When you have a fire do you:

a) try to extinguish it?

b) watch it burn from a safe distance?

c) pour gasoline on it?

If you’re Condoleezza Rice, you’d probably choose “c”.

On a recent trip to Baghdad’s “Green Zone”, Rice decided to ramp up the rhetoric against radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and, by extension, his militia by, more or less, calling him a coward.

Really, how does this help?

“I know he’s sitting in Iran,” Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr’s latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. “I guess it’s all-out war for anybody but him,” Rice said. “I guess that’s the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he’s in Iran.”

So, you have the American Secretary of State calling out a militia leader in Iraq, basically challenging his manhood.  Also, and I apologize if this sounds sexist but, the fact that she is a woman challenging Muslim men is also not to be overlooked (this is just my observation).

Regardless of the gender aspect, it is clear that she and the Bush administration have called out al-Sadr and this can’t be good news for those who could be caught in the crossfire (both figuratively and literally).

In fact, VoteVets has expressed such a concern:

Again, we have yet another member of the Bush administration who–in a ham-handed effort to help our “allies”–is actually placing our own troops in more danger.  I don’t think there’s any question that this echoes George W. Bush’s provocative invitation for terrorists around the world to descend on Iraq when he declared, “Bring’em on” in July 2003.  And we all know how that worked out.

But it’s not just about Rice’s dismissive, provocative tone, either.  It’s also this continuing, obnoxious Bush-brand of hypocrisy that the whole world sees: If Sadr had said the same thing of Rice–that she’s a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat who sends others to fight her own battles–the Bush administration would freak out.  And that fact isn’t lost on Iraqis.

As Rice is one who will not have to stay and fight the Mahdi Army side-by-side with our troops, I suggest that she keep her mouth shut if she’s not going to say anything helpful.  Because statements like these are certainly not.

This is a group representing Iraq and Afghanistan vets expressing these concerns, not just me.  At the end of the day, people’s lives are at stake.  You would think that the country’s leading diplomat would be…well…more “diplomatic” in her use of words.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News weighed in on last night’s debates and he let the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanapoulos have it with both barrels.

I gather that Bunch’s beef with them, while similar to my own, also, has some marked differences. Bunch refers to how this debate had been billed as a debate dealing with the issues of Pennsylvania voters but, largely, the questions ignored this very group.

In no uncertain terms, Bunch talks about what he and others, as Pennsylvania voters, are really concerned about:

You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I’m a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues — trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn’t enough space — and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited — to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans’ benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.

You asked about gun control — phrased to try for a “gotcha” in a state where that’s such a divisive issue — but not about what we really care about, which is how to reduce crime. You pressed and pressed on those capital gains taxes, but Senators Clinton and Obama were forced to bring up the housing crisis on their own initiative.

Instead, you wasted more than half of the debate — a full hour — on tabloid trivia that for the most part wasn’t even that interesting, because most of it was infertile ground that has already been covered again and again and again. I’m not saying that Rev. Wright and Bosnia sniper fire and “bitter” were never newsworthy — I myself wrote about all of these for the Philadelphia Daily News or my Attytood blog, back when they were more relevant — but the questions were stale yet clearly intended to gin up controversy (they didn’t, by the way, other than the controversy over you.) The final questions of that section, asking Obama whether he thought Rev. Wright “loved America” and then suggesting that Obama himself is somehow a hater of the American flag, or worse, were flat-out repulsive.

Are you even thinking when simply echo some of the vilest talking points from far-right talk radio? What are actually getting at — do you honestly believe that someone with a solid track record as a lawmaker in a Heartland state which elected him to the U.S. Senate, who is now seeking to make some positive American history as our first black president, is somehow un-American, or unpatriotic? Does that even make any sense? Question his policies, or question his leadership. because that is your job as a journalist. But don’t insult our intelligence by questioning his patriotism.

