WHAT WENT WRONG

The political buzz this week was less about the presidential campaign (sorry Hillary) and more about the just released book by former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan. There are those saying his book is unprecedented given its timing and candor, but it just follows in a line of other former administration officials that have all revealed what a failure this administration is. McClellan says that he now has a higher loyalty – the truth. My thought is that his truth is rather convenient and is sold to the highest bidder who for many years was George Bush.

For me there is nothing earth shattering about McClellan’s book. I have never been a Bush fan which has more to do with character issues than policy issues. My skepticism about Bush started with his claim of stopping drinking after being saved. It is not a dispute of his claim, but the fact that he never has discussed his conversion in any detail or his past life as an alcoholic strikes me as being dubious.

As someone who is saved and a devout Christian, it is difficult to fathom anyone who has undergone such a transformation not to want to speak about it. Quite frankly, it is like a badge of honor as you joyfully recite how dark life used to be to the newfound light and joy that you now experience (in fact, I plan to do a posting here at some point in the near future about my personal experience/beliefs). To go from being an alcoholic to a non-alcoholic is radical and something one usually likes to tell in hopes of being an example to others. So, Bush’s idea that this is private and not something he wishes to reveal is at least to me bogus and represents a major character flaw which is the inability to be truthful, i.e., being a liar. And, again to me, lying about something so fundamental makes one a person for whom I have no respect.

When he first ran for the presidency, Bush was touted as being the first MBA president who would use sound business principles to run the government. The thing wrong with this claim was that for all of the business ventures of Bush, none enjoyed lasting success. What sustained him were his family’s money and his family’s name. This may be one reason that surrounded in his presidency with the relics of the past (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the like) who served as a sort of safety net. And, indeed, I believe these people have acted as guardians through the years and have literally kept him from being impeached.

McClellan writes that the Bush administration has been in a perpetual campaign mode and this has been obvious to all. In my opinion Bush suffers from the “first born” curse meaning that he has spent his entire life trying to live up to the Bush mystique and his father, but always falling short. Being elected Governor of Texas meant he finally accomplished something his father had not. Being elected President matched his father, but being reelected would mean he could finally outshine his father. As such, his whole first term was just about getting another term and doing whatever it took to make it happen. I also believe that from day one Bush had a vendetta for Saddam Hussein and saw overthrowing Saddam as his ultimate test of greatness. The events of 9/11 provided a convenient and needed excuse to put in motion this plan. These events also gave birth to this cockamamie plan to rebuild Iraq as a new democracy and cement Bush’s legacy as one of the greatest presidents ever. I honestly believe that Bush thought Iraq would be a cakewalk and he would end up being hailed as an imperial being.

But, like his whole life, he got in over his head and his fantasy did not even remotely match reality. While he may have viewed the Iraq war as his shining accomplishment, those around him saw it as a vehicle to make loads of money. Keith Olbermann likes to say that the reason for the Iraqi War is the war. Never before have we outsourced so many defense functions and those who are benefiting financially are those in the administration. Bush got his war and his people got their new business venture. And isn’t this just like his past ventures – he bankrupts the business and then the vultures swoop in, buy the business at fire sale prices, bleed out what they can and then leave all the while propping Bush up to make sure he continues to look good?

So what went wrong? Basically, we twice elected a drunk, lying buffoon or, rather we twice allowed a drunk, lying buffoon to steal our democracy. Now, I do not know for a fact that he is drinking again (the supermarket tabloids say this is the case along with his marriage being in shambles), but I sincerely hope (in all seriousness) that he is because I cannot imagine anyone who has done so much damage being able to get through the days without feeling the pain and doing something to numb the pain. Beyond the tabloids, I would just look at his recent behavior which makes his seem like a drunk. This past week he was doing all sorts of crazy antics at the Air Force Academy graduation including chest bumping a graduate. And, what about all that crazy ass “dancing” he seems to like to do lately? The man is a complete embarrassment in every way.

As for McClellan’s book, I certainly do not plan on reading it. I would suggest two much better books to read. The first is Jimmy Carter’s Our Endangered Values – America’s Moral Crisis and John Dean (yes, that John Dean from the Nixon era) Broken Government – How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches.

