Seeing Red Over Hillary - New York Times

Seeing Red Over Hillary - New York Times

Barack is popular in Montana

Barack in Butte, Montana: Defying Conventional Wisdom About Race and Politics
By Laura Flanders, TheNation.com
Posted on January 30, 2008, Printed on January 30, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/75379/
If Barack Obama's South Carolina win was a "black" thing, it's awfully strange how it's going down in Butte. US towns don't come much whiter or more hope-resistant than this battered old Montana mining town. And yet organizers here resonate with his call, not because they think he'll change things here, but because they believe the movement he's inspiring will help them do that work.

It was mid-morning Sunday when I finally flipped open my laptop to watch Obama's South Carolina victory speech. The only other soul in the faded foyer of the once-grand Finlen Hotel was Debbie, the receptionist. Obama's words drew blue-eyed Debbie over. What do you think? I asked. Looking at the crowd, her smile revealed more than a few missing teeth. "That looks like everybody," she said. "That's good."

The Finlen is a lonely place; a 1920s relic perched on a snow-swept slope between stone-cold, closed Victorian banks and bars and the country's biggest toxic Super Fund site. Butte was once the copper capital of the world (and the most unionized town in the US) but the swag and smut of the 1880s is long gone and Butte's as broken now as the bones of its best-known 20th century export -- Evel Knievel. And even he is dead.

The exuberant crowd behind the stylish Senator Saturday was Southern, sunny, multi-racial and all revved up. The backdrop to his words in Butte was very different. Obama's pledges of "change" and "purpose" and "belief" echoed, airy, into this wintry, white, whupped, western town. This place aches for solid stuff like union jobs and productive work and there was precious little promise of either in Obama's speech.

So can Obama's magic move Butte? Before the morning was over, I was able to ask the question to a group of local activists. The Montana Human Rights Network was holding its annual"Progressive Leadership Institute" in the Finlen this weekend and two dozen local organizers gathered around to hear the speech in between workshops on running effective campaigns and running for local office.

"It's not that he would change anything in Butte," said Alan Peura, a City Commissioner in Helena. "But he's building momentum that we can use to make that change ourselves."

Although John Edwards was by my survey probably the group's favorite candidate, Obama roused them, not by his policy promises, but by opening he presents for their work.

"At the very least, we'll have four years of movement-building from the Presidential bully pulpit, which is the polar opposite from what we've had," chimed in Jason Wiener, a Missoula city councilman.

Obama's wrong on fuel, said Patricia Dowd. He supports liquid coal, a fossil-fuel-burning non-alternative that Dowd, an environmentalist, is against. "But I love the fact that he always thanks his organizers first. He values what we do and that makes it easier for us to do our work.''

"I don't trust all this talk about bi-partisanship," said retired MT Congressman, Pat Williams, one of the longest-serving progressives ever to sit in the US House. "Compromise can be just another word for collusion." On the other hand, even Williams sees movement potential at the party level if Obama were to be the candidate. Williams served in Congress under Clinton in the early 1990s. He saw how the Clinton magic worked - for Clinton only. "We lost the Governors, the House, the Senate."

Ken Toole, one of the founders of the Network and a student of the Right remembers how the Right came to power. Gaining the White House wasn't the last it was the first stage of that process. "The best thing Obama could be is our Reagan," said Toole. "Reagan didn't deliver a whole lot in terms of policies, but he shifted the country's direction." Even from Butte, it's clear to organizers: Obama's not the savior: we are. He opens a door. We push.

Laura Flanders is author of Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species.

Clinton Revisited

Obama '08? It's Clinton '92 all over again. With one small difference ...
With his megawatt charisma and compelling life story, Barack Obama would be cruising to the nomination in another year. But this year he faces a new phenomenon: the twin-headed candidate

Jonathan Freedland in Columbia, South Carolina
Saturday January 26, 2008

Guardian

Sixteen years ago, this state and America were wowed by a new candidate who seemed less politician than force of nature. He packed halls and school gyms till they were bursting, promising that a new day was coming. Aged just 46, his arrival seemed to presage a generational shift. He drew comparisons with John F Kennedy; the rock-star welcome in town after town felt like Beatlemania. He spoke of change and of hope, buttressing his message with his own compelling life story: a father he didn't know, a devoted mother who had defied the odds to bring up her son. Black audiences were especially fervent for him.
That man was Bill Clinton.

Now, four elections later, that remarkable odyssey is being repeated. In 2008, as it was in 1992, the race for the Democratic nomination has been electrified by a newcomer to national politics. This time it is Barack Obama, 46, also fending off accusations of inexperience, who has thrilled a new generation, his rallies staffed and fired up by teenagers and students, just as Clinton's were 16 years ago. Now it is Obama who has made hope - once the watchword of the self-styled "Man from Hope" - his own. It is Obama who, in a state where African-Americans make up half the Democratic electorate voting in today's pivotal primary, has black audiences on their feet.

Except the Obama of 2008 faces an obstacle the Clinton of 1992 never had to endure. He is up against a wholly novel phenomenon in US politics: the double-headed presidential candidate. All week in South Carolina he has done battle with not just his main opponent, but that opponent's spouse, the pair commanding as much media attention as if both their names were on the ballot. What's more one of those two adversaries is the most effective campaigner in modern political history: one William Jefferson Clinton.

It is making Obama's presidential bid look like an uphill task, even here in South Carolina where eve-of-poll surveys show him comfortably ahead. And yet, one can't help but conclude that, in any other year, against any other opponent(s), Obama would be cruising towards the Democratic nomination, powered by a charisma unseen since that first season of Clinton 16 years back.

There are differences. Obama's rhetorical style is grander and more soaring, quoting JFK one moment, and Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" the next. Clinton's addresses were more conversational and intimate. And while Obama can rivet a packed auditorium, he does less well in close encounters with voters - which suggests he might not share the extraordinary, almost telepathic, gift for empathy that was so central to the ex-president's success.

