Mitt wept when church ended discrimination

Let's all roll our eyes together.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today that he wept with relief when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon church, announced a 1978 revelation that the priesthood would no longer be denied to persons of African descent. - Politico.com, Dec. 17, 2007

F stands for Hillary

It happened today. Wolf Blitzer used the F word when discussing Hillary Clinton.

For weeks, we have been watching the second half of the media’s favorite Comfort the afflicted then afflict the comforted. Since the race began, Hillary has been comfortable. She was the clear frontrunner -- annointed by the Republican brain trust as the defacto nominee.

Barack Obama was the neophyte who didn’t stand a chance. A funny thing happens when voters get involved, however.

Barack gave an electrifying speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner, and he as been on the rise ever since. The latest polls either have him ahead or dead even with Hillary Clinton, not just in Iowa, but New Hampshire. Next stop, South Caroline.

And so Wolf, CNN’s Captain Obvious suggested used the F word to describe her candidacy.

Freefall.

Don’t get to comfortable, Barack. The media will come after you. :-)

Oprah-bama for Black people?

I had to chuckle when I heard a white pundit say that Oprah's endorsement will help Obama appeal to Black people.

Really? Black people?

It seems like the same kind of simplistic thinking that assumed that Barack Obama would automatically get the Black vote. The kind of simplistic thinking that was so wrong that Oprah is now necessary.

I'm not sure what kind of pull Oprah will eventually have, but in many African American circles, it's long been long understood that Oprah has moved on from being reliably Black.

By reliably Black, I mean the kind that most people of color will identify as being in synch with their daily struggles. If you think back to Oprah's comments when she launched her school in South Africa, she defended not opening it in the United States by saying at risk kids here would rather get iPods than books.

Many Black people took that as a direct insult. That is something a reliably Black person would never say (out loud). That's just one example, of course, but it betrays a mindset.

All that said...reliable or not, Oprah is Black. Proudly so, it seems. Black enough to be comfortable endorsing a Black man. And that might translate to some support. More importantly her endorsement might carry cred, not just with African Americans, but with women. Wouldn't it be interesting if Hillary got the Black vote and Barack got the women vote?

It's been hard to predict many things in this race, and the Oprah-bama move isn't making the crystal ball any clearer.

Imus: I'm sorry, nothing's changed

"…not much has changed. Dick Cheney is still a war criminal, Hillary Clinton is still Satan and I'm back on the radio."

— Don Imus during his first broadcast since being fired in April.
Just in case you were wondering if Don Imus learned anything during his eight-month sabbatical from radio, Monday morning he reminded us how much things would remain the same. Of course, he returned with the human bunting of two Black comics, Karith Foster and Tony Powell.

Presidential hopefuls John McCain and Chris Dodd were among his first guests. I guess they were just being loyal. So now it's my turn to be loyal. It's not like either had a real shot at being president, but in the off chance that they did, neither will ever get my vote. They can rot in hell with Satan. Unless she gets the nomination, of course.

What the Huck! Could it really be all in a name?

I mentioned to a friend of mine that Mike Huckabee seemed to be surging in Iowa, and she laughed and replied dryly that America would never elect someone with the last name Huckabee.

It just doesn’t flow well. “Can you imagine having to say Huckabeeonomics?” she continued, referring to how easily President Reagan’s name could be transformed into Reaganomics.

Well for that matter, we’d have to write off Obama, I continued. You can’t have Obamanomics. These are serious issues to grapple with when choosing a president. We can easily say Reaganomics or Clintonian but what do we do with a Huckabee or an Obama?

It’s not enough to aim to write a new chapter in history. You have to sign that chapter with a name we can pronounce. :-)

Huckabee — finally a Republican heating up the Iowa race

Let's face it, the top tier of Republican presidential candidates were boring. No matter how long I watched them, I couldn't seem to get excited. I've blogged about the top tier Democrats and knew I should give their counterparts some attention but just couldn't bear it.

Then from out of nowhere comes a candidate with a big R on his chest (The R stands for Reagan, not Republican, of course.) who swoops down and tackles issues with a single bound. He doesn't sound scripted, focus group tested, or calculated. To me, he seems to have what the others have been trying desperately to manufacture. Authenticity.

