Posts tagged ‘Palin’

September 11, 2009

Republicans: Why Should we vote for you? (Reprise)

9/11 Tribute

9/11 Tribute

Before I start this entry, I would like to take a moment to remember the 9/11 tragedy and its victims during, and after the event.

9/11 had to be one of the most surreal experiences of my life, topped only by the deaths of my parents the 1+ year prior to the event. In fact, 9/11 came exactly 1 year and 10 days after my fathers death in 2000. I remember being in a deep depressive fog that I just could not shake. Due to that depression, I did not awake that day until after the 2nd plane had hit.

When I turned on my television set (it was already on CNN) I just recall being confused and dumbfounded, but I must admit that much of that day is still a blur to me. I can’t sit here and recount the exact second I heard about it, nor my visceral reaction; other than it was the ultimate What The F–k moment. While immensely shocked, I was strangely void of emotion. It was when I witnessed a female reporter struggling to contain her emotions that it all began to sink it.

What can I say? I am good for having delayed reactions. After the levees broke in New Orleans, it wasn’t until the telethon (where Kanye West made Mike Myers squirm, and Chris Tucker eyes pop out of its sockets) that I broke down. Of course, with Katrina, I had my own personal reasons for why it was even more heart wrenching than it would have been normally. I’m sure I will share that at some point.

Meanwhile, I still have my main entry to get to where I ask the question: Republicans, why do you deserve our vote?

I wonder if the republican party realizes that, just because the democrats got voted into office, it doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for them think that they are perfect? It’s not like we are all happy with everything that they have done, (or have not done for that matter…) But, here’s my ultimate inquiry: When your only other real option is the Republican Party… why in the world would any sane, rational, informed individual vote for them?

I hear people talking about voting the democrats out of office in 2010 because they didn’t “do what they promised” and it’s clear that they aren’t really thinking things through. That they are just in the heat of the moment… (I mean, talk about the desire for instant gratification.) But, when it comes down to actually voting, why would the public, as a whole, trust the party that was at the helm when our economy tanked? When 9/11 hit? (“We kept you safe for 8 years,” my eye.) A party who, for the 8 years, did nothing to even attempt reform healthcare?

Why should we trust a party that has fallen back on their previous tactics of scaring people into voting for them? Why should we trust a party that doesn’t actually put forth any solutions, but simultaneously say NO to anything that is proposed by the opposing party? Particularly when it helps we, the little people?

These are questions that the republicans should be asking themselves, and what we the American people should demand them to answer. Why should people who are truly open to voting for either party WANT to vote republican? Do they realize that they aren’t gaining new supporters with their fear mongering? That they are just pandering to a very loud, yet very minority base? Sarah Palin referred to them as the “real America” during the campaign. Yes Sarah, they are real Americans. The real small group of Americans who will swallow anything that she and the rest of her colleagues tell them. I have a newsflash for these “real” people:  Just because more people may be unhappy with the president than before, it doesn’t mean that those  same unhappy people are daft enough to support the republican party come election time.

Best case scenario, for the republicans, is that they simply don’t vote at all. Worst case scenario, is they scare even more people into going out to vote AGAINST them. Like me! I stood in line four hours to vote the democrats into power last election, and I’ll do it again!

What people have to realize is that it’s early, not even a full year into Obama’s first term. While the republicans may feel that they are winning a couple of tiny battles here and there,  I predict that these underhanded tactics are going to come back to haunt their party. Americans are fickle and irrational at times, but once time passes and things DO improve, we will have forgotten about the fright-wing and their desperate antics. And… in the end, they will be even worse off than they are now. Much to my glee.

As of now, I know that there is no way under the sun I could ever consider voting even one republican into office. So, Republicans, how do go about changing my mind?  What are YOU going to do to better the country I live in? When will the “little people” that you step on to serve your masters begin to matter?

Why do you deserve my vote?

Advertisements
October 9, 2008

Palin Says Obama Would Diminish “The Prestige Of The United States Presidency”

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin attacked Barack Obama Thursday for not being honest about his association with 1960’s radical William Ayers.

