paducah, KY, overall, is about as environmentally aware as a puff of natural gas escaping from a swamp. But, they'd do us all a favor if they would spend some money, not on some stupid wasteful project like giving a bunch of money to some corporation that has more money than Paducah ten times over, but on timing the stop lights in the city.

Most of the stop lights in Paducah are so badly timed that you can sit for many minutes at a light when no one is passing in other directions. One example is 6th and Broadway. The city acts like Broadway is this totally busy street and 6th has almost no one. There is a lot of traffic on 6th, and just about everytime people coming on 6th street get stopped by the light, they sit there for many minutes and wait for nothing. If the city really wanted to be avant guarde, cutting edge, it would time the lights, and make the city friendly for bicycles. I mean, there's few cities that are set up as well to become very bicycle friendly, but because the city leadership is so dense, it isn't bicycle friendly. Oh sure, it's bicycle usuable, but there's a big difference in a city being bicycle usuable and bicycle friendly. The sad part is that the city could so easily be a great bicycle city, and that could attract some very desirable types.

Unfortunately, the city leaders are too busy following pipe dreams of bringing all the spent nuclear fuel rods from our nuke power plants here for reprocessing, screwing their firefighters and police, or getting rid of the civil rights commission. Well, one can always hope for better. But as I sit at the lights and wait mindlessly for nothing while my $100/barrel oil burns mindless away, driving me to poverty, I do wonder why they can't do something more for the everyday person - like time the stoplights! I am absolutely sure that it could be done in a way that is cutting edge and puts Paducah on the map, not to mention saving money for citizens so they can spend it elsewhere. But, that may be too heavy of a concept for most of that city council.

Sunday News Shows

Today on the Sunday News shows, the main focus of the discussion was, not surprisingly, the Democratic race for the presidential nomination. The pundits were particularly interested in how the party was going to make the final choice, especially if the race remains very close. This discussion was generally broken down into two different issues - how the so-called “superdelegates” are going to vote, and how the party is going to allow Florida and Michigan to be represented in the voting.

It seems agreed that if one candidate, and for all intents and purposes, we are talking about Obama, wins the popular vote and the most elected delegates, even if that vote is close, and the superdelegates overturn it, that would cause a huge uproar within the Democratic party that could threaten the general election.

An interesting exchange was on Meet the Press, where roommates and friends Sen. Durbin from Illinois, Obama’s home state, and Sen. Schumer from New York, Clinton’s home state. These two U.S. Senators are leaders of the party no doubt. They also are friends and roommates in D.C.

They took a more conciliatory tone with each other than say, the two campaign managers did on “Face the Nation.” But they generally followed the positions of the respective candidates. Durbin said the superdelegates should follow the elected delegates, Schumer said they should follow the rules. On Florida and Michigan, Durbin said follow the rules and not count the primaries. Shumer said that some fair way has to be developed to count them. Durbin basically agreed with that. But they aren’t together on how that will occur. Schumer didn't want a new caucus, but didn't rule out some alternative process for choosing representation.

But I do have to comment on Schumer’s use of the phrase “twists and turns” in describing the campaign for the Democratic nomination. He used that phrase 4 or 5 times within the first minute or so of his addressing the situation. He said, “This campaign is going to have a lot of twists and turns....” or some close variation thereof. He said it over and over. It was noticeable to me.

Because he used that phrase repeatedly, it makes me think that this is a code message of some sort. The phrase “twists and turns,” at least in my opinion, indicates unpredicted happenings along a path to a given place that cause the path to not be what everyone thought it would be. To me it indicates a certain amount of everything from unexpected, to mischievous goings on, to chicanery - an outcome not exactly what was expected, but probably not due to accidental happenings.

While I’m not 100% sure what message Schumer was giving, I do think that what he was saying, in the context of the entire conversation, and actually the entire day of news shows, was that Obama needs to be a clear winner if he wants to win, because if there is any doubt, Clinton is going to do what she must to obtain the nomination - even if it gets rough. And, according to what I heard, that included Clinton being close, even if she isn't ahead in elected delegates.