Mike Huckabee is now surging in the Iowa polls because, I'm guessing, more than a few Republicans are taking him in like a breath of fresh air. Even with his silly Chuck Norris endorsement commercial, he created so much buzz and free media from pundits playing it, that it seems to be a shrewd strategic move. Each time one of the punditry elite played it to guffaw and then pick it apart, the good Governor Huckabee must have been chuckling to himself.

I had been hearing his name here and there and not really following him until I stumbled on this clip on YouTube.

Crisp and authentic. Even Wolf didn't know what to do with that kind of straightforward answer.

Can you imagine getting that kind of straightforward answer from any of the other top tier candidates? Mitt Romney is so manufactured. Him and his wife look like they have come straight out of a Ken and Barbie box. They smile pretty and on cue, and then cheerfully recite responses that have been carefully constructed so as not to offend or unnerve.

Rudy Guiliani. Well Joe Biden called his number in a recent debate. The only thing that guy has to offer in any sentence is a noun, a verb, and 9-11. And what some like me are scratching our heads and wondering is what did he actually DO on 9-11? Sure he was everywhere on TV filling a void left when the president finally managed the energy to scamper out of the elementary school classroom and promptly buried his head in the ground for the rest of the day (but that's another post).

But what did Rudy do? What lasting policy changes did he offer to make New York safe from another attack. What visionary new era did he usher in with his bold striking response. What is different in New York today than Sept. 10, 2001 because of his leadership? I can't think of a single thing.

If that wasn't bad enough, he is running for the nomination while he disagrees with the majority of his voting base on the issues they care most about. That's a winning strategy? I'm just counting down to the implosion that will end this ridiculous ride.

And finally that brings us to John McCain. I must admit that I liked Sen. McCain's maverick candidacy during the 2000 election. Then he was authentic. And then, for some unexplainable reason, the senator went and sold his soul to George Bush. He might have gotten a better deal from the devil.

McCain aligned himself with the administration on the most unpopular issue at the most inopportune time, and it didn't even resonate as a principled move (as I'm sure his advisers must have convinced him). It came across as a pathetic man selling out too much too late. He sold his soul and got nothing of value in return. He should be glad there is even a Wikipedia entry under his name because the rest of history will forget him.

Wait, I almost forgot Fred Thompson. That in itself is a commentary. So the Reagan heir apparent is like Reagan without the charm or governing philosophy or leadership acumen. He's like ordering coffee without the caffeine. Why bother.

Boring one and all. So thank God for Rev Gov Huckabee. Give 'em hell, Mike.

No debate about it, Wolf must go

If CNN wants more substantive debates, they ought to get Wolf Blitzer off the stage.

I should admit that I’ve never been a fan of Wolf’s. I find his penchant for the binary style interview — do you or don’t you, yes or no, will you or won’t you — is a bit pedantic. It doesn’t allow for the kind of discussion that serious and complex issues deserve. It doesn’t illicit any real new or revealing information. It doesn’t force interviewees to think or grow beyond their talking points. It doesn’t really do anything — except create sound bites. Which is why I say “IF” CNN wants more substantive debates...

It seems clear that CNN is more than happy with Wolf peddling his true or false, multiple choice quizes. If you recall, Wolf was criticized in the first couple of debates for asking “show of hands” questions. That’s right, during a debate for the leader of the United States of America, candidates are asked to identify their positions by a show of hands. I had a hand salute for him after that one.

To further exacerbate the problem, Wolf and company then rate debate performance against those ridiculous standards. The glaring example is when Wolf insists each candidate answer ‘yes or no’ to supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Now here is a complex issue, worthy of some thought and discussion, limited to yes or no.

The candidates who tried to demonstrate that they had given some thought to the complexity of the issue then were criticized for being verbose. Hillary Clinton, clearly learning that lesson in the last debate, came ready to play the game. She answers with the one word, “no”. She was then praised for concisely answering the question. But who is better off if an issue like immigration is relegated to a yes or no format?

That’s why I say, IF CNN wants more substantive debates...

Hillary Clinton, girl of convenience

She’s sugar and spice and everything nice, especially when she needs to differentiate herself from all the other boys in the race.