“Barack Obama hasn’t told the American people the total truth about that, about his association with Ayers,” Palin said on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show. “Doggonit he fails to tell the American people with candor and with truthfulness what his associations are and we have to know.”

Palin blamed the media for not providing what she characterized as the same level of scrutiny to Obama that it has applied to her and running mate John McCain.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

This is simply outrageous. They count on the fact that their supporters rely heavily on two sources for their information, them and Fox News. They know that they won’t fact check. Their supporters just take them at their word. In their world, everything they are told by McCain and Palin is the GOSPEL TRUTH.

I am part of a community on line that has been brought together by an unpolitical commonality. We do discuss politics, however, and not one republican will touch on two key hypocritical points of the McCain/Palin ticket; no matter how eloquently the facts are laid out before them. One, is the “unpatriotic” nature of the Palin’s for being associated with a party that wants to secede from the rest of the US. The second is the fact that McCain has his own shady past, full of characters that he has had MUCH stronger ties to.

Of late, the fact that a McCain supporter, and republican, is the one who put Obama and Ayers on that board together has also been ignored. Especially when I ask how they aren’t outraged that McCain would accept support from a woman who has “palled” around with a terrorist.

In short, the republican party do not care one iota about facts and are full of hypocrites who want to distort the truth for their own political gain. They have frightened their constituents to death at the thought of Obama becoming president; an irrational fear that has been created by lies and slander promoted by both the McCain/Palin party and Fox News. NONE of their fear is even remotely rational. What they should be scared of is living out of a cardboard box when they turn 60 and their retirement fund isn’t there. McCain is CLUELESS about the economy and has admitted as much. His answer for everything is a commission.

Lord help us.

I never thought I would see McCain stoop to Karl Rove style politics, but he has. I feel that his character is so far in the toilet that, upon his death, this is one of the things he will be most remembered for.

I guess he’s no real hero after all.

October 4, 2008

Fact-Checking the VP Debate

Joe Biden and Sarah Palin Vice Presidential Debate

As with any presidential campaign, lies and half-truths flow freely. The following is from wire.factcheck.org. The guys over there have done a real job of “Keeping them Honest,” throughout the entire Election.

Some highlights:

Killing Afghan Civilians?


Palin said that Obama had accused American troops of doing nothing but killing civilians, a claim she called “reckless” and “untrue.”

Obama did say that troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians. Here’s the whole quote, from a campaign stop in New Hampshire:

The Associated Press fact-checked this one, and found that in fact U.S troops were killing more civilians at the time than insurgents: “As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can’t be attributed to one party.” Afghan President Hamid Karzai had expressed concern about these civilian killings, a concern President Bush said he shared.

Whether Obama said that this was “all we’re doing” is debatable. He said that we need to have enough troops so that we’re “not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians,” but did not say that troops are doing nothing else.

McCain in the Vanguard of Mortgage Reform?

Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

Palin’s Health Care Hooey

Palin claimed that McCain’s health care plan would be “budget-neutral,” costing the government nothing.

The McCain campaign hasn’t released an estimate of how much the plan would cost, but independent experts contradict Palin’s claim of a cost-free program.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain’s plan, which at its peak would cover 5 million of the uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Obama’s plan, which would cover 34 million of the uninsured, would cost $1.6 trillion over that time period.

The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch’s fiscal voter guide estimates that McCain’s tax credit would increase the deficit by somewhere between $288 billion to $364 billion by the year 2013, and that making employer health benefits taxable would bring in between $201 billion to $274 billion in revenue. That nets out to a shortfall of somewhere between $14 billion to $163 billion – for that year alone.

Palin also said that Obama’s plan would be “universal government run” health care and that health care would be “taken over by the feds.” That’s not the case at all. As we’ve said before, Obama’s plan would not replace or remove private insurance, or require people to enroll in a public plan. It would increase the offerings of publicly funded health care.

Did McCain “vote the same way” as Obama on funding troops? This correction by Factcheck.org answers that question.

Correction Oct 3: This article originally faulted Biden for saying that McCain had voted “the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. We said that McCain was absent for the vote and so didn’t vote at all. Biden was, however, correct.