The contrast was amply illustrated on Thursday. In the morning Obama delivered his stump speech in the high school at Kingstree, a small town in the south-east corner of the state so poor that most of the shops on the main street were either run down or boarded up. When he took questions one came from a Vietnam war veteran who, with his voice cracking, complained of the indignity of fighting for benefits that were rightfully his. "For us," he said, "excuse my French, it's been hell."

Obama listened, briskly told the man he appreciated his service and went on to detail his own record on the Veterans Affairs committee of the US Senate. What was lacking was a human response to the man's distress.

Now, Clinton-watchers can guess what the former president would have done: he'd have asked the man to say more about his condition; he might even have gone over to him and given him a hug (an image which, usefully, would have popped up on the evening news).

As it happened, you didn't have to guess. For Clinton, his schedule as packed as if he were running, had a similar encounter at a campaign stop in Barnwell later that day, with another Vietnam veteran. And the ex-president did exactly what Obama had not done; asking the man what ailed him - and visibly winning his vote in the process.

In its own way, this goes to the heart of Obama's problem. Against a normal opponent it wouldn't matter if he lacked the hyper-empathy of a Bill Clinton. He has so many gifts of his own, including a presence so powerful that he can keep thousands of people waiting in a hall for an hour and a half, as he did in North Charleston on Thursday night - and as candidate Clinton did 16 years ago - and still have them crying out for more. But Obama is not up against a normal opponent.

For one thing, Hillary is no slouch herself. She suffers by comparison with both her husband and Obama. As the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has written of Hillary: "All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural." But judged by any other measure - say the standard of almost all British politicians - she's very good. To watch her at historically black Benedict College in Columbia yesterday morning was to see a fluent, persuasive performer on the top of her game. She does not inspire - she got more applause at the beginning of her speech than at the end - but she has lost some of the wonkishness of the past, now translating policy into colloquial English, lambasting, for example, the "predatory" student loans that mean "too many young people are having the door slammed in their face".

Still, it's not her campaign style that sees her in such a strong position for the Democratic nomination, even if she loses tonight in South Carolina. She has the legendary Clinton machine to thank for that. At each campaign stop local bigwigs and powerbrokers are there in the front row: evidence of a vast network, built over 16 years, of people who are keen to see the Clintons back in the White House and have the local, on-the-ground, organisational muscle to make it happen. Favours given and favours returned: that has been the Clinton way and it is mighty effective.

But there's far more to the Clinton machine. There's also a team of operatives with great tactical nous. In South Carolina they have repeatedly succeeded in putting Obama on the defensive - whether over his comments praising Ronald Reagan or past legal work for a slum landlord - even in areas in which Hillary herself should be vulnerable.

But above all, Hillary's greatest asset has been her husband. Few doubt that he is steering campaign strategy and there is no one better. In South Carolina he has been happy to play attack dog for his wife, leaving her to make high-minded speeches that ignore her Democratic opponent and focus, loftily, on the case against George W Bush. They are "double-teaming" against Obama, leaving his head spinning so badly that, as he admitted the other day, "sometimes I don't know who I'm running against".

So fate has played a cruel trick against Barack Obama. It has made him the most exciting newcomer in US politics for a very long time - then pitted him against the man who held that title first.

Toni Morrison's Letter to Barack Obama

"Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me--a public endorsement of a

Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it.

One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is

one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will

not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain:

this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come

again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.

May I describe to you my thoughts? I have admired Senator Clinton for

years. Her knowledge always seemed to me

exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert.

However I am more compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure

it) of a candidate. I cared little for her gender as a source of my

admiration, and the little I did care was based on the fact that no liberal

woman has ever ruled in America . Only conservative or "new-centrist" ones

are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very much for your race[s]. I

would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might

make me "proud."

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned

myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen

intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that

has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't

see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which

coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only

with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we

believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for

each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that

feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit

it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster

the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a

leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with

courage

instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country's

citizens as "we," not "they"? Someone who understands what it will take to

help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it

desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing

the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so

frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the

womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for

this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

--Toni Morrison"

(taken from Roots - NYT)

NIA takes a stand against blatant racism

NY PAPER PUBLISHES RACIST OBAMA PARODY
Read the parody, NiaOnline's complaint, and the newspaper's explanation

Boy, when the pundits said this presidential campaign is getting nasty with regard to the topics of race and gender, they weren't kidding. Yesterday blogger Eisa Nefertari Ulen sent this little tidbit our way. It's a horribly racist caricature of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama that was published in The Independent, a newspaper that claims to have the highest distribution of any local newspaper in Long Island, NY's East End (which includes The Hamptons).

The mock column, "Why I Should Be Our Next President," is written under the byline of a candidate named "Yo Mama Bin Barack" with Sen. Obama's smiling face next to it. Portrayed as a racially-confused buffoon who is trying to be Black, Yo Mama Bin Barack says things such as, "Ultimately, if [Hillary Clinton] gets too close, one of my New York advisors has advised me to, 'Bitch slap that ho.' White women, I am told, like that," and "We be, you know, sick of whitey supressin' and congestin' so, you know, we won't denigrate or sophisticate but emulate and populate, you know, the system is, like, broken, y'all!" This, for the edification of the East End's elite populace (as well as the online masses, since a version of the parody was posted in the paper's online edition).

NiaOnline contacted the The Independent on Jan. 23 to express our outrage and ask for an explanation. The editor-in-chief and co-publisher of the newspaper, Rick Murphy, sent us a letter of apology the next morning and said that no one had put him up to it. The Independent also took down the online version and posted an apology.