She, of course, is Hillary Rodham Clinton, lone female presidential candidate and leading contender for the Democratic nomination.

Much has been written about Sen. Clinton’s convenient playing of the gender card but none struck me as more outrageous than a comment she made during her speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Iowa last weekend.

Here’s the line:

Now, we are getting closer to the Iowa caucuses. They are going to be earlier than ever before. I know as the campaign goes on, that it's going to get a little hotter out there. But that is fine with me. Because, you know, as Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'll tell you what, I feel really comfortable in the kitchen.

Huh? Did she really say that she felt comfortable in the kitchen? That kind of blatant pandering might have palatable if it weren’t for her famous line in 1992.

When she was defending her husband during his presidential run, the good senator said this:

I suppose I could have stayed at home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

Doesn’t sound like a kitchen dweller to me. In fact, I’d be willing to argue that, spending most of her adult life as first lady of Arkansas and the US, the only time she was in a kitchen was when the secret service was whisking her in and out of speaking engagements with her husband.

The kitchen is now convenient, as now her website portrays her as Mother & Advocate, First Lady and US Senator — in that order.

Speaking of her site, remember when she was asking for a theme song for her campaign? I know it’s late, but I’d like to formally offer one. Maybe she could come out of the kitchen long enough to hear it.

Obama: Our moment is now

I must admit that I had been becoming a bit disappointed at Barak Obama's performances lately. I remember how he started with so much energy and optimism. But lately his interviews and debate performances are showing the effects of senatorial speak -- lofty rhetorical and cumbersome explanations rather than the pointed and pithy that you need to grab headlines and generate interest. The interview and debate venues aren't his best formats.

But when he delivers a speech, you remember why he became so popular so quickly. I just finished listening to his speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner a few days ago. It's Barak Obama at his best and worth a listen.

Kucinich impeachment resolution killed but who’s the real kook?

Republicans know that Kucinich comes off as a kook, that's why, when he introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, they wanted Kucinich to be heard.

Democrats also know that Kucinich tilts on the kook factor. They'd just heard him admit in a televised debate that he believed in UFOs. And with that performance still relatively fresh on many mind's, Reps. Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi wanted no parts of it.

And while we all snickered at the messenger, a message or two slipped past us. One, it was an issue worthy of debate. If anyone remembers the Washington Post's exhaustive series on the vice president, you would remember that there is fertile ground to plow on whether he stretched the boundaries of his power to circumvent the law. The series seemed to make it fairly obvious that the vice president is thumbing his nose at the constitution and doing whatever he pleases.

Second, Democrats, knowing all these facts, did nothing. That's right, in an effort to avoid the label of a do nothing congress, they sent the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee where everyone agrees it will do — nothing.

For those of you who missed the resolution, here is a Cliff Notes version:

Vice President Cheney should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors:

Article 1: He purposely manipulated the intelligence process to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He did this to deceive the US citizens and Congress and justify using our military in a war against Iraq that has damaged our national security interests.

Article 2: He purposely manipulated intelligence to deceive America about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify his war.

Article 3: He openly threatened aggression against Iran without any real threat to the United States. He has done so while proving he has the capability to act on those threats.

Anything really kooky there? The resolution documents each of the articles of impeachment with a bibliography of references, not that we need it. A simple Google search can confirm most of the facts. But Kucinich is a kook. How can anyone take him seriously?

Meanwhile, I think Dick Cheney is having the best laugh. Who are the real kooks here?

Payoff to be an ally in the war on terror, $10 billion. Thumbing your nose at your benefactor, so you can stay in power. Priceless.

You'd think that for $10 billion you could get a guy to listen to you. Apparently not if it is the United States' $10 billion and not if that guy is Pakistan President Musharraf.

In the midst of the chaos that resulted from Pres. Musharraf declaring martial law and suspending the constitution, the media is reporting that the United States has paid the country more than $10 billion to help fight the war on terror.

As the situation developed, Pres. Bush refused to speculate about whether he would send more money to Pakistan. That's right, he's not sure if he will send more money to the dictator who he can't influence.

It gets better. The Washington Post reported today that "Even as Bush said Musharraf's actions 'would undermine democracy," he also emphasized that the Pakistani president "has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals."