McCain did vote against the troop-funding bill in question, H.R. 1591, on March 29, 2007, when it originally cleared the Senate. The vote to which we referred, and which McCain missed, was a later vote on the House-Senate compromise version of the same bill, on April 26, 2007. McCain opposed the bill, which Obama supported, because it contained language calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Biden was responding to Palin’s accusation that “Obama voted against funding troops.” Obama voted for the bill March 29 and April 26, and then on May 24, 2007, following a veto by President Bush, Obama voted against a similar troop-funding bill, H.R. 2206, that lacked any withdrawal language.


To read more facts on the topics that the Vice Presidential candidates discussed Thursday night, check out wire.factcheck.org and PolitiFact.org.

A few other misleads of note:

  • Palin said, “We’re circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries” for imported oil, repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.
  • Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.
  • Palin repeated a falsehood that the McCain campaign has peddled, off and on, for some time; that under Obama “millions of small businesses” will pay high taxes. As we reported June 23, it’s simply untrue that “millions” of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama’s proposal.
  • Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain’s call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

    October 4, 2008

    Does Folksy REALLY work for you?

    Sarah Palin

    Sarah Palin

    I was born, and spent most of my childhood, in a small town. When I was twelve years old, my family picked up and moved to the big city of Atlanta. From one southern state to another, that hospitality was something that was never lost. I still smile at strangers when I walk down the street. Wave at my neighbors as I drive through my subdivision. Guest are still offered something cold to drink, something to eat. While others from bigger cities may scoff at this, one thing we from the south will always be known for is a hospitality that is genuine and meaningful.

    But here’s the thing… There is quite a fine line between that genuine graciousness and the quite disingenuous nature of what we saw displayed on stage, by Governor Palin, last night.

    Leading up to last nights debate, I had the opportunity to see several clips from Palin’s previous debates; and for a moment I thought perhaps that that would be the Palin that would show up last night. Not that I heard anything riveting during any of those performances… but the “folksiness” was kept to an absolute minimum. Why the drastic change of persona over the last couple of years? Is it that she doesn’t think she can speak to Americans, as a whole, as if we have more than two braincells to rub together? The only time I speak in the manner that she spoke to us last night is when I am playing with my 9 month old nephew. Being talked to as if I am an infant, or at best, a toddler is not something that I would calling “endearing.”

    Didn’t we, as Americans, learn our lesson last go around with Bush? That wanting to have a beer and pizza with the president (or in this case, vice president) isn’t a qualifying factor? That it simply cannot be the barometer by which we measure presidential competency? It’s as if many of us are allergic to those who are intelligent. How else can you justify smearing someone for being a Harvard Law grad, while praising someone who took years to find a major, after changing schools three or four times? Yes, that may make her “normal” and “just like many other Americans,” but is that what we really want in someone who has to deal with the complexities of being one of the leaders, if not the leader, of the “Free World?”

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    I know that the Obama/Biden ticket has been trying to draw comparison between the Bush/Cheney Administration, and what a McCain/Palin Administration would look like, but after last night, never before has the similarities been so glaringly obvious. A (potential) vice president that has their own interpretation of the constitution? Where have we seen that before?

    Palin made an attempt to further explain her position on the constitution and the role of the vice president today on FoxNews:

    Incoherent? Maybe. Unnerving? Definitely.

    October 1, 2008

    Palin’s Credentials Reads Like a Padded Resume

    Elisabeth Hasselbeck

    Today on The View republican apologist, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, was given the opportunity to tell the world why she feels that Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President, or God forbid, President of the United States. After trying to redirect the question to Obama’s qualifications, Elisabeth parroted what only can be described as a short laundry list of qualifications that have been floated around since Palin blasted onto the scene just before the Republican National Convention.

    She has executive experience, she’s commanded the Alaskan National Guard, and she is an “expert” on oil.