Read on to see a copy of the column that we made before it was taken down. You'll also see NiaOnline's letter to The Independent, as well as the newspaper's apology to NiaOnline.

Many people believe that overt racism is all but dead in our country, and that the real enemies now are institutional racism and "the soft bigotry of low expectations." There is also a popular view that if the media would just stop talking about the role of race in this campaign, we could just focus on "the issues." Call this a cold splash of water in the face of those notions. Good, old-fashioned, overt racism is alive and well, and hard at work in this campaign and in our 21st century lives. Share that cold splash with as many people as you can, by bookmarking this page and passing the web link on to as many people as you can. Contact The Independent too, and let them know what you think of their little joke. It's time to wake up.

Low Tidings: "Why I Should Be Our Next President"

NiaOnline's letter to The Independent

The Independent's letter of apology to NiaOnline

Messrs. Murphy and Mackin:

A colleague of mine posted a link on her blog to your recent Low Tidings column, "Why I Should Be Our Next President." Clearly, this mock column by "Yo Mama Bin Barack" was an attempt to satirize presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama.

Political satire has a long and venerable history in our country, grounded in our right to free speech and the necessity to keep humble the powers that be. However, satire is defined by Merriam-Webster's as "trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly." There is absolutely nothing trenchant, witty, or the least bit informed about the crude, venomous, bigoted and tasteless caricature of Senator Obama that you published. It also does nothing to expose anything credible about him. Any decent human being, regardless of race or party affiliation, would find it to be offensive.

Granted, you have the right to publish whatever you want. The public also has the right to let you and your advertisers know, through their words and wallets, when they consider your speech to be hostile and demeaning. Perhaps you think that publishing racist columns won't affect your bottom line out on the East End of Long Island. It would be folly to assume that.

I represent a multicultural readership of thousands of educated and politically aware women across the country. Before putting this matter to our readers and our colleagues on the media, we would like to know why you decided to publish the column. Who wrote it? Perhaps this is all a hoax?

Sheryl Huggins
Vice President of Information Services, Nia Enterprises and Editor-in-Chief, NiaOnline

Hi Sheryl:

I am personally acknowledging that this failed attempt at satire was a terrible lapse in judgment. As a co-owner and co-publisher, I can tell you no one is putting me up to this. I am sincerely sorry I have offended you. I can't explain why I chose to write the column [but I want] to assure you that we are a multicultural employer with a long history of diversity. In fact, our highest paid employer [sic] happens to be a man of color. That said, there was no excuse for the column and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.

Rick Murphy
Editor-in-Chief, The Independent

Smear Tactic against Barack

The Hypocrisy of BET's Bob Johnson's Obama Smears
By Davey D, Davey D's Hip-Hop Corner
Posted on January 24, 2008, Printed on January 25, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/74753/
Former BET president and founder Bob Johnson is an asshole and hypocrite. Lemme not pull punches, be politically correct, beat around the bush or try to impress high-brow readers who feel I should be less crass and gentler with my words so I can appeal to their sensibilities. It's 2008 and unfortunately being nice and proper doesn't quite get the message across, especially when it comes to Bob Johnson and his recent disparaging remarks about presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I'm referring to Johnson getting onstage to introduce Sen. Hillary Clinton at a rally and expressing outrage about Obama's past. He said, "Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood. I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book."

It was a cheap shot -- referencing Obama's drug use when he was a young man. This was an activity that Obama freely admitted to in his memoirs Dreams From My Father, and on some level I can see it being fair game, but coming from a guy like Johnson, that's like former President Bill Clinton giving marital advice to Halle Berry's former husband and admitted sex addict Eric Bonet. I heard Johnson make these remarks, and I was like, "Negro, go back into your cave; please sit down and leave the politics to someone else."

I keep asking myself: Where does Johnson get off slamming Obama about the wrongs of drug use when he piloted one of the largest media institutions (BET) that provided a worldwide platform that for the most part glorified and legitimized the lifestyles of those who not only used drugs but also sold them? In all the years we've known of billionaire Bob Johnson, we have not seen him get on any stage and diss former drug dealers like Jay-Z, 50 Cent, Rick Ross or any number of artists whose videos he would routinely play coupled with sit-down interviews conducted by fawning hosts who never, ever challenged these artists for resurrecting a "criminal" lifestyle they supposedly left behind in both their songs and videos.

The Bob Johnson we know has never gone out of his way to publicly smash on artists who like Mary J Blige or Fergie, who admitted to using drugs in the past and have since gotten their lives together and moved onward and upward. If anything, the former head of BET could be seen publicly praising them while courting them to appear at his award shows or Spring Bling concerts.

Johnson certainly never came out swinging on admitted drug abusing artists like Whitney Houston, Bobby Brown, Flava Flav or DMX, who all had reality shows either on BET or one of the other stations within the Viacom network where he had influence as a VP.

One would think a guy of Johnson's new found "high moral character" would've been smashing on drug use and drug peddling a long time ago. Could you imagine what sort of shock waves would've been sent around the world if Johnson, even as a retired media mogul, had spoken out and said, "No, Bobby! No, Whitney! We won't give them a reality show until those two get themselves healed and free of drugs"? Can you imagine if he insisted the DMX show Soul of a Man was centered around him getting over cocaine addiction?

Imagine the shock waves if Johnson said, "Hell no, Jigga. We ain't supporting your album American Gangster cause you highlighting the sordid lifestyle of heroin dealers like Frank Lucas, and we are against that type of behavior? Could you imagine if Johnson found his nuts when at the helm of BET and shut down any and all videos from artists who had "dirty pasts" that they were trying to exploit?