Let me get this right. He has suspended the constitution, instituted martial law, jailed the politicians and lawyers who disagrees with him, and declared himself the defacto dictator and we think his actions might undermine democracy. And of course, we are depending on him to help us fight extremists and radicals.

Why such careful treatment you might ask yourself? The Bush administration believes that Musharraf is a key ally in helping the United States combat terrorism:

I now interrupt this blog post to present to you the dictionary.com definitions of Terrorism.
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. A terroristic method of governing.

Ok, back to the post about the ally in the war against terrorism who suspended the rule of law, jailed dissenters and used violence to enforce his authority.

Of course Pres. Musharraf was happy to stick his hands into our pockets and promised to play along in the terrorism game. Now comes time for him to give up power as he promised us he would, and he changes his mind.

Wait, a dictator who doesn't willingly want to give up power??!! Who could have seen that coming? And of course with the $10 billion military buildup and a benefactor who can't get his attention, he doesn't have to….

Hollywood writers’ strike? Who wrote that one?

Ok. In what must be the worst advice since someone told OJ to bust into a Las Vegas hotel to get his stuff back, Hollywood writers decided to strike. Hollywood on strike? Really? You think they could have written a better plot for themselves. (No more lukewarm latte's!)

Teachers strike and you wonder who will educate the children. Garbage men strike and you wonder about sanitary issues. You can even feel sympathy for an auto worker striking, as he has to navigate his shitty Ford back to his Detroit trailer park.

But a Hollywood writer? What will happen if they strike? We'll have...Gasp...no TV!! The horror! The tragedy! What's next, cigarette factory employees holding out for better health insurance?

Get a grip guys. You work in Hollywood. You're bickering over royalties. Get better agents and get over yourselves.

Dems, don't count out the white man yet

Hey Dems, here is a prediction you won’t hear every day. While all the other pundits are focused and frothing over the Hillary vs. Barak battle for the nomination, John Edwards will come straight up the middle and overtake them both.

Hillary is too divisive. Barak is too inexperienced. In the end, voters will survey the most diverse group of candidates and, for “legitimate” reasons, go with the white man. Of course, it will spawn a chorus of “Was American not ready?” stories. John Edwards will be forced to pick a minority (Barak Obama) to preserve the narrative.

Breaks my heart, too, but call me a cynic.

Edwards/Obama 08. You heard it here first. Sorry Hill and Bill.

When ads attack

Let's get one thing straight. The moveon.org ad didn't kill more than 2,700 US troops in Iraq. It didn't injure the more than 27,000 others who left that country disabled. It didn't attract an active al qeda insurgency. It didn't mire the country in a civil war. It didn't cause acid rain, global warming and the decline of western civilization as we know it.

It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.

You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.

The left leaning activist organization and website with the same name, moveon.org this week took out a full-page ad in the New York Times where it mocked Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us. MoveOn called it factual and sticky. But the political right came unglued.

Rudy Guliani, denounced it, while taking out his own ad. Republican candidates tripped over each other to portray the ad as a disrespectful attack on a good man...and the military. The fever pitch built this week to the point that the president felt the need to weigh in and a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage. Let me repeat that: a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage.

All this commotion for an ad? An ad?

This, my friends, is the politics of distraction. Having trouble defending the substance of the good general's testimony? Put the messenger in the cross hairs. His supporters seem to suggest that he is so thin skinned that any strident disagreement is over the line. A decorated general who is fighting in a war zone where sniping and road side bombs are the order of the day can't take a shot from an advertisement?

Gen. Petraeus is a public figure, not just reporting out on the state of affairs but making a recommendation on the path forward. He's lending his voice and expertise to a national debate on the future of our country. To the extent that he uses any facts or figures to back them up, they should be open to scrutiny. And if they don't hold up under scrutiny, then he ought to be prepared to have them called into question. And if it appears he is knowingly misleading the country, we ought to be able to point that out too. Even if it is in an ad.

Sen. Larry Craig is not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that?

Sen. Craig is not gay. The way the Seinfeld bit goes, you’re supposed to immediately follow with “not that there’s anything wrong with that."

Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.

Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.

His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.

He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Both Democrats and Republicans want Clinton. Shouldn't one of them be concerned?

GOP activists root for Clinton win - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com

Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.