Here’s a question for you, George. Is it true that yesterday you appeared on the radio with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, and that you said you were “taking notes” when he urged you to ask a question about Obama’s supposed ties to a former member of the Weather Underground — which in fact you did? With all the fabulous resources of ABC News at your disposal, is that an appropriate way for a supposed journalist to come up with debate questions - by pandering to divisive radio shows?

And Charlie…could you be any more out of touch with your viewers? Most people aren’t millionaires like you, and if Pennsylvanians are losing sleep over economic matters, it is not over whether the capital gains tax will go back up again. I was a little shocked when you pressed and pressed on that back-burner issue and left almost no time for high gas prices, but then I learned tonight that you did the same thing in the last debate, that you fretted over that middle-class family that made $200,000 a year. Charlie, the nicest way that I can put this is that you need to get out more.

Go get ‘em, WIll.

Popularity: 70% [?]

I was watching Lou Dobbs last night and caught his segment regarding the “controversy” behind Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments.  A couple of his guests were telling him that people are bitter at what they are dealing with in this country.

Of course, because Dobbs knows everything, he tells them that he’s right and people are not bitter.  Then, he puts a poll with loaded answers.  I think the response he was hoping for was “Independent and Proud” but, as you can tell, that’s not what won.

I guess people are more “bitter” than he wanted to believe.

Popularity: 70% [?]

I am 38 years old and don’t put up with being called ‘boy’. You see, I know the history behind how it was used to demean grown black men, telling them that they were not to be considered equal to white men but, instead, subservient.

Now, imagine that you are a 47-year-old black man, who happens to be a U.S. Senator and running for President, and some ignorant fool refers to you as a ‘boy’. How does that play out?

Republican representative Geoff Davis (KY) found himself eating a little crow and apologizing after some remarks he made at a fundraiser last Saturday.

Davis, in referring to what he feels are Obama’s lack of qualifications to be President, said the following:

“I’m gonna tell you something. That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button.”

The most telling part about this was not his comment but, the response to it:

The comment, which was first reported by the Lexington Herald-Leader’s blog Pol Watchers, was met by laughter and applause.

After word of the comment got out, Davis was forced to apologize and did so in a handwritten letter delivered to Obama’s Senate office.

There is a bit of irony to this, though. In this same speech, Davis chastised Obama over his “bitter” comments and made reference to the fact that his comments were recorded at a private fundraiser, presumably accusing him of playing games behind closed doors.

Well, Davis’ comments were made at a Republican fundraiser and managed to get into the wild, as well.

Something tells me Davis will measure his criticisms much better in the future.

Popularity: 39% [?]

Why do the Clintons keep playing games when they have the potential to come back and bite them.

The Clinton camp accused Obama of elitism over the following statements:

“Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). [...]

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Well, if the Clintons think this is so awful, then what do they think of this statement?

“You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I’m from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they’re gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they’ve been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country’s coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, ‘What happened to everybody’s job? What happened to everybody’s income? What … have … you … done … to … our … country?’”

Well, you’d think they’d be up in arms about such a statement, right?  Probably not.  You see, this statement was made by none other than Bill Clinton himself, in an interview with the L.A. Times when he ran for president in 1991.  The George Bush he was referring to was the father of the current president.

So, if Obama’s statements make him an elitist, what do Bill Clinton’s statements say about his mindset?  As a former president and major campaigner for his wife, scrutiny of him will fall on her, too.

Popularity: 71% [?]

It occurred to me that a lot of folks didn’t really hear the words of Rev.  Jeremiah Wright before going off on him.  Well, I take that back…they did hear about 10 seconds of his sermon but, didn’t bother to hear more because it was easier to be spoonfed their opinions by pundits than it was to find out the real deal for themselves.  For those who have not heard the sermon in context, I offer a broader excerpt of it.  You can see and hear that the sound bite the media took doesn’t quite sound the same when listened to along with the statement preceding and following it.

Edit: In case those haven’t seen the context of the “God damn America” statement, you should check this out in its proper context, as well.

Popularity: 65% [?]

