Hardball Needs to Play Hardball with its Staff

On the 5pm Monday edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”, a story about Barack Obama was accompanied by a graphic of Osama Bin Laden. After the commercial break, Matthews apologized for the error and moved on with his show.

Over a week ago, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster was suspended when he suggested that the Clintons were exploiting their daughter, Chelsea, for their own political gain. The point could be argued one way or another but Shuster’s choice of words (that the Clintons were “pimping” Chelsea) was most unfortunate. Despite an on air apology, Shuster is still suspended. If Hillary had her way, he would have been fired.

Well, I think the more appropriate target for firing is whichever staff member “mistakenly” called up a picture of Osama Bin Laden during an Obama story. On the eve of the Wisconsin primary, a major news show “confuses” the most inspirational candidate of our time with America’s number one fugitive, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in the World Trade Center attacks of 2001. This mistake cannot get simply passed over with a curt apology from Chris Matthews. The parties responsible should be fired and their dismissal should be announced by MSNBC in a prominent venue (perhaps tomorrow nights edition of Hardball). I don’t blame Matthews personally for this screw up but I do hold him responsible to make sure the error gets publicly rectified.

In a country where a sizable percentage of ignorant Americans think Obama is a Muslim, this mistake on Hardball only serves as a subliminal reenforcement of that inaccurate impression. When the show ended this evening, I called MSNBC and voiced my concern. I’m now calling on MSNBC and Matthews to do the right thing and make it clear that encouraging any association between Obama and Osama, however accidental, is unacceptable.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Two Words does not Plagiarism Make

I continue to be amazed at the bizarre and absurd twists and turns that the Clinton presidential campaign takes. The latest involves an accusation of plagiarism against Barack Obama. Apparently, one refrain from a recent Obama speech in Wisconsin closely resembles that of a speech made by Obama supporter Deval Patrick several years ago.

Let’s look at this case of “plagiarism”. Much like Obama, Patrick was attacked for being an empty suit spouting rhetoric without substance (i.e. just words, nothing more). His response was to cite several profound historic quotes (e.g. “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”) followed by the phrase “just words!” In Wisconsin this past weekend, Obama used the same approach. He chose an historic quote or two different from Patrick, but he ended each quote with the phrase “just words!”

So, let me get this straight. Repeating the same TWO WORDS in the refrain of a speech that someone else used, now qualifies as plagiarism? If we’re gonna count “stolen words”, surely Hillary saying she is “fired up and ready to go” (six words lifted right from Obama) smacks much more of plagiarism than Obama’s supposed offense.

But more to the point, if Obama is guilty of anything, he is guilty of using Patrick’s rhetorical construct to make his point. But loads of orators borrow constructs from other orators. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke in the rhythmic patterns of many preachers before him. Did that make him a plagiarist? A good motivational speech employs rhythm, imagery, repetition of certain phrases and a certain vocal tone. Every great speaker from FDR, to the Kennedys, to King, to Obama employs these methods.

One would have hoped that after Hillary “accused” Obama of being an ambitious kindergartner back in the day (yes, she actually did that), that she would have abandoned the lightweight foolish diversions and focused on the substantive issues Americans face today.

The fact is, Hillary’s accusation of plagiarism against Barack is “just words”, signifying absolutely nothing.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Why We Should Temper our Criticism of Bush

It is hard to believe that I am writing a piece in defense of President George W. Bush after all the trouble he and his administration have gotten us into. A couple of weeks ago, I was browsing the White House web site and I stumbled upon a video tour of the Oval Office given by none other than the President himself. You can find the video here http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/video/index.html.

I am astounded that the web production folks did not edit this video more carefully. About two minutes and 20 seconds into the video, President Bush introduces a painting on the Oval Office wall, and then repeats himself as if he had not already said what he said. After about four minutes and 15 seconds he begins to discuss a Tom Lea painting and again, says almost the exact sentence twice as if he had not already said it once.

There has been much written about the possibility that President Bush is dyslexic. He has denied it. I think this video on the White House web site makes a clear case that the President has some sort of cognitive disability. I discount the possibility that he was just nervous in the video because this man speaks publicly on a regular basis.

My point here is not to make fun of the President. On the contrary, I got a lump in my throat when I watched the Oval Office tour video. This is a man who truly has innate difficulty with communication. I can only wonder to what degree the manipulators in his administration have taken advantage of his disability. At worst, this may very well be the Presidency of Chauncey Gardner, the feeble minded but well meaning protagonist of the 1979 film “Being There”.

Respectfully
Rutherford

Why Does Obama’s NH Loss Surprise Us?