AND IT GETS WORSE, UNBELIEVABLY

After our little break from national politics for a brief comment on the state scene, we go back to comment on the presidential race. And our topic tonight is Geraldine Ferraro. Whether she has always been like this as a friend suggests is true, she certainly has gotten to be a curmudgeonly, bitter old lady who seems sexually frustrated and probably could benefit from that mythical 12 inch black dick. Excuse me for being so crass but this woman is irritating. Although, let us remember that we have not heard from the woman in ten years or more and so she seems to realize that by being so outrageous she can grab the spotlight for another minute or so.

Her idea that Obama is sexist is so completely laughable that even Ferraro herself cannot name any real specifics. The best she can do is say that

1) after the most recent Philadelphia debate he dashed off the stage which was disrespectful to Hillary

2) the next day when he quoted a rap song and motioned that he was brushing something off his shoulder was even more offensive

3) his reference to Clinton as being Annie Oakley was just galling.

Okay, Gerri, you got me on the first one as I did not see the debate. As for the second one it was not a gesture aimed specifically at Clinton but at the ridiculousness of the questions he got at the debate. And, yes, he did mock Clinton with the Annie Oakley comment and it was warranted given her efforts to try to be everything to everybody.

But what makes Ms. Gerri even more of a disgrace is that she totally rejects any notion that the Clinton campaign has been racist in any way. Oh really??? Let me just go through a few.

1) basic disregard from day one of Obama as a real competitor and basically dismissing him as a black man who may get a few votes, but will never really amount to anything

2) disqualifying his experience/qualifications as irrelevant even though his credentials/education/experience was every bit on par with Hillary’s

3) the whole elitist thing which infers that any successful, well-educated black person cannot be in touch with the community which is a phenomenon we fight today in getting young black men to excel in school

4) her calling him out in Ohio and chastising him in public like he was someone’s little boy

5) making up new rules/metrics as the race progresses which is to say that if I cannot beat him on the merits than let me cut off his legs and win any way I can

6) implying that his victories count less than hers

7) the hard working, white Americans coalition that devalues the most loyal voting block of the party – African Americans

8. releasing a picture of Obama in his native African garb in an apparent attempt to play to those who think he is a subversive Muslim

There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary has experienced sexism in this campaign. But, unfortunately, with Hillary we do not know what is real and what is manufactured. For example, Ferraro mentioned the “IRON MY SHIRT” placard that appeared at a rally in New Hampshire. There has been speculation that given the “convenient” placement of the sign that it may have been a plant by the Clinton campaign. Regardless, it is just so low class to go on television and whine about all of this. Do you not think that Obama has had to put up with racism from the electorate? I have heard some of the stories and it is also reported that Obama refuses to focus on this. It is not that he is ignoring it but he is looking past it at the greater goal. The bottom line is it has been Hillary’s strategy at least since Pennsylvania to segment the electorate any way she can (remember the Philadelphia Gay News incident?) while Obama has been about building new coalitions. I could say more but suffice it to say that it is time for Gerri to exit stage left once again.

Before I close, let me comment on the “breaking news” of the day. During an interview for a South Dakota newspaper today Hillary, in responding to why she continues in the race said that her husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until after California voted in mid June and that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. This is her justification for staying in the race. Okay let’s deal with this. First the part about Bill and there is no way to compare 2008 with 1992. Bill was by now the presumptive nominee and California put him officially over the top which is to say the race was really over. Also, the primary schedule in 1992 was very different from this years – the New Hampshire primary was, I believe, in March!

But, what has the media up in arms is the second part of the statement about Bobby Kennedy as if to say she is hanging around in case something catastrophic happens to Obama. This is not the first time she has implied this, but it is the first time she has said it so blatantly. That she said it tells me that this is what she is thinking and, ultimately, is hoping that “someone will off the nigger.” What though was even more incredible but typical of Hillary was her attempt to apologize in which she never used the words “apologize” or “sorry.” This is reminiscent of Tonya Harding and by saying this out loud yet again Hillary is providing cover for someone to go do her dirty work. Pitiful.

That, Ms. Geraldine Ferraro, is why Hillary will not be the next president. She just does not get it – she hasn’t, doesn’t, and won’t. That Gerri and Hillary have both had the audacity to speak the unspeakable time and again has many of us African Americans just aghast. And, I am sorry, Gerri, but it is hard for any African American to be sympathetic toward anybody white. That is because our troubles trump yours most every time. More importantly, though, we should not be dwelling on the problems but working towards solutions. Gerri, your comments do nothing to move us forward; they only divide us more and put forth more barriers to impede any progress.

