Picture of the Day, 1/7/09

In news of "pretty cool if you ask me", outgoing President George W. Bush held a lunch at the White House for former Presidents, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and President-Elect Barack Obama. The event was historic because it marked the first such get-together since 1981.

Obama & The Practicality of Pragmatism

In a timely article, "In Cabinet, Obama goes for experience, pragmatism", BlackPoliticsontheWeb.com discusses how President-Elect Barack Obama has been staffing experienced leaders and seasoned Washington insiders in his bid to Change the federal government and by extension the United States of America. That's a veteran move. A number of progressives have been criticizing Obama because they don't understand that it's nice to desire hope and change. However, if you don't have operatives who actually know how the system that you hope to change works AND who have the respect of their peers in order to get things done, then your change ain't gonna come. That's what President Bill Clinton, elected as a Washington outsider found out when it became difficult to get things done that he wanted. He wanted to change government, but he picked a bunch of Washington outsiders as his top policy implementers. As well, Hillary had no relationships and no respect so Hillary Clinton's health care reform was soundly defeated because she didn't know how to navigate the networks which are again based on relationship and respect. Obama, a student of politics and history, certainly knows this having hired some of the Clinton's most competent former staffers to lead his change efforts. Change that produces the desired objective due to experience--now that's the power of pragmatism.

Faux News Scrubs Palin Article from Website

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this Thursday's VP Debate between Sen. Joe Biden & Gov. Sarah Palin is going to be a massacre, a smackdown of epic proportions. If not, then it would be only because the McCain campaign would have so lowered the bar for her that simply showing up and looking at the camera will mark an impressive debate performance. Has anyone actually been able to watch any of Palin's national network interviews

without laughing themselves to death? It has nothing with her being a Republican--her performances have been pathetic for anyone who has graduated from college, or become a town mayor, or made Governor of a state, let alone someone who the Republican party has chosen to be next in line or in charge in the absence or incapacitation of the President.

Had Bill Clinton, or John Kerry, or certainly Barack Obama chosen such a
(non)intellectual lightweight, that ticket would have been mocked with derision and subsequently laughed out of town by the same folks in the media and at Fox News that are propping Palin up now. That the McCain campaign would foist such a fraud upon us who is clearly not ready to do anything besides recognize that Canada is a "foreign country", is an insult to anyone possessing a modicum of common sense. But then again, what would you expect from the same party that has brought us such mental stalwarts as Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, John McCain himself & now the simply awesome Parah Salin? I would argue that it has been a deliberate tactic by the GOP to continuously inundate us with such incredibly stupid candidates that literally anyone they put in front of the country has a legitimate chance of being elected President. Don't believe me? then fine, prove me wrong. As long as those candidates tout the Republican talking points of anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-guns & pro-business they appeal to the Republican base just fine.

Now to the issue at hand, which is that "Sly Fox" News deliberately erased, removed, or "scrubbed" an anti-Palin article from their web site which says the same things that I have thus far said in this post. (See my screen capture above of the page where the article "Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft" once existed). Top Republican strategists, political pundits and other notables are reported to be in disbelief that John McCain would be so reckless as to present a vapid character as Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential choice, especially following the disastrous media appearances of the handful of interviews, most notably with ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric, that the campaign has graciously "allowed" in the 30 days following her nomination and confirmation as VP choice during the 2008 RNC in Minnesota. Thank goodness, the good folks at German website, DerKeiler.com found and posted the original article, "Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft". However, the closest article to this original post on Fox News' website is actually titled "Analysis: Pressure Builds on Palin Ahead of VP Debate", which if you compare both articles, you'll see the latter is a seriously dumbed down version of the former. The Brad Blog also re-posted the article. As my final bits of evidence, I will leave you excerpts from some of Palin's most memorable recent interviews which I'm sure you will find as incomprehensible, unintelligible, and ridiculous as I did. Dear Lord! No wonder Rick Davis and the McCain campaign have been hiding Palin from the media!

From Charlie Gibson's ABC interview with Sarah Palin, 9/11/08

Sarah Palin on 'the Bush Doctrine':

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

From Katie Couric's CBS Interview w/Sarah Palin, 9/24/08

Palin Can't Cite Any Examples of McCain Taking a Stand on Regulation:

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Remember the Good Old Days (1992-2000)?