Sadly the Bob Johnson we know has seemingly had no problem in making billions from highlighting the drug-dealing, drug-using lifestyle. Adding to this disappointment is the fact that this proud African-American billionaire did things like remove programming that would make us question and shun such questionable behavior. It was on Johnson's watch that BET got rid of great award-winning shows like Teen Summit. It was on Johnson's watch that we saw incredible commentators like Tavis Smiley and Ed Gordon disappear. It was on Johnson's watch we saw the BET nightly news shrink and then become nonexistent. These shows were shut down in spite of the objections ranging from scholars like Dr. Cornel West to the eight major black fraternities and sororities to, more recently, church groups leading the "Enough Is Enough" campaign. It was on Johnson's watch that many in the community were up in arms protesting BET when they had that Step-N-Fetcher-like cartoon called "Cita's World." Y'all remember that one, right?

As I'm penning this article, I'm vividly recalling Johnson arrogantly responding to critics on a widely televised "town hall" where he was confronted for firing Tavis Smiley. Johnson said that "BET" stands for "black entertainment," that he is in business to entertain the masses, and that he was not obligated to provide news programming. Who knows, maybe Johnson was trying to be "entertaining" when he made his divisive remarks about Obama.

How is it that Johnson found the courage to stand up against Obama but was mealy mouthed against the artists with questionable pasts that he highlighted on his network that in turn became the face and MIS-perception of all African-Americans to the rest of the world? Many of us who are not celebrities and have traveled overseas know the pain we've endured of having to explain to fascinated yet misguided individuals in far-off lands that we are nothing like the characters depicted in the videos shown on BET? I know I've had my share of conversations where I had to put things in proper context in places ranging from Barcelona to Scotland to Beirut, where BET specifically was cited as the referencing point.

Instead, of being a champion for our people who could use his resources and influence to change widely held, worldwide misperceptions and stereotypes of us, he opted to become something more foul then any drug dealer. He became a propagandist of the worse kind. Instead of hustlin' crack, Johnson hustled black pathologies, distorted images and misinformation under the banner of black culture, which has resulted in many believing we are part and parcel to the unchallenged buffoonery he allowed to be highlighted. Instead of celebrating Obama for overcoming the odds, including the scorch of drugs, to possibly become the next president of the United States, this "negro," Bob Johnson, wants to act like a lapdog for Hillary Clinton and bash on him, all while being a media drug peddler of sorts who is in a big way responsible for normalizing drug culture.

And please don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying Obama is not above criticism. I have lots of critiques that I can launch at him. For the record, I am not the biggest Obama fan. He gives great speeches and has lots of charisma. There's no denying the energy he brings to mainstream political discussion, but from where I sit, his politics don't go quite go far enough. I want Obama to be the type of politician to have been on the ground -- front and center -- leading the masses when we went to protest in Jena. Instead, all I got was a press release.

I want Obama to have been the politician who is bold and assertive and uncompromising to the point that he would speak out on behalf of the SF8 or the Puerto Rican activists who are being jammed up by the Feds. I want Obama to be the type of guy who is smashing hard on police brutality and this current wave of gentrification. But when I argue with my fellow colleagues like writers Adisa Banjoko or Eric K Arnold, our spirited debates center around Obama's position on issues.

Even the big debate between rap stars Rhymefest (Obama supporter) and Lupe Fiasco (Hillary supporter) has centered around the politics of the candidates. Nobody is browbeating Obama for having used drugs in the past. The Obama we know and see today is clean, smart and razor-sharp, and we don't see him coddling and being a big enabler to drug culture the way that billionaire Bob Johnson has been over all those years. He made his billions by pimping drug culture on his network to the fullest.

The biggest challenge that Johnson creates for African-Americans is that, because he has made some significant economic accomplishments as the head of a multibillion-dollar conglomerate, he has led many of us into believing that he has built upon past freedom struggles waged by the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and others.

The sad irony to all this is that if King and X were still alive waging battles against oppression, they would probably be excluded from the day-to-day banter of BET. We barely see or hear about these past leaders on the station today. What was the last in-depth discussion you saw or heard on BET under Johnson's reign about King beyond his "I Have a Dream" speech? What's the last insightful story you saw on Malcolm X?

If you listened to Dr. King's thoughts on media, then you know one thing: that BET and the foolishness it put out in the name of our people would've been in stark opposition to where King stood in terms of using media as a tool to uplift and inform the community. Like I said, Martin and Malcolm would never be on BET, aside from a few documentary clips and sound bites, if they were around today. If you don't believe me and think this is far-fetched, let's take a short trip down memory lane.

Those of us who are old enough to recall when BET first came out, it held a lot of promise and became a source of pride. It promised to fill the void and become a much-needed answer to MTV, which started out refusing to air videos from black artists. Eventually Michael Jackson, Run DMC and later Yo MTV Raps knocked down some of those doors, but BET started off promising to be our uncompromised mouthpiece.

I recall in the late '80s, as the cable industry expanded, BET was not included on many of the cable systems, and there were spirited campaigns to get them on. It was young 20-something-year-old activists who were then part of what I would call the Public Enemy/ Afrocentric generation that took to heart some of the promises made by Bob Johnson, who at that time called upon people to stand up for BET and demand it be included as a cable channel. BET's exclusion from local cable systems was seen as yet another example of how prevalent racism was in this country. Many of us were coming out of the tailspin of the crack era, and as hip hop's golden age kicked in, many eagerly sought to fight the power. Getting BET on cable was one such fight.

Here in the Bay Area, it was rap activists like artist Chill E.B. who worked tirelessly organizing letter-writing campaigns and call-ins to get BET on cable systems outside of Oakland, in neighboring cities like Concord, Fremont and other areas. I recall doing radio shows and even having someone from BET (it may have even been Johnson himself; I'll have to check my tape archives) come on the air to talk about the importance of all of us pulling together to help insure that BET got a fair shot. I recall giving out phone numbers to the offending cable outlets and encouraging listeners to stand up for BET. Years later, many of the activists who spearheaded the fight to get BET on for the masses can't get on BET themselves to share and inform viewers of ongoing struggles in our community. For example, I know Chill EB, who is a war vet and has spoken out against the war and has even done songs and videos about the topic, never has been invited to sit on the 106 & Park couch.