A BATTLE OF THE JERSEY QUEENS

There are always so many topics about which I could write that it is hard to choose. But, today, I am going to divert from the national scene and write about New Jersey news.

Going on right now in New Jersey is the divorce trial of former Governor Jim McGreevey and his wife Dina Matos McGreevey. The newspapers like to refer to Jim as the former gay governor and say that he was forced to resign because of his supposed gay affair. I have always believed that the gay thing was just a convenient excuse to get him out of office. His administration was so corrupt that the Democratic powers to be knew he would not win re-election and that he probably would not step aside willingly given that they had their “savior” waiting in the wings – Jon Corzine.

As for the whole Golan Cipel affair, I have mixed feelings about that as I believe the truth lies somewhere in between what Jim and Golan say it is. But, it was always a suspicious relationship given that Jim goes to Israel, meets Golan, and then all of the sudden Golan ends up in Woodbridge working for Jim and living right around the corner while only making about $12k a year. Who lives in New Jersey for $12k a year (I know that it an elitist question given that there are plenty of folks who scrape by on that amount and less). Then Jim becomes the governor and Golan moves from Woodbridge to a posh West Windsor condo which Jim himself inspects to see if it is suitable. Golan gets the great job in the Governor’s Office (Director of Homeland Security at nearly 10x his previous salary!) for which he has no qualifications and even when he is forced out still lands a couple other six-figure jobs. I remember at the time saying that if Jim had not had such a big ego he could have done what other governors had done and placed his special friend in a project specialist title in any office in state government. In fact, I would have gladly had him on my staff where he could have been excused to the Governor’s Office all the time as long as kept the filled position in my budget (I actually believe I met Golan once at a happy hour with some friends from OMB). At any rate, this whole relationship raised red flags from the beginning.

Then, of course, was the famous incident where Jim broke his leg while he and Dina were walking on the beach. I have maintained that there was no way he could have broken his leg that badly just by walking on the beach. My guess is that he and Golan were doing something and Dina was flown in for cover. Jim, Dina, and Golan all vehemently deny this claim (as I was not the only one to think this), but it still registers as suspicious to me.

So, moving forward, Jim resigns and he and Dina go their separate ways. Here is where Dina made a very strategic error. Granted, her situation was different from Hillary’s and Silda Spitzer’s, but both of those women not only stood by their husbands but stayed with them. Hillary is probably the better example here. Hillary knew what she had invested in Bill and by staying with him and not divorcing him she is now there to share in the millions he has made. Should they now get divorced her payout is certainly much greater than it would have been if she divorced him when they left The White House.

Dina, however, let Jim go and now she is expecting Jim to pay her for the lost years at Drumthwacket which she calculates to be $600,000. Further, she says that Jim has the potential of earning more money (he is now a seminary student studying to be an Episcopal priest). Therefore, he should be out there hustling so he can pay her more alimony so she can live in style to which she became accustomed while in the Governor’s Mansion. Oh yes, she is also upset that her book did not do as well as his for which she blames Jim. And, finally, she, of course, never knew or suspected that Jim is gay.

Let’s start with her not knowing about Jim’s gayness. I am not a political insider and do not know Jim (although he knew my name briefly during his first run as we attended a few of the same events). And, even though I did not know concretely that Jim was gay, I certainly suspected it and heard more than rumors from others. I mean just putting together the Cipel pieces is enough to raise the gay flag. In short, Dina comes across as a real dingbat.

This whole thing that he owes her for the two missed years in office is laughable to say the least. What would have happened if Jim died in office? Would Dina sue the state for the lost time? First Lady is purely ceremonial, comes with no income and is tied to the electoral fate of the husband. To think that in private life she should have drivers, butlers, administrative staff and the like is so beyond anything sane given that they lived in a two bedroom townhouse when they were married. She should have stayed with the man and pimped him out – a true life Will and Grace!

But, it also points to the character or lack thereof of Dina. I remember reading back before Jim was elected governor the questions surrounding her. How was it that she and Jim hooked up so fast and so conveniently before his second gubernatorial campaign (he was single when he first ran)? Why did they get married in DC when they are both from New Jersey? Here it was speculated that they were both thinking beyond Trenton and dreaming already of The White House.