The good old days occurred from 1992-2000 when President William J. Clinton was in office. Unemployment was among the lowest in our history (about 5%), the economy was booming, and we were relatively at peace with the rest of the world (except for intervention in Kosovo, non-intervention in Rwanda, and a brief but failed stint in Somalia). Well, it's now 2008, and I'm sure wishing massive voter fraud perpetrated by the Rove Republican party hadn't succeeded in getting GWB forced down our collective throats.

Look at the picture. Need I say more?

Are We Ready for a Black President (Or Just Another Rich White One?)

I wish that more of my Tampa Bay area friends had been present on Wednesday, 7/16/08 (although we did have a standing room only crowd) as Motown Maurice and The Combination facilitated lively debate between panelists and audience from many different perspectives. That's what The Combination, and Wide aWoke Wednesday are all about--uniting us despite our many differing perspectives on the same topics.

While it's true that maybe the color of the President should not matter, unfortunately it does due to to a variety of historic, social, economic and political factors. After all if it didn't matter then I'm sure we would have had a Black, Native American, Latino, or Asian President w/in the last 400 years, seeing as how those were the people that built the America we enjoy today. However, it does matter in the context of our western/Eurocentric mindset, and historically, socially, economically, politically, and symbolically.

Now, does the possibility of Obama mean that racism will seek to exist? NO. Does it mean that the single Black mother working 2 jobs at $7/hr to get through college and to put food on her family's table will suddenly have an easier life? NO of course not. Does this mean that cops will stop racial profiling or our prisons will not continue to be 80% filled with the blacks and the poor? NO--although a President can actually have some impact in reforming the criminal & civil justice system. (Recall Pres. Ronald Reagan's alleged "War on Drugs" and how that has forever impacted the legal system. More recently, recall Pres. Bill Clinton’s controversial 1996 “one-strike” rule which made first-time offenses by those in public housing as punishable by incarceration? By the way, the "President and Congress have direct control of the federal prison population". Now there were more things that the average Joe without proper legal representation could rot in jail for.)

The bottom line is that the Presidency represents the world's most prestigious job in the world's richest country, and up until now, anyone with a drop of Black or non-WASP blood had absolutely no chance of navigating the networks or making the path that it takes to become President. This accomplishment is symbolically important b/c it tells the rest of the world, that yes, there is hope that ONE DAY it won't actually matter what color a person is as long as they are a capable leader. Until that day, we still have a long way to go, but as the old commercial says, "You've come a long way, baby."

For more information on Wide aWoke Wednesdays, please visit http://www.wideawoke.com/

http://www.thecombinationtv.com/ or call 813-951-0794. Our once monthly forums are typically held the 3rd Wednesday, 7:30pm with refreshments & a Meet & Greet at 6:30pm at USF Alumni Center - Traditions Hall 4202 E. Fowler Ave. Tampa, FL 33620.

Anatomy of a Black Mind: How Black is Black Enough?

I was deeply troubled recently by Jesse Jackson's Fox News comments on Barack Obama.

Some of our Black leaders would rather see an incompetent, warmongering, criminal white President in power who cares nothing except how to enrich his already rich friends (e.g., Bush, McCain, etc) than to support a progressive brother who is both Black and White, but chooses to identify himself as Black, taking on our struggles voluntarily. When Pres. Clinton was elected, Blacks across the country voted over 80% for him, and Black "fans" called him "The First Black President" without EVER questioning his "Blackness". Now that we have someone who could legitimately make the government "by the people, for the people" a reality for the first time since FDR, it seems we can't go a week or two without some Black figure wondering publicly whether Obama is "Black Enough."

Apparently unless you agree with the world view of EVERYONE who is a major Black figure, you can't expect their support. ...Not realizing that to a Eurocentric culture, we're ALL the same (Black Americans, non-American Blacks, Indians, Caribbean people, Hispanic/Latinos, Arabs, etc.) If Blacks stuck together, we could be THE most powerful voting bloc in American politics, far surpassing Latinos, Jews and other voting blocs who tend more often to vote for those that represent their views.

Yes, these things are symptoms of hundreds of years of the Willie Lynch Theory being propagated throughout American society. However, with education and knowledge/self-awareness at our fingertips, we have no one to blame but ourselves if we don't get IT right!