It appears that, if Clinton and McCain were hoping to stir up controversy over Obama’s recent statements about the bitterness some Pennsylvanians (and other Americans) feel after seeing their jobs shipped overseas and their economies devastated, they might have to look beyond CNN for help.  Prior to Obama’s response to this contrived controversy, the CNN’s Situation Room had panelist discuss Obama’s statement and Clinton’s and McCain’s responses to them and it was clear that these panelist weren’t buying the Clinton’s or McCain’s spin on it.  In fact, it was clear that not only did they not take offense to what Obama said but, also, clearly agreed that what he was saying was factually accurate.

Popularity: 77% [?]

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain went after Barack Obama over his recent statments at a fundraiser in California.  When asked about the challenges he faced with Pennsylvania voters, Obama gave this a part of his view on the situation there:

“Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives…”You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The above statements are what created the “controversy”.  Perhaps it is because I live in Ohio and see that there is a real bitterness when people have lost factory jobs — jobs that they thought they’d retire from — or have to deal home foreclosure.  Guess what — they are bitter.  Over the years, politicians have come to Ohio to give the “I feel your pain” speeches, all the while knowing that, when they get back to Washington, they will be supporting the very trade agreements that are undermining economies in places like Ohio.  If politicians don’t think that this has created a bitterness, they are crazy.

Barack Obama fired back at Clinton and McCain, reminding us that McCain, until very recently, couldn’t even grasp that there was a real mortgage crisis in America and that Clinton sided with and took money from the very credit card companies that wrote the new bankruptcy laws in the country so that they clearly favor these companies.

The video is below:

Popularity: 74% [?]

You know, normally a comparison to Tiger Woods would be a good thing. Tiger came in an elevated the profile of the game of golf, creating an interest and revenues for the sport that hadn’t been seen in years. However, it is also undeniable that Tiger Woods is a person of color and some resent that fact.

So, sometimes, a comparison can be a bad thing, like when you just use it as a code word alluding to “the black guy” competing in what has been, traditionally, a white field of endeavor.

This brings us to congressional candidate David Bellavia. Bellavia is also the founder of the pro-war 527 group, Vets for Freedom. In warming up the crowd for McCain, Bellavia offered the following:

“Rest assured that people like Senator McCain will be the goal and the men that my two young boys will emulate an admire. You can have your Tiger Woods. We have Senator McCain. My friends, this is real audacity of hope.”

The video of his introduction is below.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Late last week, the buzz out of the Clinton camp was about an apparent conflict of interest on the part of her now-former chief strategist Mark Penn (though it appears that he is still working for her campaign), who was trying to help the Columbian government push through a trade agreement that Hillary Clinton has publicly opposed.

However, it appears that conflicts of interest might hit a little closer to home for the Clinton campaign, this time in the person of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

You see, in the past, Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees on behalf of groups now attempting to get this trade agreement pushed through the U.S. Congress.

Former President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.

In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.

The group’s chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions.

“He was supportive of the trade agreement at the time that he came, but that was several years ago. In the present context, I don’t know what his position would be. It is not only about union trade rights. It is about what benefit or damage it can do to the US economy,” said Franco. “Events with the Clinton campaign [concerning Mark Penn] are not good at all for the trade agreement… Right now it became a campaign issues and that is sad, because it needs to go through.”

Now, why didn’t the campaign disclose this fact? Granted, Bill Clinton spoke on behalf of these groups years ago but, given his prominent role in the campaign, especially after the Mark Penn fiasco, shouldn’t this have been made public by them and Bill Clinton be asked to clarify where he currently stands on this trade agreement?

Again, we are getting into the area of credibility and this seems too big a deal to chalk up to just and oversight on the part of this campaign.

UPDATE: CNN is reporting that Bill Clinton remains a supporter of the Columbian free trade agreement, which makes him the second very high-profile member of the Hillary Clinton campaign that is undermining her opposition to this agreement. This is particularly bad considering how many of the working-class people in Pennsylvania are against such agreements, as they have cost the state thousands of jobs.

Popularity: 10% [?]