what actually counts

Only one vote really matters: the 50-something conservative registered democrat who's not independent but not a part of the base who skipped college so they could go straight into teaching rather than become a casino worker, who votes on domestic issues, but not in a primary or caucus in a big state that doesn't border Illinois that has elected female governors and members of congress but didn't vote republican in 2004 and won't vote republican in 2008 and didn't vote for Jesse Jackson in 1984 or 1988 during an all day vote except during the hours of 7 and 7:15pm. And they don't object to their vote being overruled by superdelegates.

a political reprieve

With so much controversy in the news lately I thought this website would be a fun addition. It is like LOLcats but with politics. Seriously, take a look. HILARIOUS.

:D

plus, there's always a bit of truth in a joke. spot the truth in these "Political LOLz".

http://punditkitchen.com/

Because nothing much has been posted lately...

...I figured I should at least throw something on. More later after midterm hell. But enjoy:




Have I mentioned that some times the media is stupid?

Media Bias?

Obama may have been the media darling for a while--I'm willing to concede that he was in a number of different places/networks/etc. But the PA debate last week should have you question how sound that was, granted that ABC was clearly pretty awful in just about every imaginable way. But even so, whether you think the debate was biased or not, how can you even remotely endorse that question about patriotism? That was a cheap trick. I wonder if Karl Rove wrote the question for George Stephanopolous.

However, I saw an article headline in the NYT today. "Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania." Never mind that polls showed him losing there by twenty points only four weeks ago; never mind that he lost by slightly less than ten points; never mind that one good Medill friend tells me that only assholes use adverbs in headlines. What's going to be the headline after North Carolina? "Obama Crushes Clinton in the Tar Heel State?" or "Obama Is New Southern Belle?" No. I'd imagine it will be something like, "Obama Gets Expected Win in North Carolina"--because he's been ahead there forever.

If I were Hillary Clinton's strategist--you know, the one who isn't on the sly promoting sovereign trade deals--I'd be scared, more than anything. She still hasn't come close to explaining the fundraising gap, Barack Obama is ahead by ten points or more nationally, he beats McCain in most head-to-head (granted, these are soft at best), and he eroded ten percent of her supporters in PA. This is hardly cause for victory.

However, she needs to give the speech about how rosy everything is--that she's a fighter, etc. (On another note, it feels like each one of her speeches can be categorized by words she uses too often: we have "experience" speeches, the "fighter" speeches, the "comeback" speeches.) Senator Clinton needs a photo-op with balloons and streamers to prove that she's still relevant in the race, and that she can pitch herself to superdelegates, and all will be righted again. Never mind that she's still trailing substantially in pledged delegates and the popular vote.

And the New York Times will be there to cover it all.

Why McCain is So Beatable

I just came across a great opinion piece in the Washington Post talking about why McCain is such a flawed candidate, and that right now the only thing that is helping him is the Democratic primary and the candidates themselves (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102552.html). McCain has jokingly stated that he isn't an economic expert, which manifests itself in his belief that tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting spending on everything but the military will help the economy and the average joe. Not true. Some say that McCain is strong on foreign policy, but for some reason I think that his position on the Iraq war and on Iran will undercut that somewhat. Well, even if he's weak on issues, he is a war hero, right? The last time a war hero won was in 1953, and that time it was an actual war hero: Eisenhower, who won WWII. McCain's winning qualities also include a fiery temper, which the Dems will hopefully coax out, or will rear its ugly head sometime during the campaign, and a less than comfy relationship with the right-wing evangelical base. Good luck, buddy. You're gonna need it.

When I was your age...

Aww, this article reminds me of my days campaigning for Bill Clinton as a fourth grader for the class straw poll. However, I was up against a lot. Never underestimate comic appeal of a diminutive man to a bunch of giddy school children (Ross Perot won in a landslide).

After reading the article from the NYtimes about school children in Pennsylvania and their classroom campaigns, I can't help but feel that the youth of today have so much more sophistication than we did as kids. While involvement and interest is great - beyond great - I have to wonder about at what cost this heightened access to information comes without the lens of experience. Will grade schoolers that can jump on CNN.com buy everything they read word for word? Is it a bad thing if they do? Should their teachers and parents give them guidance in how to interpret the information? Would that be worse? Now I'm starting to sound old, talking about young whippersnappers. Oh well, I suppose as long as they don't let the kiddies watch The O'Reilly Factor, it can't be too bad.

Here are some gems from the article:

“I remember something I learned about Hillary,” Elizabeth told her
classmates. “It’s not like a marriage between Hillary and Bill. It’s more
like an agreement. She helps him. He helps her.”
Asked where she had gleaned this information about Mrs. Clinton, from New York, and her husband, the former president, she said, “I saw it on AOL.com.”
. . .

But to their teachers, the children’s preferences were less important than
their embrace of politics.
“I feel better about our future,” said Mrs. Stefano, 62. “I’m getting to the point where I’m going to need these kids to take care of me. This gives me hope.”

The path to equality

I came across an article that actually fits in perfectly with our discussion of civil rights and politics we had at the last meeting. Gary Younge wrote a great op-ed in The Nation about Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama's candidacy. I know a lot has been said about that, but this is a really fresh take, and makes a really important point. Younge notes:

"There can be no progressive coalition in this country that does not include black men and white women. But that coalition must be based on antiracism and antisexism. Feminism that does not embrace antiracism, like antiracism that does not embrace feminism, is little more than a campaign for sectional interests masquerading as a struggle for equality. It seeks not an end to inequity but just a different division of the spoils."

If you get a chance, check out the article. It's well worth the read.