Reasons Why I Would Not Vote for Hillary (EVER) by Kéto

This week, I was conversing online with one of my friends, we'll call him Bro. H. We were discussing the current political scene, and he posed this question to me, "How do you feel about the possibility of Hilary R Clinton getting the nomination over Obama in the DNC?" Well that really got me into some deep thinking as this really IS a possibilty considering that Sen. Clinton has already stated publicly that the popular vote does not matter as much as how the delegates vote (even though the delegates are appropriated based on the popular vote except of course for uncommitted "super" delegates). As of the Pennsylvania primaries, Obama leads Clinton by over 500,000 votes. Clinton has further stated that delegates may change their vote, meaning that even though Obama has a lead of over 100+ delegates over her, giving him the path to the nomination, she would not object if a sufficient number defected to her, giving her the final lead in delegates--it's as simple as that. Well, I decided to enumerate for H, my feelings on his question, and why I felt that way, so check out my post below! Let me know what you think too. KH

Bro. H, I feel...Uneasy. I feel that if Clinton gets the nomination with fewer earned delegates, fewer superdelegates, and fewer states (half) than Obama has won, then the Democratic party will lose quite of few of it's constituents--like me. (If the party nomination rules don't count then what's the point of running? Candidates might as well just pay off key party figures and call it a day.) And that is not in their best interest when trying to take back the White House and Congress, and future Supreme Court nominations in an election that they have a good possibility of winning. I was a supporter of Bill Clinton in his Presidency and up until this election cycle when I feel he and his wife started acting like Black voters owe them something. I certainly don't plan on voting for her due to several major factors among others:

1) claiming experience that she doesn't have (as if going to meetings during her husband's presidency automatically qualifies her for anything other than first lady status.) Given this logic, Laura Bush should be the President,

2) her inability to tell the truth about simple things (Bosnia sniper fire, named for Edmund Hillary, health care stories, implying that Obama is Muslim as a scare tactic, she fought AGAINST NAFTA etc),

3) trying to pit Black voters against female/feminist voters & white male voters,

4) agreeing to rules then trying to change them after she sees they (dis)advantage her (MI, FL delegates, caucuses...),

5) her record on supporting an insane war that she now supposedly opposes,

6) Clinton is supposedly the best candidate to lead on "Day 1". However, if she does win, her financial management style will doom the nation to a continued recession and higher national debt to to her inability to plan for the long run. All you have to do is look at her own campaign for proof. Clinton has known since 1999 that she would run for President in 2008, that's why she started making plans to run for the Senate in New York. She and her husband had built a vast political and financial network over the last 15 years since he was first elected President in 1992. She began raising money long before Obama, did yet she has little to show for it financially. After raising over $100 million prior to Super Tuesday (Feb. 4), Clinton has to take out a $5M loan shortly after b/c her campaign had squandered all that money, expecting to have the DNC nomination wrapped up on that day. This "plan" was admitted by her staff, so it clearly demonstrates that she has little ability to plan wisely for the long-term with other people's money, no matter that the over $100 million she had raised was one of the highest fundraising totals in the history of modern US elections, behind Sen. Obama. In the meantime, paper trails indicated that Clinton left behinds dozens of vendors across numerous states owing hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid campaign bills. Her staff only paid some of those bills when the vendors came forward on TV or in the media--some of these guys are small businesses who can't afford to go 1 or 2 months without collecting say $10,000 in debt. "Ready on Day 1?" Hardly.

7) finally Clinton is what the Republicans have been looking for. They are still not that excited about McCain (big money Republicans are still not embracing him--and their money is critical to winning). But... if she hoodwinks the nomination, Republicans will unite even more than they were ever able to in Bush' election-stealing escapades due to their hate of anything "Clinton". So from that standpoint, she is is unelectable, the most important argument of all.

All these reasons go to show me that Sen. Clinton practices "do anything/say anything" political opportunism--after Bush we need someone who stands for what is good and right when convenient and inconvenient, not just when the polls tell them. For me that person is Sen. Barack Obama. In a future post, I may detail the reasons WHY I Would (Will) Vote for Sen. Obama. I already voted for him in the Florida Democratic Primaries.