Archive for May, 2008
Scott McClellan: Our Manchurian Candidate?
I don’t think I am the only one who finds it eerie that former White House counselor Dan Bartlett, former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, and Karl Rove all say some variation of the same response to Scott McClellan’s new tell-all book:
“I am puzzled and befuddled. This is not the Scott McClellan I know.”
Not since “The Manchurian Candidate”, have so many characters so robotically repeated the same talking point. Kinda reminds me of:
“Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
Spooky.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
2 comments May 29, 2008
Has Hillary Hit a New Low?
This, fresh off the press, Hillary made the following comment to a South Dakota newspaper today:
My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.
Surely, the Senator from New York cannot be saying what I think she is saying. It is unfathomable that she would raise the specter of assassination as a justification to stay in the race. If she means what her words cryptically imply, then she most certainly cannot seriously be considered for the Vice President position on the ticket. As Vice President, she would simply be waiting for a very different kind of 3am phone call to fulfill her political ambitions.
While I have not been a fan of Senator Clinton, this latest slip of the lip greatly disappoints and shocks me. As manipulative and cunning as I felt she was, I never believed her capable of this.
It’s time for the super delegates to bring this race to an end and for Hillary to return to the Senate and attempt to repair what little will be left of her reputation.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
2 comments May 23, 2008
Obama’s Tactical Error
Back in January, I was troubled by the results of the New Hampshire primary, not because I could pinpoint racism as the cause of Obama’s loss but because our country’s cloudy record on race relations muddies the waters on such an evaluation. There is always some doubt when a black man loses a contest whether race played a role or not. Even when, as in West Virginia, some 21% of those polled said race played a role in their vote, what does this mean? Could race have played a positive role? Personally, I doubt it, but the pollster’s question allowed the answer to be ambiguous.
There is another factor which muddies the waters in West Virginia, Kentucky and other Appalachian areas. Obama did not actively campaign in either West Virgina or Kentucky. This I believe is a huge tactical error. You cannot win if you don’t play. The only way to isolate racism as Obama’s stumbling block is to remove other possible factors. “I didn’t get to know him so I didn’t vote for him.” This is a perfectly valid excuse, even if in some cases it masks a more sinister motive.
For Obama to be true to his role as a unifier, he has to reach out to all audiences including those he expects will reject him out of hand. Let’s be clear, Obama’s campaign workers have encountered blatant racism as they work the streets on his behalf. Still, this cannot deter Obama. He must go to every hamlet in this country spreading his message of One America. He needs to tell the folks in poverty stricken white enclaves that he is not so different from them. He was not born rich. He was not even born exclusively black. He has lived the “white experience” in this country as much as the so called “black experience”.
Once Obama gives his all to places like West Virginia and Kentucky, we may then re-examine to what degree racism plays a role in their political choices. Sadly, the conclusion may be the same but at least the effort to bridge the gap will have been made.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
4 comments May 21, 2008
Appeasement and Impeachment
MSNBC had a field day when Chris Matthews on “Hardball” nailed conservative commentator Kevin James on whether or not he knew what the word appeasement meant. After some 24 attempts at getting an answer, Chris finally got Kevin to admit he didn’t know what he was talking about.
In full self congratulatory mode, on “Countdown with Keith Olberman”, Friday night guest host Rachel Maddow interviewed Chris about the confrontation and they shared their concern that words, especially hot button words, be used properly. Unfortunately, earlier in the same episode, Rachel noted a political anniversary by saying that back in 1868, “the Senate actually came close to impeaching a president”. For an analyst and a network so intent on the proper use of words, Rachel and MSNBC blew it big time. The president in question, Andrew Johnson, did not come “close” to being impeached. He was impeached. He was NOT convicted. What Rachel should have said was that the Senate came close to convicting and thereby forcing out of office a president. To make the mistatement all the more glaring, she identified the president as Andrew Jackson. Fortunately, after a commercial break, she corrected that whopper but neglected to correct her use of “came close to”.
If MSNBC is going to self righteously pound its chest over historical accuracy, they need to do some fact checking before opening their mouth.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
1 comment May 17, 2008
Why are You a Racist?
One alarming statistic out of the West Virginia primary was that some 21% of those polled said that race played a role in their voting decision and some 85% of that group voted for Hillary Clinton. Now, the immediate response of social conservatives is to ask why I am not disturbed by the 95+% of black voters that Barack Obama typically gets. Very simply, I do believe there is a difference between a large group of people voting for someone vs a large group of people voting against someone. Most of the blacks who vote for Obama do not do so because they don’t want a white in the White House. The historical devotion of blacks to the Democratic party, which has always offered up white candidates, supports this. With Obama, they are voting for a black, not against a white. The same cannot be said for 17 or so % of the white folks who voted against Obama.