That means that the possibility of the scenario of a candidate winning the popular vote not winning the election. This is pretty unbelievable, considering what happened to the Dems in 2000 in the presidential election. If this happens, it could very well seriously split the party and lose the election. Hopefully no candidate is so selfish.

But did anyone doubt this scenario? I wrote about this a week or more ago. But, the way I see it, Obama, while certainly being within his rights to campaign for the superdelegates on the grounds that he has won the people, should not lobby for a rule change. Clinton should give up her what can rightfully be called two faced, sleazy attempts to get the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries used. Obama needs to win one of the big states. Maybe he will win them all and the question will go away. If I was Obama, I’d be campaigning for a large turnout to insure that this is what happens. Otherwise, he could find his nomination lost to the old Democratic machine. That would be a tragedy, but it could happen.

Ice Storm

We're in the middle of the worst ice storm that either of us has ever experienced. We had a very bad one here about 20 years ago or so, but this one is much more severe. While thankfully, our house hasn't suffered any damage from falling trees or limbs, our yard and land around the house looks like a war zone. Our house was surrounded by large trees, and many many large and medium sized limbs and branchs are everywhere. The environment is still covered with probably a half inch of ice or more, and it is well below freezing tonight. For over a day our phone was out, and we couldn't travel. We hope to make it in to work tomorrow, but we're not sure. I've got some pictures, which I'll upload when I get them on the computer. It's beautiful visually, but our poor trees. They are suffering.

Obama and Hillary again

I didn't get a chance to write about the Sunday News shows. But mostly, they were talking about Obama and Clinton, and McCain Huckabee. The general consensus among the talking heads seems to be that if Obama runs the table on the smaller states and then takes one of the big three left - Ohio, Texas, or Pennsylvania, that he should get the nomination. If Hillary takes all of the three big states, then she may be able to rustle the nomination away.

But don't underestimate the political powers that be, the DLC folks, which is represented by Hillary at the moment. They will probably do whatever they need to do to stay in power. Hopefully, the party is smart enough as a whole not to let the machine steal the nomination from the new generation just to perpetuate the old power structures. If this is allowed, it could mean snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Today John Edwards has resurfaced. Apparently he is considering an endorsement. He also apparently met quietly with Hillary a few days ago, but word got out about his meeting with Obama today, and the media circus was so intense that they couldn't do the meeting. John Edwards just has to endorse Obama if he endorses anyone. His endorsement could help Obama overcome any attempts to hijack the nomination.

If Hillary loses the Potomac primary completely tomorrow, especially if it is by some of the broad margins that occurred in yesterday's primaries and caucuses, she should strongly consider dropping out of the race and letting Obama build his campaign with her support instead of opposition. Progress as a whole is more important than any individual.

Michael Bugg's Comments on my endorsements for President

This is what I heard from a friend, Michael Bugg, a very concerned political thinker from Western Kentucky, regarding my endorsements for president. He gave me permission to post it, and I think it is worth posting. Mark

Mark,

I used the link and read your endorsement and I agree that those two would be the preferable choices of the remaining candidates. I've always thought that Hillary was too willing to satisfy Big Business, and I've said for years that Bill was the best REPUBLICAN president we've ever had!

You are right about the likelihood of change produced by the various candidates. The neo-cons and the corporate owned news media want Hillary to be the nominee instead of EDWARDS, the candidate who most likely represented CHANGE, and the Democrat who had and still HAS the best chance of winning in November.
For the life of me I cannot comprehend why Democratic voters are hell bent on nominating either of the two who have the least certainty to win in November instead of Edwards!