I do NOT want to be one of those folks who immediately points to racism when Barack Obama loses a contest. There were a number of factors that contributed to Obama’s narrow loss to Hillary, Tuesday night. On the other hand, I never completely trusted all the polling numbers we’ve seen over the past few days.

As recently as 1988, Dartmouth College had to convene a student council on racial tolerance because several Caucasian students harassed an African American professor. This is an Ivy League institution we’re talking about here. It’s the only Ivy League school to my knowledge that has a documented track record for racial problems. So whenever I read the polls, I kept thinking about Dartmouth. 20 years is not so long ago. Clearly, for some reason, New Hampshire voters chose to tell the pollsters one thing and then vote another.

As my wife reminded me, winning a caucus and winning a primary are two different things. Your “vote” in a caucus is public. If you don’t follow through on what you’ve been telling everyone, you look like a hypocrite. Since primary votes are private, you can look politically correct in public and then let your biases take over in the voting booth.

Once again, our country’s long tradition of racism is hurting us. Not because we know Obama’s defeat was due to bigotry; we don’t. It’s the doubt that is so troubling. Our country’s racial history muddies the waters, hence we will never know when Barack is rejected for the issues or when he is rejected for the color of his skin. How sad.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Was “24″ Prescient?

As we watched the returns come in from the Iowa caucus, my wife said, “Barack Obama owes a debt of gratitude to Dennis Haysbert,” referring to the African American actor who played President of the United States in the TV series “24″. I chuckled at the idea at first but then I gave it more thought.

Just twenty years ago, having a black ongoing character in a TV series as President would have made heads turn and perhaps even have been greeted with disbelief. When the character of David Palmer was introduced on”24″, I don’t recall any major notice of his race.

Could it be that America’s acceptance of David Palmer demonstrated a change in mindset that has been verified by Barack’s Iowa triumph? While it may be too soon to tell, we may very well be viewing a turning point in American society. Perhaps we are finally fulfilling the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by judging people solely by the content of their character.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Can America tell the Difference Between Obama and Simpson?

As I sat in front of my television last night and rejoiced in the Iowa caucus victory of Barack Obama, I had a sudden nightmare vision. I flashed back to October of 1995 when crowds of African Americans were shown celebrating the acquittal of OJ Simpson on murder charges. I then pictured white Americans watching African Americans rejoice in Obama’s victory and I wondered, will they draw a parallel, however ill conceived it might be?

The black community, at least partially, rejoiced in OJ’s acquittal because it symbolized that a black man could get away with murder if he had enough money, just as so many whites before him had done. Still, the image of cheering crowds of blacks (not to mention the verdict itself) must have created a real credibility problem for white folks. “Could black people really be that crazy to be happy that OJ got off?”

My fear is that these same white folks might see blacks rejoicing Barack’s victory and have their own flashback. On some unconscious level will whites eventually reject Obama because they can’t tell the difference between the positive enthusiasm Obama generates in the black community vs the crazy enthusiasm generated by the OJ debacle?

Perhaps the Iowa win is evidence that Barack truly has transcended race. Perhaps now, when white folks see black folks excited about Barack, they’ll say “yeah, I understand and I like him too.” Maybe Obama’s message of unity will win the day. We can only hope.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

My Wife, Dick Cheney

A few nights ago while reading our four year old daughter her bedtime story, my wife noticed that the little girl’s tongue was green. “Your tongue is green. What did you eat tonight?” My daughter immediately went on the defensive sensing the alarm in my wife’s voice. The responses ranged from “old stale candy” to “I don’t remember” to “I don’t want to tell you.” At one point we all went searching through the garbage for the terrible tongue staining specimen that my daughter now maintained she spat in the garbage. We found nothing. Then in a panic, my daughter said “wash my tongue, wash my tongue.” Still, long after my daughter went to sleep, my wife continued to obsess about the green poisonous substance that had infiltrated my daughter’s delicate defenses.

Later that night, my wife noticed an empty bag of fruit chews that come in multiple colors, including green, sitting on the coffee table. The next day, completely out of context, I casually asked my daughter, “hey, did you eat fruit chews last night after you ate that pastry?” No longer believing she was in an environment of fear and paranoia, she replied “yes.” And then surprised me by asking, “Why did you ask me that?” I was honest and told her “I think that is why your tongue was green last night.” Her reply knocked me off my feet. “Oh, so nothing bad happened last night?” and she smiled and gave a huge sigh of relief. “No, nothing bad happened,” I told her.

When I related this conversation to my wife later, she said “Oh my goodness, I’m Dick Cheney”. Indeed, my wife, in this case with the best of intentions, went on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction and could not give up the hunt until all sorts of tumult had erupted. My daughter, much like our dear country, became fearful under this haze of paranoia and interrogation and then fed into the crisis believing that just telling the truth would only make matters worse for her.