In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.

On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?

In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.

Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.

So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?

Hey Hillary, WE knew

There's a line from Sen. Obama's speech at the Take Back America event this week that I really like:

"We knew..."

Here's exactly what he said:

“We knew back then this war was a mistake,” Obama said at the Take Back America conference. “We knew back then that it was a dangerous diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. We knew back then that we could find ourselves in an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “

“So many of us knew this back then, even when it wasn’t popular to say so,” he added.

This, of course, is a jab at Sen. Clinton's oft repeated line, "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for the way."

That line has always been troubling to me because I knew then. It seemed so obvious that the president was taking the country into a war of choice. It seemed transparent that they were presenting selective evidence to make their case. It seemed clear that they were being impatient when they tried to convince us that we were under an imminent threat.

I never read any classified CIA reports or received top secret briefings. I don't think I'm much smarter than the average bear. But I knew that the adminstration was determined to wage war, no matter what.

That's why it always strikes me as a bit disingenuous to hear politicians like Sen. Clinton say that they didn't know. Why not? Is your judgment worse than mine? Are you less smart than the average bear? Neither of those alternatives instills much confidence in you as the next commander in chief.

With all the signs, you still didn't know. I have to wonder... Why didn't you?

WE knew.

Bloomberg, money can't buy love after all

If Michael Bloomberg were to believe the latest poll, his money isn't buying him a lot of love from Americans.

CNN reports that a Pew Research Poll indicates more than half of Americans wouldn't consider supporting Bloomberg for president. Only 9 percent of voters who have heard of the mayor say they would likely vote for him. Only 23 per-cent say there is some chance they would back his candidacy. More than half of those polled, 56 percent, say there's no chance they would vote for Bloomberg.

Of course all this comes after Bloomberg announced he is leaving the Republi-can party, fueling speculation that he is setting himself up for a presidential bid. Absent a grass roots movement urging him to run, he will need to do a whole lot of courting. Can the American public be bought? Bloomberg has got a billion dollars that thinks we can.

What do Don Imus and Tony Soprano have in common?

If Don Imus is surprised by the reaction to his controversial comments about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, he should have been paying atten-tion during the season opener of The Sopranos last Sunday night.
Don Imus, of course, is the political shock jock who finds himself embroiled in controversy after referring to the student athletes in a derogatory manner.
The whole situation reminded me of a scene during Sunday night’s episode of the Sopranos. Tony Soprano, the mob boss, is eating dinner with his wife, Carmella; his sister, Janis, and Janis’ husband, Bobby. Bobby works for Tony and is one of his right hand men.
Fans of the show know that Tony and his sister, Janis, share a love hate rela-tionship. So, as he often does, Tony begins launching into a series of jokes about Janis referring to her as what might be euphemistically known as a “ho.”
Bobby, Janis’ husband, is visibly annoyed and complains to Tony that he’s crossed the line. Tony agrees and apologizes. Then Tony launches into a song that carries on the derogatory theme about Janis.
Out of nowhere, Bobby slugs Tony across the jaw. A nasty fight ensues and doesn’t end until Tony is lying flat on his back, practically unconscious.
As I watched the brawl between the Black community and Don Imus on Monday morning, it struck me as similar.
Don Imus has poked the Black community before and apologized. Almost always he has launched into continued derogatory “fun.” The proverbial right cross he got in response seems to have caught him off guard but it shouldn’t have.
Of course, Imus has since apologized and accepted a two-week suspension. But the offended community wants to keep the fight going, not satisfied until they have knocked him flat on his back, unconscious.
As the situation plays itself out, Black leaders say nothing short of a dismissal will right the wrong. Imus, pleads his case that he is a good man who said a bad thing.
I saw a couple interesting lessons. First what struck me as interesting in the range of responses was how much each group was willing to forgive their own sins.
I’m sure this is an overgeneralization but I heard many white people coming to Imus’ defense that he deserves forgiveness. To the observation that rap and many Blacks often use the same language against each other, many of the Black leaders seemed willing to treat the inward assaults as a lesser offense than Imus’.
The lesson is that we won’t have a true opportunity for healing until we judge ourselves honestly. It’s hard to expect other people to feel strongly about a cause you selectively enforce.
The second and probably more obvious teaching moment should be that you can’t continue to poke someone in the eye and not expect a retaliation at some point.
Tony should have seen that coming.