The neo-cons WANT either Hillary or Barak because they see those two as the most vulnerable to their standard "smear and fear" tactics. Edwards was the least vulnerable to that, and as far as I'm concerned he and Kerry actually won in 2004 but were cheated out of it again, so he has proven he can win in less favorable conditions than we have now. His only major negative was that he was a successful lawyer who lived in a 28,000 sq foot house and he got a $400 hair cut instead of going to a local barber.

The e-mail smear campaign is already in full swing against Barak and Hillary, not to mention that a lot of Democrats, and not just southern Democrats, WON'T vote for a black man for president, especially one with an Islamic sounding name. And obviously as the primaries have shown, a lot of Democrats don't want to vote for a woman, and this woman in particular! They will either vote for a white Republican, or not vote at all. Low turn-out helps Republicans usually, especially if they nominate someone who does not excite their voters.

By the same token I have a better chance of winning than Cynthia McKinney has, and I like her as well. If Hillary is the nominee, and manages to win, they see her as the Democrat least likely to actually change anything or ask the kind of questions Cynthia would ask. Cynthia has already proven she will rock the boat!

It's kind of funny to me, and I intended to write this to NPR this morning, that the Republicans are embracing McCain after the way Bush's people smeared him in 2000, and I think that publicly bashing him for being "too liberal" is a ploy to dupe swing voters into voting for him. According to his voting record he is anything but liberal, or progressive, or centrist, or truly conservative. He is a war loving SELFATIVE (self righteous, self-serving, self-centered, self-aggrandizing, and selfish -- a word I coined in 2000) like the rest of them!

Some people see McCain as the next Bob Dole, but I say that is far from certain if either Hillary or Barak are the nominee, unless the economy is much worse in October than it is now. Never underestimate the ability of the American people to be swayed by nonsense! Like before the Iraq "war" for instance.

One last observation. It is amusing to me that the news media, including NPR, is gobbling up and reporting the data from all the polls and exit polls so far without question. But recall how quickly they ignored that data in 2000 and again in 2004 when people used it to complain that the elections had been stolen!

Feel free to post this on your blog.

Later... Michael Bugg

I endorse Cynthia McKinney for Green Party and Barak Obama for Democratic Party candidates for President of the U.S.

This entry is to endorse two candidates for the nomination of their parties for President of the U.S. I know Kristi agrees with me on this also. Some of the big newspapers endorse a candidate from two parties, mostly one democrat and one republican. I'm doing two parties, but the parties I'm doing are Green and Democrat.

I endorse Cynthia McKinney as the Green Party candidate for President. She has the courage to ask the hard questions that the mainstream, corporate military industrial complex doesn't want asked but need to be asked. (and answered.) She is totally fluent on the range of issues facing the presidency, she is an attractive candidate, and she has significant experience in government - enough to know how government works. If she became president, we would see things shaking in Washington D.C., and oh, how we need that.

I also endorse Barak Obama for the Democratic Party nomination for President. He will bring the biggest change by far between he and Hillary. Yeah, Hillary is smart and well connected, but she's also a Clinton, and I fall into the camp that this is not the right time for Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Enough simply is enough for me.

But it's more than that also. The Clintons strike me as being too corporate - too mainstream. Bill got himself into trouble politically and socially because he didn't stand up well when he either got tempted or threatened. He was not strong on the environment,
that's for sure. He compromised with the corporations too easily. I think Hillary will do the same. Obama may too, but we can have the audacity to hope that he won't.

My endorsement doesn't mean a hill of beans. But I still wanted to go on the record. Good luck to Ms. McKinney and Mr. Obama. I sincerely hope that I have to chose to between the two of you in November. Our country will be on the way to a better place if that is the case.

I'm not going to bother even trying to endorse a republican. McCain is going to get the nomination. Kristi predicted that two years ago. For one thing, the contrast between McCain as the old and Obama, should he get the nomination, as the new, is going to be huge. The only thing McCain has going for him is the so-called "surge" in Iraq. Not a lot to work with there. If you want more war, then endorse McCain. I'm hoping for something else, myself.