What it means to be patriotic...

There's been a lot of talk in the news lately about patriotism. As the election draws nearer every day, candidates are expected to increase their song and dance of flag-waving and kissing babies (although to be honest, I've never witnessed a candidate do either one of these things...but google images assures me that this does actually occur).

Obama has gotten the most flak about patriotism. Emails about him being a terrorist. Observations that he did not put his hand over his heart during the pledge of alliegence (he alledges it was actually during the singing of the national anthem). Admitting to not wearing a flag lapel pin!!

What is this country coming to?!?!

So USA Today pens an article about how Obama is "seeking to stress his patriotism" in his latest speeches.

From the article: "Obama said he thinks true patriotism is demonstrated by a person's actions, not his lapel." I might add, and true patriotism is not just slapping a sticker on the back of your car.

I'm glad that Obama is putting forward a Democratic version of patriotism, one that actually focuses on actions for one's country, unlike the actions the Republicans just take for themselves and call it patriotic. Wearing a flag lapel pin to up their own image instead of working to get troops out of harm's way. Putting "support our troops" stickers on the backs of their cars, but irresponsibly and dangerously continuing involvement in Iraq.

So the Republicans take patriotism to be all about themselves, or the Id. So I'd have to say, that's not patriotic, that would be...id-iotic.

(Ok that was a stretch :P )

King, 2008 and beyond

This article from the LA Times gives a really good analysis on how MLK's speeches post-1965 mirror some of the sermons given by Jeremiah Wright. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dyson4apr04,0,1840793.story

This one talks about how it's the progressive movement behind Obama that has the real promise of change, not Obama himself, and that the movement must continue after November. http://www.progressive.org/mp_ransby040308 -- I had some trouble using that link today, so I also pasted the article below if you can't reach it there.

We haven't seen this many students actively engage in the political process in 40 years. From now through the fall, we need to focus on continuing to involve students in the Democratic Party; increasing political activism on campus and recruiting tons of students to volunteer for Democrats. As students, we can have a huge impact helping take back the White House and electing more Democratic members of Congress from Illinois.

But as the Hayden article and Ransby note, the real work will begin after November. After a hard-fought campaign, most volunteers will be exhausted. In late November and December student leaders need to plan for 2009 while letting most activists rest. Starting in January 2009 there needs to be a huge wave of national campus activism on tons of progressive issues.

Student Democrats and progressive student activists as a whole talk a lot about how to build a national progressive student movement. After Hurricane Katrina, people looked to the mishandling of the rebuilding efforts as something that would finally wake people up and get them involved. People said the same thing about the War in Iraq, and about the Jena 6. Where progressive leaders failed to capitalize on those issues, Obama has succeeded -- over a million people have donated to his campaign and tens of thousands are volunteering. Regardless of whether you support Obama or Hillary, or what you see as the reason for this phenomena, this is a golden opportunity for progressives and students to really create a huge wave of activism that will reengage students across the country in politics and help bring about significant social change.





Reflections on King, Candidates and Movements

By Barbara Ransby, April 3, 2008
<http://www.progressive.org/mp_ransby040308>

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev.
Martin Luther King Jr., we would do well to remember an
observation by the civil-rights organizer Ella Baker:
"Martin didn't make the movement, the movement made
Martin."

The same can be said of both Sens. Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton. Veteran organizers from around the
country have lent their experience, wisdom and passion
to both of these campaigns, and a history of struggle
for civil rights and women's rights has catapulted them
forward.

Interestingly enough, both candidates lay claim to the
mantle of the civil-rights movement.

Clinton, the admitted Goldwater girl, went to Selma and
recalled the impact of hearing King speak in 1963 in
Chicago as a transformative moment.

In January, on Martin Luther King Day, she also stood in
the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church and told her
audience that it was she who was the daughter and
beneficiary of the movement's victories. She offered her
own telling analysis of what she viewed as the linchpin
of victory for the civil-rights movement: It was having
a president willing to put into law the demands of a
mass movement led by King.

Obama laid claim to the inheritance of the civil-rights
movement by deeming the freedom fighters of the 1960s as
the "Moses Generation" that led black people out of
slavery. That makes Obama and his peers the "Joshua
Generation."

At one debate, the candidates were asked why Martin
Luther King would endorse them. Obama's answer was also
telling and quite true.

"I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us," Obama
said. "I think what he would call upon the American
people to do is to hold us accountable." And he added:
"I believe change does not happen from the top down. It
happens from the bottom up. Dr. King understood that."

We forget that lesson at our peril.

Many Americans are so hungry for an end to the
horrendous Bush administration that like a love-starved
person they view their new prospect through rose-colored
glasses.

The lesson from King's life is that King was not the
answer. As Obama often says in his speeches, "We are the
leaders we have been waiting for." Nothing could be more
to the point.

Barack Obama won't save us.

Hillary Clinton won't save us.

Through our own determined efforts, we have to save
ourselves.

That process will continue well beyond November 2008 no
matter who is in the White House come January.

Barbara Ransby is an associate professor in the
department of African American Studies and History at
the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is the author
of the award-winning biography, "Ella Baker and the
Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision."
She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

Two articles worth reading

Hope everyone had a good break! These two articles from The Nation were really awesome. The first is an op-ed supporting Obama written by four big-name progressive leaders: Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher Jr., Danny Glover and Barbara Ehrenreich. They talk about how the huge grassroots movement that has sprung up in support of Obama is very promising for progressives as a whole.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/hayden_et_al

The second is Howard Zinn's reasoning why Democrats should look to FDR and offer a huge New Deal-like platform in the 2008 elections.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/zinn