Isn’t it funny how lessons about how to run this country can be gleaned from the reactions of a four year old girl? Maybe if our leaders in Washington viewed running the country more like child rearing, they’d know better than to instill fear in their children, the citizens of the US.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Sorry, but some Americans Ain’t Very Bright

A recent poll revealed that 8% of those polled believed that Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim. Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball suggested that Barack should be concerned about this.

Ehhh, no. Barack should ignore this poll and not even address it. You know why? Because at least 8% of Americans are just plain stupid. I’m often amused by many of the poll results that the media shares with us because no one ever says, “there is a margin of error to this poll because at least x% of those polled don’t have the foggiest idea what they are talking about.” How many times do you think the average American gets polled and says to the inquisitor “sorry, I can’t participate in this poll because I really don’t know the issues.” On the contrary, everyone, no matter how ignorant, loves to have an opinion. I guess that is part of the beauty of the United States of America that everyone gets to speak his mind even when he doesn’t have one.

So I implore you. The next time you hear the results of any poll, please make an arithmetic adjustment in your head for “the stupid factor.” It’ll give you a better idea of what is really going on.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Sometimes a Bookcase is Just a Bookcase

It’s amazing how the media is focused on the subliminal cross found in the bookcase behind Mike Huckabee in his Christmas greeting commercial.

Folks, getting your undies in a knot over whether the bookcase was filmed with a deliberate attempt to imply a cross is a waste of time when instead you can focus on what the candidate SAID! “What really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ.” Holy cow! With that one statement, he just dissed Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists and a host of other non-Christians.

We need to put the ridiculous conversations aside (is the bookcase photographed to look like a cross?, was Barack ambitious in Kindergarten?) and closely examine what these folks are saying. There was nothing subliminal about Huckabee’s bible thumping rhetoric. Let’s wake up and smell the coffee folks. At the rate things are going, one day we will wake up to find White House press conferences resembling prayer meetings.

I’m not ready to sign up for that. Are you?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

All Hail Lawrence O’Donnell

When I heard Mitt Romney refer to the “faith of my fathers” in his recent “Kennedy speech”, I cringed. I watched various political pundits applaud Romney’s attempt at duplicating Kennedy’s much more eloquent clarification of his religious priorities. Then finally a breath of common sense fresh air (albeit a mighty gust) came from Lawrence O’Donnell on “The McLaughlin Group.” O’Donnell dared to comment on the gorilla in the room, namely some truly wicked aspects of “traditional” Mormonism.

Had Romney stated, “I am a practitioner of modern Mormonism, a religion that has recently attempted to abandon its previously detestable precepts concerning African-Americans”, then I would have little to say against him. But Romney chose to embrace the “faith of my fathers” and to explicitly refuse to “disavow one or another of its precepts”. He went on to say that “each religion has its own history” which is not a basis for criticism. Excuse me? It is the HISTORY of Mitt’s religion that makes it so odious. Romney went on to say that we Americans share a “religious heritage” with a common commitment to “equality of human kind”. However, Mitt’s religious heritage identifies Blacks as inferior, as folks who sinned in the world before this one, and hence are paying for it on Earth with dark skin and various deserved disadvantages.

Even if one could overlook the ethical deficiencies in the history of Mormonism, how does one get past Romney’s utter disdain for non-believers? “We are a nation under God”, he declared. Sorry, Mitt, not everyone believes that! “Liberty is a gift of God”, he says. Again, sorry Mitt but one can very clearly believe in liberty and at the same time believe that God is a fairy tale. “We welcome our nation’s symphony of faith”, says Romney thinking that he is being inclusive. Are all the agnostics and atheists’ “instruments” being muted in that symphony? Where exactly do they fit in?

In John Kennedy’s shorter and much more effective speech of 1960, he made only one “defense” of Catholicism when he said, “But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith–nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.” This wisely, was his only bow to those who felt he might be selling out on his fellow Catholics. The rest of his speech emphasized the importance of the separation of church and state. In stark contrast, Romney warned of the “religion of secularism” and seemed oblivious to the constitutional prohibition against the government promoting one set of beliefs over another. Kennedy said, “Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice” [emphasis added by me]. For Romney, those who choose not to attend are ripe for condemnation. To hear Romney’s view of our nation, agnostics and atheists are unamerican.

So, three cheers for Lawrence O’Donnell! Could his comments be construed as a rant? Probably. Did he lack a bit of decorum? I suppose so. But with our country on the verge of becoming a christian theocracy, some ranting might be just what we need right now.

Respectfully,
Rutherford