Nonbinding sanction for symbolic progress

Only in the folly of Washington can a nonbinding resolution be passed off as meaningful progress.
After years of complaining that the president misled the country into war, poorly prosecuted the same war, and now is escalating some of the original mistakes, the Democrats primary response is a symbolic one.
Even more incredible, Republicans are filibustering to prevent the symbolic gesture from the force of the gavel.
This is what we've come to. Thousands of Americans dead and dying. A war that most admit has gone tragically wrong continues down the same wayward path, and both sides of the political process are wrangling over a meaningless sanction.
God bless America.

Obama: Some of my best friends make me unelectable

What does it mean when you have white people voting for the black candidate and black people voting for the white candidate?

That’s the situation news reports seemed to suggest last week. Barak Obama’s centrist appeal is drawing record numbers of crowds — of white people. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who have previously enjoyed support in black communities, are going back there to fight for the black vote — with good results.

At first blush, this development could be construed as a progress. This is the dream Martin Luther King Jr., spoke of, where a man can be judged not by the color of his skin but the content of his character. So why isn’t this news being reported or received that way?

On some level, we know what we are witnessing probably has more to do with our own insecurities than the reality of any Utopia. For white people, Obama is safe and nonthreatening. He makes Colin Powell look like Bobby Seale. His much celebrated multicultural background (child of a Kenyan father and white Kansas mother who grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia) and can’t-we-all-get-along approach is probably very appealing to a group of people who are weary of feeling guilty for the sins of their forebears. They desperately want to believe that racism no longer exists, and everyone can achieve the height of their aspirations with a little hard work. Sen. Obama permits them to do so. "Here's one I can support. See, the problem is not me."

For black people, that same nonthreatening appeal is a reason for distrust, probably because he is an unknown entity. Sen. Obama represents the ascendancy of the first non civil rights leader. He didn't derive his power by coming up through the ranks of the normal civil rights activist channels. As a result, he isn't beholden to them. He has been thrust into the position of a national leader without going to the brethren for their blessing. That has got to make the brethren uncomfortable, if not downright suspicious.

So there he floats. White people like him too much, so now black folks don't trust him. Can he do any good from that position?

Sen. Obama has probably astutely recognized that the candidate the tra-ditional civil rights crew wants him to be is not an electable one. He is also about to learn that the candidate the white voters want him to be will cost him his natural political base — also making him ultimately unelectable. His is a precarious road.

To be successful, he will have to buy each suitor flowers and make them feel pretty, but he can't sleep with them. If he can make that juggling act work, he will have earned the nomination.

My old Ma's a white old Ma
And my old Pa is black.
If ever I cursed my white old Ma
I take my curses back.
If ever I cursed my black old Pa
And wished he was in hell,
I'm sorry for that evil wish
And now I wish him well
My old Ma died in a fine big house.
My Pa died in a shack.
I wonder were I'm going to die,
Being neither white nor black?

-Adapted from Langston Hughes’ Cross

Old is the new new

After four years of sending troops to Iraq to fight his war against terror, Presi-dent Bush this week announced a new strategy: He's going to send troops to Iraq to fight his new war on terror.
Now I know what you're thinking.

“That sounds just like the old strategy."

Well it's not. Why? Because the president said the old strategy is now new.

He went on to say that he wasn't sending our troops over into an open ended war. Then he said he didn't have a specific end date in mind. He really didn't know when the extra 20,000 troops would come back.

Now I know you're wondering.

"If there is no end, isn't that open ended?"
No it's not. Because the president redefined open ended.

He said that he is no longer in a 'Stay the Course' strategy.
He will change the course by sending the troops to help Iraq stabilize its de-mocracy.

I know... I know... You're thinking "that sounds remarkably like the original course?"
Well it's not. You know why.

So it should have been no surprise to see Sec of State Condi Rice testifying be-fore Congress, scowling at the notion that adding 20,000 troops is an escala-tion. It's an "augmentation," she corrected.

augmentation noun: the action or process of making or becoming greater in size or amount.

Obviously that wasn't taken from an administration dictionary.