To me the bottom line is that Dina was using Jim as her ticket to glory as much as Jim was using her as his beard. In the end they both got what they deserved. It makes you wonder who is the bigger queen – Dina or Jim?

I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU…EQUAL

Last Thursday, the California State Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality (i.e., that same-sex marriage is legal). Needless to say, for many in our community this was a joyous day and two rather high profile couples (Ellen DeGeneres and her mate Portia DeRossi along with Star Trek star George Takei and his mate) both wasted no time in announcing their intention to marry. As to be expected, the ruling brought the enmity of the zealots ( I was going to religious in front of zealots but these people are far from being religious) who vowed to put the measure on the November ballot for the voters to decide. Interestingly enough, neither Clinton, Obama, or McCain have offered any comments on the ruling. All three, I believe, support civil unions but not marriage equality.

Let me be upfront and say that the marriage issue is not a hot button topic for me. In part this has to do with the fact that I am single. However, if our lifestyle is to “alternative” then I believe that we should not try to emulate the heterosexual lifestyle. This may sound very “sixties” of me (free love), but that is how I feel. Nonetheless, I do understand the reason why this is so important to many and I support that.

We also need to get away from saying “same sex marriage” and use the term “marriage equality” for that is what this fight is about. It is that we want our unions recognized with the same rights and benefits as the straights. Civil unions do not do that for a variety of reasons since we are so centered on the word “marriage” and consider anything less not to be the real thing. I am reminded of various lovelorn callers calling into The Wendy Williams Experience and Wendy always saying that without the ring there is no official relationship and thus no legal ties. It is the like the old “common law” marriage which was like marriage, but truly was not marriage.

I will also admit that during my coming out phase in the early 1990s the issue of marriage was a tough one for me. But, what it boiled down to for was that love is love is love. My only hope is that after fighting for it for so long that we as a community respect this new found right and do not become like the heteros who go out and get hitched after a drunken night only to have it annulled the next day. But, then again, we now also have the right to abuse it if we wish.

For me there is a larger issue as to why marriage equality is needed and that is for the stability of relationships. Those who are against marriage equality always like to point out that homosexual relationships are more fleeting than the straights. That may be true, but that is also because we could not have legal stable relationships.

Further, this whole idea that gay marriage will weaken the institution is totally bogus. Instead of being worried and fighting about who gets married we should be doing all we can to make sure those who do get married stay married. I thought it very funny that here in New Jersey where we got civil unions instead of marriage, the legislature very soon after also voted to make it easier to get divorced.

Speaking of New Jersey, our dear governor is on record as saying that gay marriage should be a reality here in 2009. He said that he did not want it to happen this year as it might take away from what is going on nationally. My intuition says that he wants to put it off until 2009 thinking that he might not be here in 2009 (i.e., that Hillary would name him to her cabinet). Given the gay friendly Republicans in the legislature there should be more than enough votes. We will see if Corzine will actually push for it.

Finally, let me just say rest in peace to Mildred Loving who passed away a few weeks ago. It was the African American Loving and her late white husband Richard who successfully sued for the right to be married. Their union did nothing to weaken the institution of marriage. Indeed, they stood as an example of what marriage can be. I would say “should be” except that marriage is no one size fits all.

So, to those gay and lesbian couples in California who are planning their weddings I say congratulations and best wishes for a long, happy, and peaceful life together. Let us look forward to the day when we all are treated equal.

SHE’S GONE, GONE, GONE, GONE, GONE

Nearly one week after making her heinous comment, Hillary finally acknowledged it. Mind you, she did not apologize for the remark, but merely stated that the wording was not proper.

To me that was typical Hillary. First she creates the controversy, and then rides it for her benefit before stepping back and denying that the whole thing was intentional. This time she was able to ride the controversy to a win in West Virginia which according to her changed the whole race.

In a way it did change things – she just became more irrelevant. I could sit here and rant and rave over all things Hillary, but the truth is she is just irrelevant. Not only that, but her political future is now tied to Obama’s. She must now make nice and work very hard to get him elected president. Get him elected president and she will be hailed as a hero. If he loses, it is she who will be the louse.