    Palin’s National Guard Experience:

    Delving deeper into what supporters are calling one of Palin’s strongest attributes, provides little detail on what Palin has actually done as the “commander” of the Alaskan National Guard. Hasselbeck exclaimed that Palin has commanded the National Guard “in times of war,” yet in an interview with the Associated Press, Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell said that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations. Of course, days later, Campbell appeared on FoxNews to soften the blow of what he said. (Which he was rewarded for in terms of a promotion.)

    And who can forget Tucker Bounds inability to cite one instance where Palin actually had to command the National Guard in terms of National Security?

    Palin’s Expertise on Oil:

    In my opinion, this is Palin’s strongest qualification; however, it isn’t helped by the McCain/Palin campaigns gross overstatement of the things that Palin has achieved in terms of oil. The McCain/Palin camp have boasted that Palin is responsible for negotiating a $40-billion pipeline project for Alaska. They have also stated that the state of Alaska is responsible for 20% of our nations oil production.

    The facts? Well, recently, the Resource Development Council for Alaska updated their website to say that Alaska accounts for 20% of domestic oil production between the period 1980-2000; which helps to put the McCain/Palin camp comments into context. The update notes that Alaska currently accounts for 15% of the nations oil production. In this case, the deception lies in what is not stated. While Alaska accounts for 14.3% of oil produced in the US, it only accounts 4.8% of the oil that is actually supplied to the United States.

    As far as that pipeline? Well, the folks over at Politifact.org have ranked that as “barely true.”

    Executive Experience:

    Now we arrive at what I deem to be the weakest argument. One must only look as far as Dubya himself to note that Executive Experience isn’t all what it’s cracked up to be. Enough said.

    Being able to successfully pad a resume is a tangible skill in and of itself. Whether it is stretching the truth on her states contribution to oil, or insisting that a refueling stop in Ireland, and being able to see Iraq from the Kuwait/Iraqi border truly counts as “foreign travel,” this resume has enough padding to stuff a whole gaggle of prom-goers brassieres.

    September 30, 2008

    Palin makes it easy.

    I’m sure that, by now, everyone has seen Tina Fey’s masterful “reenactment” of the Palin/Couric interview from Saturday nights SNL. I simply MUST call it a reenactment due to the fact that much of it didn’t even have to be written. Most of the “verbage” (as Palin would call it) was lifted straight from Palin’s lips and delivered straight to Tina’s.

    Here is a side by side comparison:

    Ouch.

    Meanwhile, the McCain camp is continuing their line of attack on the “biased liberal media” for daring to hold them accountable for anything that comes out of their mouths. They’ve now added the phrase “gotcha journalism” to their repertoire of campaign vocabulary; which seems to include any question that Palin does not know how to properly answer. How convenient.

    So, let’s see if we have this straight… A young man asked her a question she didn’t fully understand because she was in a pizza place at the time? Let’s examine what she actually said, shall we?

    “How about the Pakistan situation?,” asked Rovito, who said he was not a Palin supporter. “What’s your thoughts about that?”

    “In Pakistan?,” she asked, looking surprised.

    “What’s going on over there, like Waziristan?”

    “It’s working with [Pakistani president] Zardari to make sure that we’re all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border,” she told him. “And we’ll go from there.”

    Rovito wasn’t finished. “Waziristan is blowing up!,” he said.

    “Yeah it is,” Palin said, “and the economy there is blowing up too.”

    “So we do cross border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan you think?,” Rovito asked.

    “If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should, Palin responded, before moving on to greet other voters.

    Where exactly does the breakdown in communication occur?? Is it that she hears words differently if she is otherwise engaged in… ya know, buying food? Is it even safe to say that, at the VERY least, she knew that they were talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan? Maybe it’s that she thought perhaps he meant in some fictional world where there is a place called Afghanistan and Pakistan and that he clearly didn’t mean THE Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    Straight talk express, my eye.

    September 26, 2008

    Palin is Out of Her League

    After watching Palin in interviews, it’s a given that she will be slaughtered during the debates. She has an extremely limited vocabulary that is compounded by her weak grasp of the issues. As described by conservative columnist, Kathleen Parker, “Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there.”

    I could not say it better myself.