It's ironic that Obama, who at 40-something would've been part of that Public Enemy/ Afrocentric generation that initially rallied for causes like getting BET on cable systems, now finds himself being criticized by a guy like Bob Johnson. How quickly they turn. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised -- sheisty people rarely change their stripes. My boy and fellow writer, Jelani Cobb, raised an important question in his recent article on this topic for the Washington Post, which was, what were the Clintons thinking when they got Johnson to stomp for them? She might as well gotten Rupert Murdoch or Bill O'Reilly to stomp for her. That's like me running for office and getting a Gestapo-like guy like Rudy Giuliani to stomp on my behalf; it's not a good look and brings into question Sen. Clinton's clear lapse in judgment. All she had to do was look at the number of protests launched against BET in the past few years for their degrading images of women. That should've been a clear enough message. In other words, if Hillary thinks so little of black people that she went and dug up a cat likes Bob Johnson, then I'm gonna have to close the book on her and bounce the other way and roll with Obama.

Davey D is a hip-hop historian, journalist, DJ and community activist.

http://www.daveyd.com/

Clinton and Obama Take off Gloves

January 22, 2008
Obama and Clinton Tangle at Debate
By PATRICK HEALY and JEFF ZELENY
In the most intense and personal exchange of the presidential campaign, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama assailed each other’s integrity and voting records during a televised debate on Monday in South Carolina, the site of a critical primary in five days.

If the debate was full of memorable moments — Mrs. Clinton accusing Mr. Obama of associating with a “slum landlord,” Mr. Obama saying he felt as if he were running against both Hillary and Bill Clinton, the two candidates talking over each other — the totality of the attacks also laid bare the ill will and competitive ferocity that has been simmering between them for weeks.

“You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern,” Mrs. Clinton said, drawing a chorus of jeers from a crowd at the Palace Theater in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Mr. Obama shot back that Mrs. Clinton was conducting a brand of negative politics that, he suggested throughout the night, she and her husband had perfected: “comb my 4,000 votes in Illinois, choose one, try to present it in the worst possible light.” He added that he had sought to maintain “a certain credibility” in the race.

Both candidates believe the Democratic nomination could be sealed in the next six weeks, and they used this debate, the second-to-last one of the primary season, to unload their best opposition research and sound bites against each other. In some cases, it was the first time the candidates had personally confronted each other on potentially embarrassing points.

As she has never done before, Mrs. Clinton linked Mr. Obama to a longtime fund-raiser, whom she characterized as a slumlord in “inner-city Chicago.”

Mrs. Clinton was referring to Mr. Obama’s ties to Antoin Rezko, a Chicago businessman who was indicted last fall on federal charges of business fraud and influence peddling connected to the administration of Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois. Mr. Obama did work for a law firm in Chicago and performed legal work involving Mr. Rezko’s housing developments. On Saturday, Mr. Obama returned more than $40,000 in political contributions that were linked to Mr. Rezko.

And Mr. Obama, who appeared on the verge of losing his temper at times, noted that she was on the board of Wal-Mart while he was working on “the streets” as a Chicago community organizer. Mrs. Clinton was a director of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992.

The third Democratic contender, John Edwards, had to fight to speak. He tried to portray himself as the only candidate who was focusing on the real issues, criticizing the others for squabbling among themselves when health care and other issues go unresolved. At the same time, he tried make an appeal for his own electability in November against a Republican candidate like John McCain, saying he could “go every place” in the country to campaign.

Mr. Edwards, the winner of the South Carolina primary in 2004, also slashed into his leading rival in the state, Mr. Obama, by portraying him as weak-willed for voting “present” — rather than yea or nay — on scores of bills as an Illinois state senator.

For the most part, the sparring focused on the major issues in the primary contest, from the candidates’ plans on the economy and universal health care to their past and current positions on the Iraq war and free trade. Yet at the same time, the subtext of the attacks dwelled on honesty and accountability, with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama repeatedly implying that voters could not trust the opponent’s words.

Mr. Obama was as heated and intense as he has been at any debate over the last year. At times, he appeared angry and close to expressing it at Mrs. Clinton — and also at her husband, Bill Clinton, whom Mr. Obama criticized frequently during the debate for what he said were distortions of his views and record by the former president.

“I’m here,” Mrs. Clinton said, “not my husband.”

Mr. Obama snapped, “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.” At several other points, he used the phrase “Senator Clinton and President Clinton” to re-enforce his view that he is facing off against a decades-old Clinton machine.

Mr. Clinton was neither onstage nor in the audience, but he played a central role in the debate. Asked whether he had crossed the line as a former president, Mrs. Clinton smiled and raised the names of both of her rivals’ wives.

“This campaign is not about our spouses, it’s about us. Michelle and Elizabeth are strong and staunch advocates for their husbands,” Mrs. Clinton said. “At the end of the day, voters are going to have to choose among us.”

Still, the questions persisted about Mr. Clinton, who is scheduled to spend the week campaigning in South Carolina as Mrs. Clinton travels elsewhere. Mr. Obama, who would be the nation’s first black president, was asked about how the author Toni Morrison had bestowed that title on Mr. Clinton more than a decade ago.

“I think Bill Clinton did have an enormous affinity with the African-American community,” Mr. Obama said, praising Mr. Clinton for his longtime commitment to racial equality as a man who grew up in the South.

Lightening the moment, he added: “I would have to investigate more Bill’s dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether in fact he was a brother.”

Mrs. Clinton replied, “I am sure that can be arranged.”