All that is really left of Hillary’s campaign are the bare bones which will be dissected ad infinitum by the pundits and the academicians. Indeed, the post-mortems have already begun. There are those criticizing her announcement which was made from her comfy living room which signified something of a coronation. There was Iowa where she was advised not to compete. There was the lack of a consistent message. It was her wardrobe. It was this and it was that.

But, the real fundamental question is was she ever really the frontrunner in this campaign? Yes, she had name recognition, resources, and a supposed superior organization. But, was she one to break through the glass ceiling for women? From the beginning I doubted.

To me Hillary was like Jesse Jackson or even Al Sharpton – all the mouth, all the rhetoric, all the ties, but just not the one. Hillary like Jesse is the one to open the door for women, but just not the one to step inside. Like Jesse, Hillary, too, has very high negatives which are very hard, if not impossible, to overcome. She, like Jesse, could not break beyond her core constituency. Hillary, like Jesse, is old school at a time when we wanted something new and refreshing. Hillary was tied to Bill much the same way Jesse tied himself to Martin Luther King, Jr. and the old civil rights movement. It was a case of looking at how great things were and saying we can go there again as opposed to looking ahead and saying how much better things will be. And, in the end there just was no boldness. While Al, and maybe Jesse, have, for example, come to accept marriage equality for gays and lesbians, it was Hillary sticking to Bill’s line of promising to work hard for the gay and lesbian community which in the end hurt our community. It was Bill’s strategy of playing to the middle and Hillary chose not to break free from that. (Indeed, if we look at why we had two Bushes in the White House it is in part because Junior chose to chart a course different (i.e., farther to the right) from Daddy’s.)

I heard one line which I like. It goes something like while the Clintons were busy building the bridge to the 21^st century; Obama crossed over the bridge and is the 21^st century. In many ways that is true. Hillary sought to build on Bill’s magic and basically her campaign was played on the map that Bill drew. But, while Bill was able to expand the base, Hillary was not and is now stuck to constricting the base as much as possible and that is not a winning strategy. So, we should not conclude that America is not ready for a woman president just as we should not say the country is not ready for a black president. Just as Jesse and Al were not the black men we wanted for president, Hillary is not the woman we want.

JUST SAY NO TO McCAIN

Last week Arianna Huffington revealed on The Huffington Post that she heard Senator John McCain say at a party a few years ago that he did not vote for Bush in 2000. McCain and his people then went on a full court press throughout the week to deny this statement and Huffington brought out more people to corroborate the story. Then there were those that said that dinner conversation should remain private.

Huffington wrote later in a post how she used to admire McCain, but that she now does not. She is very disillusioned and I have to admit that I mirror her sentiments.

Senator McCain has followed the path of former Senator Bob Dole. I really liked Dole and I had the distinct pleasure of volunteering for his presidential campaign in 1988. It was such a wonderful experience and I was so disappointed when Bush beat him. Then in 1996 when Dole I could not stand him because he seemed to have sold his soul and become a conservative mouthpiece. He was not the same person I had come to admire. In the end I did vote for him over Clinton only because I bought the character issue argument he presented. It was not an easy decision but I could not bring myself to vote for Clinton (of course, now I really understand the character issue as it pertains to Bill).

Dole did not impress me until the 1996 campaign as an ideologue and McCain was another one who did not seem to follow the party line. He seemed to be a true fiscal conservative, there was McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, he has a sensible stance on immigration, and he brokered the agreement that forced the Bush administration to put forth more moderate candidates for judgeships.

When McCain ran for president in 2000 he impressed me. Here was a Republican who actually was willing to stand up to the “Christian right” and be a real man. Like many others I thought he got the real raw deal when Bush played the race card on him (McCain and his black baby). How different things may be now if he had won then. Even early on in the current administration he maintained his gadfly image and was not a big supporter of the Iraq war.

But then came 2004 and a funny thing happen. McCain was being mentioned as a potential running mate for Senator Kerry and sort of like a straight man after his first “unexpected” gay encounter tries to “man up” by sleeping with as many women as he can to prove that he really is not gay. For McCain, it was like not being wanting to be seen in bed with Democrats, so he “manned up” by getting in bed with Bush and proving his conservative credentials. The change was just amazing. Now, this gadfly was an unabashed war supported and mouthpiece for the administration. Since that time he has just been a real disappointment.