What troubles me much more than the numbers is our inability to dig underneath them. After every primary, we are left with the cold numbers and left to draw our own conclusions but do we ever really get any closer to a productive discussion about the possible racial issues behind the numbers? One of the things we hear a lot from the pundits is that it is a generational thing. The idea being that young folks today know better than to be racist. First, I think that it is somewhat of a myth. The old song from the musical South Pacific, “You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught” still holds true today. As I look at some of the West Virginians featured on the evening news saying “I don’t want no more Husseins” or “we’ve had trouble with blacks”, I do think that perhaps they have younger relatives who are mortified to see their kin represented this way in the media. But there are lots of other young folk who know nothing better than the mental rot being fed to them by their older relatives. Their generation will carry racism into the future.
So it is not sufficient to blame our current racial divide on generational differences and implicitly suggest that we don’t need to do anything cos once all the old bigots die off, we’ll be a free nation. The current presidential race highlights how imperative it is to begin a serious national discussion on race. Some of the West Virginians quoted saying nonsense this week, are surely “God fearing” church going folks. What is their minister telling them every Sunday that leaves them so wary of blacks? What are the educational and government leaders telling them? Why are these people not being inundated with a positive message that makes their racism seem absurd to them?
What is special about this moment is that we can look at a leader who has such a complex racial background that he makes clear, by just existing, that we all have much more in common than we have apart. Barack Obama’s candidacy provides us with a ready excuse to have an open, productive and enriching conversation about our differences, and how those differences make us stronger. I suppose my great fear is that our country will pass up this opportunity. We will allow the ignorant to remain trapped in their ignorance. We will continue to make laws to change behavior but make no attempt to really change hearts and minds.
The time has come to not just stand pat on the statistical questions. After the pollster asks “Did race play a a role in your vote?”, the next question must be “why are you a racist?”
Respectfully,
Rutherford
24 comments May 16, 2008
Hillary’s New Constituency: Children and the Dead
Senator Hillary Clinton greeted a throng of enthusiastic supporters last night as she celebrated what would become a 41 point Obama whupping in West Virginia. Her speech wisely steered away from bashing her opponent, Barack Obama. She managed to strike a nice balance between spunky contender and conciliatory loser.
There was one moment however that illustrated just how desperate Clinton’s campaign has become. She is now relying on dead people and 11 year old boys to pull her through. Read below:
“…tonight I’m thinking about Florence Steen from South Dakota, eighty-eight years old and in failing health when she asked that her daughter bring an absentee ballot to her hospice bedside. Florence was born before women had the right to vote, and she was determined to exercise that right, to cast a ballot for her candidate who just happened to be a woman running for president. Florence passed on a few days ago, but I am eternally grateful to her and her family for making this such an important and incredible milestone in her life that means so much to me. I’m also thinking of Dalton Hatfield, an 11-year-old boy from Kentucky, who sold his bike and sold his video games to raise money to support my campaign.”
Let’s take on the second example first and discuss what is wrong with this picture. An 11 year old boy sells his beloved possessions to finance the campaign of a multi-millionaire. From Hillary’s incredibly self centered view of the world, this seemed wonderful. I would have been happier to hear Hillary follow up by saying “when I heard about Dalton, I immediately sent him a check for $100.00 and told him to buy back his toys and enjoy his childhood.” Then again, when your campaign is in debt up to its ears, I guess money from anyone is welcome. I’m sure in her Kentucky speech, she will brag about the prostitute who sent her a month’s worth of hooking proceeds. It’s so thrilling to see everyone involved in the race.
Then there is the case of Mrs. Steen. It is not lost on me how important it might be for an elderly woman who never dreamed of seeing a woman President to actually have the chance to vote for one. Unfortunately, Hillary let us in on a little secret that Mrs. Steen is … dead. OK, she wasn’t dead when she cast her absentee ballot and I suppose this is no different from someone getting hit by a car on their way out of the polling place … the vote still counts. Still it seemed amusing to me that Hillary is now reaching out to the extreme ends of life’s journey, an 11 year old and a near dead woman, to find support.
Then again, as my wife reminded me, Hillary is originally from Chicago where counting the votes of dead people is somewhat of a tradition.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
2 comments May 14, 2008
Clinton’s Time to Get Up
There are many who say it’s time for Hillary Clinton to get out of the Democratic presidential nomination race. I am not one of them. It is not time for her to get out but it is time for her to get up. Her campaign always manages to find its way into the gutter and now is the time for Hillary to lift the campaign up and end her race for the 2008 nomination with dignity.
Her latest statement to USA Today hardly served this purpose.
“There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me and in independents, I was running even with him and doing even better with Democratic-leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”
Putting aside the implication that those who are voting for Obama are not the “hard-working” Americans, the fact that she claims she has the white vote nailed down is just shameful. Not only is it polarizing (a specialty of Hillary’s going back at least 16 years), it is condescending and pandering at the same time.
This is what I would like to hear from Hillary Clinton:
“I do not want the vote of any American who votes for me because they do not want a black man in the White House. If you are supporting me because you do not want a black man in the White House, then please, do not vote for me. It goes against everything I have worked for throughout my political life.”
If Hillary cannot muster the courage to call for racial reconciliation in this country, even at her own political peril, then she should indeed get out of the race.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
2 comments May 9, 2008
Obama’s Time to Get Down
Barack Obama has essentially sewn up the Democratic nomination and therefore, from my perspective, he can afford to be a bit daring.