The South Carolina primary is the fourth showdown of the fight for the Democratic nomination: Mr. Obama won the first, the Iowa caucuses, where Mrs. Clinton came in third, but she rebounded and won the next two contests, in New Hampshire and last Saturday in Nevada. Mr. Obama appears to hold a strong lead in public polls in South Carolina; Mrs. Clinton is spending time and resources there this week, but she is also campaigning in other states in the next two days, in part to lower expectations for her performance there.

In those three contests, Mr. Edwards did not end up in a leading spot, and in the debate he sought to break through and connect with his fellow Southerners. (He was born in South Carolina and lives in North Carolina.)

“There are three people in this debate, not two,” Mr. Edwards reminded Wolf Blitzer, the moderator of the debate, which was sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and shown on CNN. “I also want to know on behalf of voters in South Carolina, how many children are going to get health care because of this? We have got to understand that this is not about us personally.”

Mr. Edwards made a labored effort to highlight what he called his electability in the general election, referring to himself as “the white male” candidate, a phrase that became a point of playful banter between him and Mr. Obama, who often referred to the fact that a woman and a black man are running.

Patrick Healy reported from New York, and Jeff Zeleny from Myrtle Beach, S.

Could he be the one?

It's Obama Time: What Does His Stunning Iowa Win Mean?
By Eric L. Hinton
© DiversityInc 2007
When Barack Obama pulled off a stunning victory in Thursday's Iowa caucus, one of the whitest states in the nation, some hailed his victory as proof that a black man could be president.

Are we there yet?
In the past several months, Obama has successfully hurdled questions of "Is he black enough?" and "Is He a Muslim?" on his way to capturing 38 percent of support among Iowa caucus-goers. John Edwards gained 30 percent of the vote while Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive frontrunner in the months leading up to the caucus, finished a disappointing third with 29 percent.

Approximately 25 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers interviewed in entrance polls were younger than 30. Obama received 57 percent of their votes, compared with 14 percent for Edwards and 11 percent for Clinton, reports The Associated Press (AP). Obama also won the highest percentage of independents, first-time caucus-goers, self-identified liberals, and women, according to the AP.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, who's been campaigning on a largely anti-undocumented-immigrant platform, won with 34 percent of the vote, followed by 25 percent for Mitt Romney.

So was Obama's victory in Iowa just a blip on the radar screen or the first step in a massive transformation in American politics? That's what the political pundits are trying to analyze this "day after" as campaign managers go into spin mode and the campaign trail moves on to New Hampshire, which holds its primary on Tuesday.

Obama's historic victory "proved that a black man running for president can have success among voters in a predominantly white state," writes BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"To his credit Barack Obama has carefully cultivated an image as a 'change' candidate who takes the higher ground, one that talks about race -- but not racism," writes New American Media columnist Roberto Lovato. "Iowa confirms that, in doing so, he can make even the whitest electorate feel like it's voting to overcome the catastrophic legacy of racial discrimination."

Obama's campaign seemed to kick into overdrive once he was joined on the campaign trail by Oprah Winfrey. It's hard to determine what impact 'The Oprah effect' actually had. But as the Des Monies Register reported in December after Obama received Winfrey's endorsement, he attracted more than 18,000 to a Des Monies event and more than 15,000 in Cedar Rapids. Newsweek says many pundits discounted Winfrey's endorsement despite her the largely female audience, which Obama was trying to capture, "but when MSNBC reported that Obama had won the women's vote in Iowa by several points, the crowd went wild," Newsweek reports.

How important was Obama's Iowa win? It may be difficult to believe with 49 states still unheard from that the first--particularly Iowa which is 95 percent white--could be a deciding factor. But Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist at Newsweek, says the Iowa win has made Obama the prohibitive favorite to be the Democratic presidential nominee.

"It's hard to believe a few thousand votes in Iowa can have so shaken the political landscape, but the front-loading of the primary process--originally meant to settle on Hillary Clinton early so she could concentrate on defeating the GOP in November--has backfired badly for the Democratic Party establishment," writes Alter. "The only one who can stop Obama from making history is Obama."

The Clinton camp has a different perspective, obviously. Clinton's campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle offered congratulations to Obama while saying the battle was far from over. "This race begins tonight and ends when Democrats throughout America have their say," Doyle writes on the Clinton campaign web site. "Our campaign was built for a marathon and we have the resources to run a national race in the weeks ahead."

Timing is everything. It's possible Obama may be the last candidate to ride the Iowa wave to a party nomination, should he go that far. Some political analysts are suggesting that Iowa, largely rural, white, conservative and sparsely populated, exerts far too large an influence over the political process.

"The major parties would be far better off if the presidential nominees were chosen much later in the process," says Steven S. Smith, a political expert at Washington University who predicts Iowa's special role in party politics may end after this year. "It's a lousy way to elect a president. Is it reasonable to allow states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such a disproportionate impact on the presidential race?"

The New York Times concurred. On its editorial page, the Times urged that "this year's Iowa-New Hampshire rush to judgment will be the last."

"We don't question the enthusiasm of the commitment of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Iowa, where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population, is about 92 percent white, more rural and older than the rest of the nation," says the Times.

How interesting, then, that Iowa's sawn song with its predominantly white populace may be propelling Barack Obama to the Democratic nomination.

Barack Wins IOWA

4, 2008
Obama Takes Iowa in a Big Turnout as Clinton Falters; Huckabee Victor
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
DES MOINES — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a first-term Democratic senator trying to become the nation’s first African-American president, rolled to victory in the Iowa caucuses on Thursday night, lifted by a record turnout of voters who embraced his promise of change.

The victory by Mr. Obama, 46, amounted to a startling setback for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 60, of New York, who just months ago presented herself as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. The result left uncertain the prospects for John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, who had staked his second bid for the White House on winning Iowa.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, who edged her out for second place by less than a percentage point, both vowed to stay in the race.