Now he is on the national stage and he really is not ready for prime time. His sidekick is Joe Lieberman who is another real pisser (if only the Democrats could afford to kick him to the curb). There are just a series of miscues coming from campaign. There is the flap over his campaign finances where he opted into public funding only to secure a private loan and then opted out. Now buddy boy Bush has virtually stripped the FEC of its powers so there is no one to reprimand McCain. And speaking of campaign, he who always preached campaign finance reform wrote a section in the reform to allow for the use of private plane if owned by a spouse. Guess who has a spouse with a private plane??? Then there is the infamous Shia/Shiite fiasco in Iraq. There are his denials of not voting for Bush and his denouncements of Arianna Huffington as some sort of kook (I find her actually to be one of the most incisive political analyst around). We also have his denials of saying we should be in Iraq for 100 years or that he does not know much about economics even though he is on videotape saying both. Are we to believe him when he says he will run a clean campaign all the while he keeps saying that Obama is backed by Hamas?

Now, his campaign is complaining of media coverage. Really? That he was a part of the savings and loan debacle in the early 1990s is not mentioned. Nor is it mentioned that he had to pull a lot of strings to keep his then drug addict wife out of jail for setting up a non profit as the vehicle to feed her habit? And, of course, dear Cindy has said she will never reveal her tax returns.

It literally is like, how do we know McCain is lying, he opens his mouth. We especially know that is lying when he plants that fake smile on his face while we know underneath he is plotting how to destroy the person (like the minister who recently asked in his town hall meeting if it was true he called his wife a cunt!).

If all of that was not bad enough, what really disturbs me is the company McCain keeps. The magazine DiversityInc. did story last year on the diversity of the staffs of the presidential contenders. McCain did not respond to the questionnaire (how surprising) and based on the magazine’s further investigation it found that McCain’s staff was remarkable for its lack of diversity. So, if we as African Americans, Latinos, women, and gays are not among those he associates with then we can be sure that we will not be on the radar screen of a McCain presidency. And, what scares me is that while the current administration has not been great for social issues, McCain would be worse because he actually does have a brain and the conviction to do what is needed to stay in office. That means no marriage equality, no legal abortions, no gays in the military (which is a good thing as far as I am concerned), poor race relations, and a real bad time for immigrants.

The bottom line is that McCain just ain’t it.

HER WORDS – SHAMEFUL, WRONG, PITIFUL

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, you know, 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.

Hillary Clinton

This is just so wrong on so many counts that I hardly know where to start. Let’s start with the analytics being that I am a numbers person. Obama is winning 90% of the African American vote and at least 40% of the white vote. Or, to put it another way, Clinton is barely registering with African Americans and getting only a little better than half of her own. Or, to put it in yet another way Clinton owned the African American and white vote at the start of the campaign and has LOST significant portions of both constituencies.

Second, it was the African American vote that was solid for her husband and when he was impeached it was the Congressional Black Caucus that stood with him against the Republicans. This block of “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” is a voting block that is prone to vote Republican in general election. So, if Mrs. Clinton is counting on these bubbas to propel her to the presidency, she is sadly delusional.

Third, Obama has been successful because he has expanded the base. He has raised close to a quarter billion dollars and has a donor base that is approaching an unprecedented two million people. In the South Carolina primary, for example, his vote total alone eclipsed the total number of votes cast in the primary in 2004. Throughout the entire primary process, Obama has served to energize the Democrats which has brought new people into the process. He is showing us just how things “could be” as opposed to how things were. Which is more forward thinking?

Isn’t it a bit late to begin building a winning coalition? And, if this was such a winning coalition what explains the fact that Ms. Clinton is behind in the delegate count, behind in the popular vote, and losing ground rapidly in the superdelegate count? If this is such a winning coalition then why is she not winning?

Okay, now let’s get to the real raw meat of these comments. To put it nicely, she is the candidate of the white people. Afterall, we as African Americans and Latinos apparently are not hard working Americans. For that matter, we as GLBTI Americans do not seem to matter to Ms. Clinton. This, Mrs. Clinton, is the George Bush strategy and what, apparently, propelled him to victory and we see how well that has turned out for all of us. Bush energized this constituency by playing off us Blacks, Latinos, and gays. Our country is now seriously divided in many ways and it is Mrs. Clinton that seeks to keep things this way. Or, to use the words of the Indianapolis Star, this is how things are and this is how Mrs. Clinton wants it to remain.

