All Posts Tagged With: "Barack Obama"

It is no surprise that my mind is preoccupied with feisty ladies. The biggest one, of course, is tropical storm Fay who will be passing close to my home later today. Unlike the three hurricanes which went right over my roof during a 6-week period in 2004 this one will be more ladylike. As of this morning, Fay is taking her time as she dawdles up through Florida leaving a trail of minor wind and rain damage.

The other feisty ladies are four groups I happened to find while surfing the internet. I would look for these ladies to be raising their voices next week in support of the feistiest lady of the land, Hillary Clinton. According to The Stiletto, these different groups are now all coming together into one group, The New Agenda, to promote a variety of women’s issues.

It is more interesting, however, to look at the individual groups. I think the largest group is PUMA, which stands for Party Unity My Ass. Ever since Obama won the Democratic Primary, Howard Dean and Barack Obama have been continuously lecturing that all Democrats must now come together as one party. The name of this pro-Hillary group pretty much sums up what these women think about that!. As Hillary supporters they are demanding a roll call of votes during the DNC Convention next week to remind everyone how many votes Hillary did have and just how close Obama came to losing plus they wanted Hillary to have a prime time slot for her speech.

I Own My Vote is a group of Hillary supporters who argue that their votes do not belong to any party or candidate and that they will vote however they like. See a trend here? In fact their website http://www.iownmyvote.com/ would make a McCain staffer proud. They are also demanding a roll call of votes during the DNC Convention to remind everyone how close the race was etc.etc.etc.

Just Say No Deal appears to be a group of PUMA bloggers who are demanding a roll call of votes to remind everyone blah blah blah. Together 4US is a group of 8,739 women who have signed a pledge requesting that the DNC Convention have a roll call of votes yadda yadda yadda. You get the picture.

Four different groups of women, all furious with the Democratic primary, all continuing to support Hillary and not only wanting Hillary to be recognized during the DNC Convention but to remind Obama that he just barely won. For many, they are not only pro Hillary but have become anti Obama as evidenced by their stinging rhetoric in their websites and by their “NOBAMA” signs. Apparently some of these women have reached the tipping point where they are so angry with their party that they are actually voting for McCain. This is making an impact as the polls have been showing that Obama is not doing as well as expected in the “white women” group.

Now all these pro Hillary groups are merging together. Tropical Storm Fay might be causing havoc this week but it sounds as if these other women might do the same during the DNC Convention . I think that Howard Dean just might have his hands full if these women come out in force in Denver. I also wonder what would happen if they all start to chant for Hillary, especially if they do so while Obama is standing by himself in that stadium. Fay may have moderately high winds and even throw off some tornadoes but nothing will come close to what Dean and Obama might have to face as they are reminded of that oh so true statement: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…

I’ve waited to write a recap of the Hillary Clinton campaign until the feeding frenzy was over.

In nearly every article I read, the author was quick to point out that it wasn’t the media’s horrible treatment of Hillary Clinton that caused her to lose. I agree. However, the reporters and pundits who had a field day attacking Hillary Clinton on personal grounds rather than policy issues do not get a bye on this one. Maybe they can justify their actions in their own small minds, bit I do not think we should. Women, in particular, should view this as part of a broader attack on our participation in government. Here are some of the more brilliant comments issued during the Clinton campaign that represent an affront to all women:

“There’s just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary.”

-Tucker Carlson

“Mrs. Clinton’s testicle lockbox is big enough for the entire Democrat hierarchy, not just some people in the media.”

-Rush Limbaugh

“The reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”

-Chris Matthews

Now, if you can believe it, all of these political hacks have their own shows. That’s right. Somebody considers these gentlemen (and I use the term loosely) worthy of broadcast status. However, nobody ever said they appealed to anyone’s intellectual side and it is certainly clear that the three of them have issues with women in general that they projected onto Hillary Clinton.