“They said this day would never come,” Mr. Obama said as he claimed his victory at a packed rally in downtown Des Moines.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who was barely a blip on the national scene just two months ago, defeated Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, delivering a serious setback to Mr. Romney’s high-spending campaign and putting pressure on Mr. Romney to win in New Hampshire next Tuesday.

Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, was carried in large part by evangelical voters, who helped him withstand extensive spending by Mr. Romney on television advertising and a get-out-the-vote effort.

“Tonight we proved that American politics is still in the hands of ordinary folks like you,” said Mr. Huckabee, who ran on a platform that combined economic populism with an appeal to social conservatives.

Mr. Huckabee won with 34.4 percent of the delegate support, after 86 percent of precincts had reported. Mr. Romney had 25.4 percent, former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee had 13.4 percent and Senator John McCain of Arizona had 13.2 percent.

On the Democratic side, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Obama had 37.6 percent of the delegate support, Mr. Edwards 29.8 percent and Mrs. Clinton had 29.5 percent. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was fourth, at 2.11 percent.

Two Democrats, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, dropped out of the race after winning only tiny percentages of the vote.

A record number of Democrats turned out to caucus — more than 239,000, compared with fewer than 125,000 in 2004 — producing scenes of overcrowded firehouses and schools and long lines of people waiting to register their preferences.

The images stood as evidence of the success of Mr. Obama’s effort to reach out to thousands of first-time caucusgoers, including many independent voters and younger voters. The huge turn-out — by contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday — demonstrated the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats, and served as another warning to Republicans about the problems they face this November in swing states like this.

Mr. Obama’s victory in this overwhelmingly white state was a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president. What was remarkable was the extent to which race was not a factor in this contest. Surveys of voters entering the caucuses also indicated that he had won the support of many independents, a development that his aides used to rebut suggestions from rivals that he could not win a general election. In addition, voters clearly rejected the argument that Mr. Obama does not have sufficient experience to take over the White House, a central point pressed by Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama took the stage, smiling broadly and clapping his hands in response to the roar of cheers that greeted him.

“They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” Mr. Obama said. “But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do.”

The result sent tremors of apprehension through Mrs. Clinton’s camp, and she promptly turned her attention to New Hampshire, flying there on a plane that left at midnight. Aides said that former President Bill Clinton would go there immediately and spend the next five days campaigning in a state where he has always been strong. Mrs. Clinton, in her concession speech, sought again to embrace the mantle of change that has served Mr. Obama so well, even as she was flanked on the stage by Mr. Clinton, his face frozen in a smile, and Madeleine K. Albright, who was Mr. Clinton’s secretary of state.

“What is most important now is that, as we go on with this contest, that we keep focused on the two big issues, that we answer correctly the questions that each of us has posed,” Mrs. Clinton said. “How will we win in November 2008 by nominating a candidate who will be able to go the distance and who will be the best president on Day One.”

Mr. Edwards in his speech suggested that he had benefited from the same electoral forces that lifted Mr. Obama to victory. “Continue on,” Mr. Edwards shouted at supporters from the stage, his voice sounding hoarse. “Thank you for second place.”

In fact, he drew 29.8 percent of the delegates awarded, to Mrs. Clinton’s 29.4 percent.

Mr. Huckabee declared victory at a boisterous rally in which he rejoiced in his ability to overcome his better-financed opponent, who had spent much of the past year building up for a victory and had hammered Mr. Huckabee with negative advertisements over the past month here.

“We’ve learned that people really are more important then the purse,” he said.

Mr. Romney will now make a stand in New Hampshire, where he has also invested heavily.

“Congratulations on the first round to Mike,” Mr. Romney said on Fox News.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, had campaigned intermittently here over the past month, at one point hoping to take advantage of the unsettled field here to come in third. Instead, he came in sixth place, garnering just 3 percent.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee face very different circumstances heading into New Hampshire and the states beyond. Polling suggested that a once overwhelming lead enjoyed by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire was vanishing even before the results of Thursday’s vote. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have long worried that a loss here would weaken her even more going into New Hampshire, stripping her both of claims to inevitability and to electability.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama — as well as Mr. Edwards — face a rigorous and expensive run of nearly 25 contests between now and Feb. 5. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton appear far better-positioned, in terms of organization and money, to compete through that period, than Mr. Edwards. Though Mr. Edwards presented second place as a victory, he fell far short of winning — as he had once sought to do — and might find it difficult now to raise more money or find new supporters.

Compared to Mr. Obama Mr. Huckabee’s situation is much more tenuous, and his victory on Thursday did little to clarify the state of the Republican field. In New Hampshire, polls have shown Mr. McCain on the rise and little support for Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Giuliani has invested much of his time and money in Florida. And, as Mr. Romney’s advisers noted tonight, he has more a foundation of money and support in many of the coming states.

Iowa seemed particularly fertile ground for Mr. Huckabee. Polls of Republicans entering the caucus sites found that 60 percent described themselves as evangelical, and by overwhelming numbers they said they intended to vote for Mr. Huckabee.

The polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press, also left little doubt about the reasons for Mr. Obama’s convincing victory here. He did much better among young voters.

Voters here were far more interested in a candidate promising change — as Mr. Obama was — than one citing experience, the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s appeal. Half of Democrats said their top factor in choosing a candidate was someone who could bring about change. Just 20 percent said the right experience, Mrs. Clinton’s key argument, was the main factor.

For all the talk about electability, barely one in 10 respondents said it was the main factor in their decision.

There was a sharp generational break in support of the two candidates. Mr. Obama was backed by 60 percent of voters under 25 while Mrs. Clinton was supported by about 45 percent of voters over 65.