My dear friend Norma, who is African American, has over the past few weeks expressed her sincere hurt over the actions of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. For months, Mr. Clinton has been dissing the very constituency that was most loyal to him. Mrs. Clinton has been more subtle, but she is now taking the cover off her true feelings. Norma likes to ask, “how could they, they’re our friends.” I always remind her that African Americans are used to such treatment. When our supposed white friends are among us they are always so friendly that we actually begin to believe that maybe we are bridging the racial divide. Yet, when push comes to shove and the white friends need to show their loyalty we are the ones shoved aside. “How could they,” asks Norma? I reply, “How could they not.”

The real sad fact is that Mrs. Clinton will, undoubtedly, try to offer an “explanation” for her remarks. Sadly, she will defiantly show her face and continue her campaign. Sadly, Mrs. Clinton knows no shame. Goodbye, Mrs. Clinton and take your husband with you.

IT’S ALL OVER!! FINALLY!!!

Gosh, this is such an exciting and overwhelming moment in time. An African American will be the Democratic nominee for the Office of President of the United States. What more can be said? America, you rock!

NO WE CAN’T!

“Well, you know, boy, we here are just simple folks and we like things how they is – plain and easy. We just ain’t got no need for them high falutin’ ways of yours. So, we’s just gonna keep on how we been doing things and you can keep them pie in the sky dreams to yerself.”

That is the conversation that came to me when I first heard on the radio the words the Indianapolis Star used to endorse Clinton on May 2^nd.

Obama offers an attractive vision for the way things could be. He speaks eloquently of hope and change. He connects with voters, many who formerly felt disenfranchised, on a level few political leaders have attained.

Clinton offers a clear-eyed view of the way things are. She offers nuanced positions on how to address the war in Iraq, trade with China and economic expansion. Her depth of knowledge is remarkable.

The other thing that comes to mind is ol’ Walter Lee from A Raisin in the Sun as he tries to get his mother and his wife to buy into his dream. Or, how about ol’ whitey when he comes to buy their new house back from them. This is just how things are. Things could be that way, but they just ain’t.

What is so fascinating about this campaign between Hillary and Barack is that all the racist codes are broadcast in full view and there are so many of us who are just sitting back and say, “mmm-hmm.” We been there, we heard it, so tell us something new.

I also flashed to last week’s verdict in the Sean Bell murder case in New York. Rev. Al and us felt there should have been a guilty verdict – that’s how it could be – but, alas there was non-guilty verdict and that is just how things are. I am not personally passing judgment on the verdict, but until someone is disciplined someway for these excessive gunfires against unarmed Black men, there will be no “could be.”

Malcolm X died because of what “could be” just as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also killed for the same sin. Think about Fanny Lou Hamer, not standing up in the Democratic National Convention, but of the untold beatings she endured just to get there to say what “could be.” What about Matthew Shephard, Brandon Terry, or the five teenagers gunned down in Newark last summer? All young lives all lost for daring to believe in what “could be.” There all those gay couples fighting for the same recognition of their heterosexual counterparts, yet, the Indianapolis Star says that “how things are” are better than “how things could be.” Of course, for that matter, where would Hillary be today without Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinem, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, and many other females who all believed in how things could be.

“How things are” is that more than 4,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have needlessly lost their lives in a folly. Families are being ripped apart by this illegal back door draft and left in shreds when their loved ones return physically maimed and mentally shattered. Gas is exceeding $4 a gallon in some parts of the country and is a reality throughout the country for our truckers who must eat too much of that increase just to make a few pennies. “How things are” is that many of our states, like New Jersey, are broke mirroring the condition of the citizens. “How things are” is families must use these so-called “stimulus checks” not for a treats, but to buy the bare necessities for their families. “How things are” is that while Tom Cruise spends a million bucks for his daughter’s second birthday, the workers who served at the party can barely spend a buck to get a card for their children’s birthdays and must hope for scraps so their families could have a meal that day. “How things are” is that Black men are an endangered species hunted for sport and caged in droves like animals.

Kudos to the Indianapolis Star for sharing its incredible insight.  From this we see why newspaper sales are steadily declining.

