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% [?]

I read something today that made me take pause. The reason that it so caught my attention was that it came out of Cincinnati and it was not some right-wing rant about Rev. Wright but, instead, a thoughtful support of his right to express his views.

Adam Clark, an assistant professor in the Department of Theology at Xavier University, delivers his message in both eloquent and plain tones to explain why America should quit trying to view what Wright said through a political lens and, instead, look at his statements through lens of both Christian theology and the Black Church tradition.

Wright, however, is a preacher; his oath is not to the Constitution but to the Gospel. The statements of Wright may be out of step with the presidential politics of the Obama campaign, but they are not out of step with biblical faith. The forceful denunciations of America’s invasion of Iraq, her support for the unjust practices of foreign governments as well as the invocation of God’s wrath for the inhumane treatment of blacks and people of color are not the crazed anti-American ranting of an old uncle, but statements about the meaning of faith in a God who upsets the powers through identifying with the poor and marginalized.

The presidential candidacy of Obama can be assessed on its own terms. But the uproar over the rhetoric of Wright is largely a result of America’s unfamiliarity with the history and language of the black church. The political character of black sermons such as Wright’s are not rooted in the give and take of electoral politics, they derive from biblical faith. The black church has historically identified with the minority Jewish population of the first century. They regard the Jewish population’s relationship to the Roman Empire as similar to their own relationship to the American Empire. This identification has caused black Christians to make a distinction between the biblical Jesus and the American Christ. The American Christ is a product of the American middle class, a deity who endorses empire and converts his followers into being pro-war, pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. The biblical Jesus reveals a God who is provocative, a God who upsets the powers and is eventually rejected and crucified by them.

The language of the black church that conveys this oppositionality does not translate well into the arena of presidential politics. It was never intended to. The black church’s language is the language and worldview of a people who have been at the margins of social power - a symbolic language, not a literal language. Words seldom have a one-to-one correspondence with events. Black religious language is inherently evocative, hyperbolic and impassioned - aimed more toward devotion than debate. It is intended to convey divine ecstasy and anger to parishioners, not dialogue among pundits.

Mr. Clark, thank you for your excellent analysis.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Why is Terry McAuliffe, chair of Hillary Clinton’s national campaign, holding up Obama signs. These pictures were taken at a recent grass-roots rally in Washington state. Perhaps McAuliffe just sees the bigger picture.

Popularity: 7% [?]

From the “what-took-you-so-long?” dept:

Hillary Clinton’s top campaign strategist has resigned. We’ll actually, it appears that he was shown the door. Now, if I were Barack Obama, specifically, I would have a field day with this one. In a moment, I think you’ll understand why.

Often, Obama rails against the influence of lobbyists in Washington. Well, lo and behold, his opponent’s chief strategist, as it turns out, is also the chief executive of the Burson-Marstellar lobbying firm. In this capacity, he met with the Colombia ambassador to the U.S. on Monday. The Colombian government has been using the services of his firm for several months in efforts to get a trade deal pushed through Congress.

The problem? Hillary Clinton is opposed to this trade deal.

So, follow me here — Clinton is against the agreement but, the chief strategist of her campaign is a lobbyist whose firm is on the other side of the issue and Penn didn’t even have the good sense to, at least, not be personally involved in the deal.

For his part, Penn called his involvement in this meeting, “an error in judgement.”

Who knows why the campaign dragged its feet for a few days before letting him go but, make no mistake, this is a very bad thing to happen as the Pennsylvania and North Carolina vote looms. I still don’t expect this affect Clinton much in the polls in Pennsylvania but, in later contests this is going to be a problem. You can’t set yourself up as a champion of the little guy when you have a fat-cat lobbyist running your campaign and, for all you know, using his association with you, either explicitly or implied, to show these clients that he has an inside track into what could be the next Presidential administration.

Finally, in a bit irony, not only is Penn on the outs with the Clinton campaign but, also, his lobbying firm was fired by the Colombian government. It appears that the Colombians were offended that Penn would refer to his dealings with them as an “error in judgement.”

Well, I’ll be interested to see just how all this plays out.

Popularity: 8% [?]

For a while now, I have stayed away from the whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco. Trust me, it’s not that I’m afraid to talk about it. It’s because that, on its face, this is more “contrived” than “controversy”.

What do I mean? I see this as not so much people being offended by what he said. I believe that people are offended that a black person would have the audacity to say such things. You see, if you’re a white minister and you blame 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina on gays, even though you’re tied into presidents and political parties, it’s no big deal. But, if you’re a black minister and you call out the country you served for as a Marine over its foreign policy, that’s just unacceptable and you become public enemy #1.

Now, how deep does this racial acrimony go with some critics? Well, we have seen media pundits, specifically Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan go after both Rev. Wright and Sen. Barack Obama over Wright’s remarks for what has been weeks, now. They go so far as to say that Obama should have denounced Wright long ago and walked away from that church. You see, despite a 30-year track record of service in the south side of Chicago that has seen him help people of all colors, genders, sexual orientations and health statuses (including an AIDS ministry), the body of Wright’s work should be invalidated by what amounts to about 5-10 minutes of statements, much of which, if argued on their merits, could be construed as true or at least in need of deeper discussion.

Now, I point out O’Reilly, Hannity and Buchanan because, as I said, they criticize Obama for not walking away from his church. Now, why do I call them out? You see, all three are Catholics. Now, if you remember, the big thing in the news a few years back was how the Catholic church in America, from the top down, had covered up rampant pedophilia among its clergy, primarily priests.

You see, we are not talking about a few statements by one person in one church. We are talking about the actions of the leadership of the Catholic Church in this country knowingly allowing molesting clergy to continue to move from parish to parish, only to molest other children. This went on for decades. Furthermore, when finally having to answer for this cover-up, the church ended up spending millions in hush money and court settlements, of which I’m sure included donation money from Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Buchanan. However, this was not enough to drive these three out of the Catholic Church.

So, my question to these three is why didn’t they denounce the Catholic Church in this country when they found out about these rampant abuses? How could they have walked into a Catholic church or let their children or grandchildren be involved in a church when the possibility of being molested by a priest existed? Isn’t this a question of character?

In the end, in their upside-down existences, a few “bad” words outweigh many good deeds. In their world, black people should be silent or, at least when speaking, should only express gratitude for the the white people who “have done so much for them”. In their world, to paraphrase Chris Rock, “if it’s all-white, then it’s all right”, meaning, in this case, that it’s only bad if a person who is not of their color, political views or sexual persuasion does it (you can choose their order of preference).

In the end, to them, words speak louder than actions and it’s okay to live in a glass house and throw stones.

Popularity: 8% [?]

From the Springfield (Illinois) Journal-Register.

Popularity: 12% [?]