The survey of Democrats entering the caucus sites found that more than half said they were attending their first caucus — and they divided with about 40 percent for Mr. Obama and about 30 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Student Voting Legal

Student Voters Supressed in Iowa
By Rick Hasen, Election Law
Posted on January 3, 2008, Printed on January 4, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/72583/
We've all seen the cry of "voter fraud" being used for political purposes in recent years, but this latest example would be amusing if it weren't so pernicious: David Yepsen, a leading political reporter for The Des Moines Register, has suggested that Senator Obama's encouragement of college students to vote in the Iowa caucuses amounts to "fraud." President Bill Clinton too has gotten in on the action. Recognizing that such voting could well help Obama who has energized students on college campuses, beat his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton has discouraged such voting, telling college students to use their consciences in deciding whether or not to participate in the caucuses. But the bottom line is that voting by Iowa college students is perfectly legal, and indeed such voting could help to compensate for the otherwise anti-democratic nature of Iowa's role in the presidential election process.

Let's start with the law. Iowa residents can participate in the presidential caucuses, and the Iowa Code specifically provides that a "student who resides at or near the school the student attends, but who is also able to claim a residence at another location under the provisions of this section, may choose either location as the student's residence for voter registration and voting purposes." The state Democratic Party agrees that "[a]ny student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses provided they are 18 by November 4, 2008, and are a registered Democrat in the precinct in which they wish to caucus." Indeed, before raising his charge of fraud, Yepsen conceded in his column that voting by college students is "quite legal."

So what is this really about? Apparently Yepsen is upset that out-of-staters -- particularly college students from Illinois, whom Yepsen says are used to voter fraud -- are going to "skew" the results of the races. This kind of charge is hardly new. Indeed, back in 1965, the Supreme Court considered Carrington v. Rash, a case in which Texas sought to exclude state residents on military bases from voting in elections. Texas argued it had "a legitimate interest in immunizing its elections from the concentrated balloting of military personnel, whose collective voice may overwhelm a small local civilian community" The high Court, while recognizing the state's right to limit voting to bona fide residents, unanimously rejected the argument: "Fencing out from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible."

So much for Yepsen's implicit argument that resident Iowa college students are not "real Iowans" who should not be permitted to skew the results of the election. Yepsen also seems to idealize the Iowa caucuses, but the caucuses are not the paragons of democracy they are cracked up to be. They are likely to have very low voter turnout and operate with some quirky rules, including no right to a secret ballot (in the Democratic caucuses), unequal weighting of votes, and lack of transparency in the process.

Finally, there's reason we as a nation should actually be happy that candidates like Obama encourage Iowa college students to vote in the caucuses. Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence over the choice of the president. Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire are representative of the interests of the country as a whole. Allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to go first already has a great "skew" on the presidential process, creating (or ending) momentum of presidential candidates. College students, who come to Iowa from across the U.S. and are likely to be more diverse (in numerous ways) compared to other Iowa residents can serve as a partial antidote to this skew.

Yepsen concludes his piece by stating that "If Iowa can't get this right, then Iowa shouldn't get this sort of influence." Indeed.

This article first appeared on Rick Hasen’s Election law blog (www.electionlawblog.org).

Rick Hasen is the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Obama Wins Big Time

What Obama's Iowa Win Means for Everyone
By Arianna Huffington, HuffingtonPost.com
Posted on January 4, 2008, Printed on January 4, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/72596/
Even if your candidate didn't win tonight, you have reason to celebrate. We all do.

Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa -- down home, folksy, farm-fed, Midwestern, and 92 percent white Iowa -- says a lot about America, and also about the current mindset of the American voter.

Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future -- as if a country exhausted by the last seven years wanted to recapture its youth.

Bush's re-election in 2004 was a monument to the power of fear and fear-mongering. Be Very Afraid was Bush/Cheney's Plans A through Z. The only card in the Rove-dealt deck. And it worked. America, its vision distorted by the mushroom clouds conjured by Bush and Cheney, made a collective sprint to the bomb shelters in our minds, our lizard brains responding to fear rather than hope.

And the Clintons -- their Hillary-as-incumbent-strategy sputtering -- followed the Bush blueprint in Iowa and played the fear card again and again and again.

Be afraid of Obama, they warned us. Be afraid of something new, something different. He might meet with our enemies. His middle name is Hussein. He went to a madrassa school. A vote for him would be like rolling the dice, the former president said on Charlie Rose.

And the people of Iowa heard him, and chose to roll the dice.

Obama's win might not have legs. Hope could give way to fear once again. But, for tonight at least, it holds a mirror up to the face of America, and we can look at ourselves with pride. This is the kind of country America was meant to be, even if you are for Clinton or Edwards -- or even Huckabee or Giuliani.

It's the kind of country we've always imagined ourselves being -- even if in the last seven years we fell horribly short: a young country, an optimistic country, a forward-looking country, a country not afraid to take risks or to dream big.

Bill Clinton has privately told friends that if Hillary didn't win, it would be because of the two weeks that followed her shaky performance in the Philadelphia debate.

But it wasn't those two weeks. Indeed, if we were to pinpoint one decisive moment, it would be Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose, arrogant and entitled, dismissive and fear-mongering. And then Bill Clinton giving us a refresher course in '90s-style truth-twisting and obfuscation -- making stuff about always having been against the war, and about Hillary having always been for every good decision during his presidency and against every bad one, from Ireland to Sarajevo to Rwanda.

So voters in Iowa remembered the past and decided that they didn't want to go back. They wanted to move ahead. Even if that meant rolling the dice.

Again, this moment may not last. But, for tonight, I am going to savor it -- and cross my fingers that it may stand as the day that fear as a winning political tactic died. Killed by an "unlikely" candidate -- as Obama called himself again and again -- who seized the moment, and reminded America of its youth and the optimism it longs to recapture.

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.