RACISM 101

There was a point of disagreement with my last post about whether Senator Clinton would be able to win the African American vote back if she became the Democratic presidential nominee. I stand by comments and will use the words of Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina to underscore my point. Clyburn was quoted on the record last week as saying that the Clintons are in trouble when it comes to African Americans.

Clyburn, an undeclared delegate and the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, was quoted in a recent Reuters article saying, “There are African-Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win.” He also made remarks to the New York Times, calling Bill Clinton’s conduct “bizarre.” Clyburn said the former president’s conduct in this campaign had caused what the newspaper described as possibly being an “irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him.”

The thing is that Hillary Clinton has made this thing personal and there are many in the African American community who are all too well-versed in this racist code that is used to denigrate African Americans and African American males in particular.

It starts with qualifications. Obama has an undergraduate degree from Ivy League Columbia University and a law degree from Harvard. Now granted on paper Hillary’s Yale law degree may trump Obama’s, Columbia is a bona fide Ivy League institution while Wellesley is part of the unofficial “Seven Sisters.” The bottom line here is that Obama’s education is every bit as good as Clinton’s and for that matter as good as GW’s. So, to say Obama is not qualified is just racist code for we do not want you.

As for experience, let us be very clear. Hillary Clinton is where she is in large part because of her husband. Further, it is her husband’s record that she is running on. Obama actually took a job in Chicago that Hillary turned down. She chose the corporate law route instead in the largest firm in Arkansas and used those connections as well as those of her husband to get special stock deals and sit on one corporate board after the other including Walmart whose labor practices are not very exemplary. Obama worked for peanuts out in the hood dealing with the folk and their problems. So, once again, let us discredit the black man and paint his experience as insignificant.

Another favorite racist tactic is to pit African Americans against each other. Since efforts to link Obama with the favorite black boogeymen (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan) proved futile, some other nemesis had to surface — enter stage left Jeremiah Wright. At best, Rev. Wright is merely a distraction as I wrote in a previous post. Yet, on Monday he was either the lead story or the second story (behind Miley Cyrus’ “racy” Vanity Fair pictures – over 4,000 dead in Iraq and this is what qualifies as big news) on nearly every newscast. And nearly every report left us wondering how Obama would respond/react to all that Wright had said. Yet, we hear nothing about McCain’s association with Rev. Hagee and we look past the fact that McCain went out of his way to speak at Bob Jones University. This is to say nothing about all the unqualified religious quacks in the current Administration who wield way, way too much power. I ask who is the greater threat?? Hint, the answer is not the black man. Here is yet another double standard where when African Americans speak out they are angry, unpatriotic, anti-Semitic and, yes, racist. Whites, on the other hand are merely expressing opinions and they go to reap millions spewing their hate speech. And, heaven help us all if two or more African American men are gathered together. There is no good going to come out of that.

And then there is the whopper that we hear all too often – “he” is not ready yet or “he” has not been tested or “he” is just not there yet. Quite frankly, just being a successful African American male is test enough. But this old line is used to discredit us when the white person knows we cannot be beat on merit. This line is used and then everything under the sun is used to make this stick whether it is relevant or not. What is so funny is that there is never a definition of what it is to be ready or tested or there. It is just that we are not.

Finally, there is this assertion that we as African Americans are only voting for Obama because he is black. Here I should point out that Obama is just as much white as he is black. Quite frankly, the majority of us whose families have been here for generations are more than likely not “pure breeds.” Remember, though, that Bill Clinton was adopted by us and Hillary Clinton started the race as the favorite amongst African Americans. It was Obama who had to prove himself to us and not Hillary. Yet, we are made to feel guilty for voting for Obama even though for decades we have almost blindly thrown our support to white candidate after white candidate after white candidate. We have shown repeatedly that we will vote for white candidate. Yet, the reverse is not as true. There are still probably more whites who will not under any circumstance vote for an African American candidate. In fact, even Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell was quoted as saying that there are whites who will not vote for Obama because he is black. These comments are racist code for calling us ignorant. We vote for the black candidate because he/she is black and not because he/she is the best candidate.

Let me close with more comments by Congressman Clyburn. “If Obama walks off the playing field with Hillary Clinton as the nominee, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party would be in trouble. We’re in a very critical point in this process and if we’re not careful, we could do irreparable harm. We’re trying to do something that’s never been done in this country before.”