    I honestly wonder how many other conservatives out there are willing to admit that Palin is completely out of her league. That this pick was a huge gamble that only paid off in the short run, and things are starting to unravel… Beginning at the base.

    Kathleen Parker joins a steady stream of conservatives that have been questioning McCain and his decision-making throughout this campaign.

    Kathleen Parker

    Kathleen Parker

    Palin Problem, by Kathleen Parker on National Review Online

    If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

    To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.

    Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

    Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

    As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

    Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

    And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

    Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

    Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

    It was fun while it lasted.

    Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

    No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

    Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

    When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

    If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

    If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

    What to do?

    McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

    Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

    Do it for your country.

    Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist.

    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

    Link to the article.

    September 20, 2008

    Tim Wise does it again… (White Privilege)

    Disclaimer: I’m not personally saying that I agree with everything he says, but I do enjoy the irony.

    By Tim Wise

    Tim Wise

    Tim Wise

    For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

    White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

    White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you’ll “kick their fuckin’ ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun,
    and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

    White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

    White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the sam e number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”

    White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance
    because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office–since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s–while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

    White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

    White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you’re black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately
    think she’s being disrespectful.

    White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do–like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor–and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she
    took in college–you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

    White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a
    “second look.”

    White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

    White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

    White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

    White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a “light” burden.

    And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

    White privilege is, in short, the problem.

    September 12, 2008

    Obama fights back! Sort of…

    Last night as I was took my nightly stroll through the blogs and message boards that litter the world that we call “Cyber Space” I stumbled upon the following:

    Senator Barack Obama will intensify his assault against Senator John McCain, with new television advertisements and more forceful attacks by the candidate and surrogates beginning Friday morning, as he confronts an invigorated Republican presidential ticket and increasing nervousness in the Democratic ranks.

    An involuntary of jolt of electricity shot through me as I thought to myself, “well, it’s about fucking time.”

    This is what many of us democrats have been waiting for after days, and even weeks, of political ads that have painted Obama as this celebrity figure that feels that people should worship the ground that he walks on. Most recently, the McCain campaign has released ads that have accused Obama of wanting to teach children about sex, even before they learn to read; to claiming that Obama’s sour because his light is fading now that Palin has come on the scene.

    The only messages out of the McCain camp has been slanderous mudslinging, and out and out lies that they have recited on an daily basis as they make their pit stops across the nation; despite media outlets across the board calling them out on it.

    So yes, a tougher Obama camp is just what the doctor ordered.THEN I watched the commercials.

    ::crickets::

    I blinked and asked myself, “Is that it?”

    THIS is supposed to hold a candle to, “Obama wants to teach 5 year olds about sex” and “Obama just called Palin a Pig” and “Obama thinks that he’s the Messiah and can part the sea” and “Obama is an Elitist” and “Obama is jealous because Palin stole his light” and the countless other attacks against him and his character that have been unfounded, and factually unjust?

    Let me ask this again, does pointing out that McCain can not use a computer or send an email REALLY combat ANY of the aforementioned slander?

    What about calling the McCain camp out on their insistence of labeling “the bridge to no where” as a significant accomplishment of Governor Palin’s, when facts are to the contrary? What about “mocking” the notion that the fact that Alaska is the closest part of the US to Russia (and by golly you can actually SEE it from several areas of Alaska) makes for real foreign policy experience? What about highlighting the fact that, although they are running on this “anti-earmark” policy, Palin herself has requested millions in earmarks as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska? What about the FACT that the McCain Camp is shielding Palin from interviews? If she is so ready for VP, why is she not ready to take on the press?

    Why not formulate an entire commercial that highlights the underhanded way that the McCain camp is misleading the country; especially in terms of Obama wanting to teach kids about sex when in actuality, he was trying to PROTECT kids from molestation. McCain/Palin for pedophiles? Hey, why not? If “they” want to go there, then why can’t we?

    The point is this… There is SO much, that is so much more tangible to attack the McCain/Palin ticket on, and they are missing the mark BIG TIME.

    This campaign is no longer about simply sticking to the issues. This is war, people, and perception is everything. The dem’s better pull it together.