The pundits and most everyone else in the mainstream media has written off Obama’s chances in West Virginia and Kentucky. They don’t fit his demographic. My advice to Barack: it’s time to get down. Actively campaign in West Virginia and Kentucky, and don’t do it on the economy; don’t do it on the war. Do it on race! Be bold and say the following to the voters of West Virginia and Kentucky:
“The media says that Hillary Clinton will win by a landslide in your state. They cite your economic situation, your education and yes, your race as the reasons you will not vote for me. Even Hillary says that I cannot win the white vote. So, I ask you, citizens of West Virginia and Kentucky, do you really want to be defined by the media? Are you content to have them paint you as hopeless bigots who are in the pocket of Hillary Clinton? I’ve been accused of being elitist. What could be more elitist than Hillary and the media taking your vote for granted? There’s no way you’ll vote for me because you are backward, cash poor, poorly educated white folks. Is that characterization alright with you? Don’t let the folks who want to pigeon hole you define you. Forget about my being “post racial” and transcendent. Show America that you are post racial and transcendent. Show the pundits that we can shake their preconceptions upside down and that we can change America.”
That’s right. I say, now that Obama truly has the momentum, let’s take the gloves off, put this racial stereotyping of voters on the table, and make it clear to West Virginia and Kentucky that they have been pegged as totally predictable. I think that is Barack’s best chance at keeping Hillary’s lead in these states to single digits.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
1 comment May 9, 2008
McCain’s Reverend Wright
Frank Rich wrote an excellent OP-ED in today’s New York Times regarding the incredible bias shown by the media when they incessantly loop Reverend Wright’s sound bites but give very little coverage to Reverend John Hagee.
To help counter this bias, I present Rev. Hagee in all his bigoted glory. As you watch this, please remember that John McCain actively pursued this man’s endorsement.
While we’re at it, let’s take another look at a former friend of the Republican party, who if he were not dead, would still be a friend of the Republican party. His sidekick, Pat Robertson was embraced by Rudy Giuliani without anyone batting an eye. This clip is recorded a mere two days after the 9/11 tragedy.
Black ministers have not cornered the market on nutjobs. Until the main stream media lives up to the standard of fair and balanced, they need to stop pointing the disdaining finger at Fox News.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
2 comments May 4, 2008
Here We Go Again
Wright, Hagee, Parsley, and now Pfleger. How many more examples do we need to conclude that religion has no place in politics? Every few weeks, we get a glimpse of some religious spectacle and like idiots who cannot learn anything from the past, we repeat the same stupid mantras:
“How could [candidate name goes here] believe [bombastic religious leader name goes here]?”
“Oh my, this would NEVER happen in my church!”
First, if one is to subscribe to Christopher Hitchens’ theories, all of these ministers believe in stuff that does not pass any reasonable scientific test. When a man believes, let’s just take a random example, that the Red Sea truly parted, how can anything else that man says hold any credibility? Religion and politics reside in two entirely different spheres and mixing them up results in absurdity. Faith has its place. Belief in miracles, if it gets you through the night, has its place. Deciding on how to provide health care for everyone has an entirely different place. Deciding how to get out of Iraq has an entirely different place. Unfortunately, our candidates are so eager to appear pious that they align themselves, deliberately or not, with bombastic, controversial, and yes sometimes NUTTY personalities.
I have written before that I believe Obama is as religious as the typical person. He takes from his religious life what suits him and he ignores the rest. He has the distinct disadvantage of not being able to say “Oh my, this would NEVER happen in my church!” His church is on display on YouTube and the 24 hour news cycles. But folks, let’s be honest. Most folks have heard some pretty wild stuff from the pulpit. The trick is you get to hear your stuff in relative privacy. No prying cameras. No one looking to discredit you the day before a critical DNC committee meeting. The hypocrisy of the religiously self-righteous is staggering.
Either we agree once and for all to separate church from state or we take a more intellectual road and view some of this religious fire and brimstone as satire. Think about it. I give you an exercise. Listen to Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger with your eyes closed. I defy you to tell me how his characterization of Hillary is any different from the satire you might see on “Saturday Night Live”? In fact, to help you with this exercise, I provide two videos below. First Pfleger and then Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton. If we’re going to really listen to Pfleger then listen to him as satire. Satire is designed to illustrate truths through exaggeration. Both Pfleger and Poehler succeed at this. (Quite frankly, I thought Pfleger was hilarious, probably because as my wife points out, he is an entertainer. MANY pastors are entertainers. They are no different from Amy Poehler. They’re playing to an audience.)
Pfleger:
Poehler:
If we’re going to insist on religion playing a role in our politics then we better get used to the idea of religious leaders saying stuff that might turn a few heads. Accept it, analyze it from an intellectual point of view and get off your religious high horse about how offensive it all is. Otherwise, get the cameras out of the church and let’s just talk about how to bring our boys and girls home from Iraq.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
10 comments May 30, 2008