If you want to talk about the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the members of the Senate who saw fit to give President Bush unprecedented war powers as a reason she should not be elected, then I’m behind you. That’s one of the reasons why she wasn’t my number one candidate. If you don’t agree with Clinton’s immigration policy, then by all means call her to task. If you think her economic policy is doomed to fail, then say so. However, the line should be drawn when the banter borders on verbal abuse. The fact is that Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews would never treat John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney with such utter disrespect and disdain.

When NBC Political Director Chuck Todd was asked if the media covered Clinton fairly he said, “You can only cover the campaign that is in front of you. And the fact is the campaign that was in front of us was one that was being presented as somebody who was running for Bill Clinton’s third term.” Honestly, Todd should consider going into politics because his answer had nothing to do with the actual question he was asked. If the media raised this issue, one could at least argue against that premise. You could argue that Hillary Clinton was her own person. However, let’s take this comment at face value because even this is a bunch of blarney.

Many will argue, myself included, that John McCain is running George Bush’s third term campaign. How do we know that? John McCain is in 100% voting agreement with George Bush over the last year from tax cuts, to war funding, to torture and beyond. His campaign employs high-powered lobbyists and fund-raisers, many of who worked on the Bush campaigns. You know, the guys he has taken a public stand against. Neither NBC nor any of the other mainstream media have chosen to address these issues. Instead, they insist on presenting John McCain as an anti-Washington, straight-talking, special-interest-battling maverick. Hillary Clinton would never have been given such a break by the media.

Rather than discuss her policies and positions, the media focused on such pressing national issues as her cleavage, her wrinkles, or her choice of clothing. Prior to the Democratic primary kick-off, Fox News Channel conducted focus groups to determine what kind of campaign the voters wanted to see from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Fox consultant, Frank Luntz, was aiming high on the intelligence scale when he conducted these focus groups. “How many of you want to see them really argue,” he asked. “And, how many of you want them to make love to each other?” Can anybody figure out what’s wrong with that picture? It’s no wonder then that we have men in the audience at Hillary Clinton events yelling, “Iron my shirt!” The media’s total lack of responsibility in presenting objections to Clinton’s presidency in fair, balanced and truthful terms goes a long way toward fostering such a bigoted response from the general male population.

When you put the pieces of the anti-Hillary media coverage puzzle together, it is pretty obvious that the majority of the bashing comes from conservative news outlets and commentators. Now, I understand that people will argue that point where Chris Matthews is concerned. He did work for Jimmy Carter and Tip O’Neill. That was then, however, and this is now. Matthews admitted voting for George Bush in 2000, and he has done absolutely nothing but present the president in the most respectful, glowing, positive terms, no matter what transgressions the man has committed. The popular misconception that Matthews is from the ‘liberal media’ gives MSNBC an advantage, allowing the network to present itself as being balanced.

Those who employ the ilk of Matthews, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Carlson are conspicuous by their silence. Of course, the mainstream media has been thoroughly ‘corporatized’ and aren’t the least bit interested in being credible news outlets. Those days are gone. When David Schuster made a degrading remark about the Clinton’s “pimping out” Chelsea to campaign for her mother, MSNBC apologized and gave Schuster a token suspension. However, they allowed mad dog Matthews to remain on the loose to regularly attack Hillary Clinton on everything but the issues. While she was actively campaigning for the presidency, his fixation on Clinton neared obsessive proportions.

And while we’re talking about the flak the Clintons took for having Chelsea campaign, let’s remember that Mitt Romney employed all of his children in his bid for the White House. While he was actively campaigning for the presidency, Romney was asked why his children weren’t serving their country in Iraq instead of campaigning for their father. Romney’s answer was steeped in sheer entitlement and arrogance. According to Romney, his sons were indeed serving their country by helping their father get elected. The mainstream media barely mentioned Romney’s comment, even though it was worthy of a thrashing for its total lack of sensitivity for the families whose members are in harm’s way every day fighting a war that is both unjustified and illegal.

The media’s assault on Hillary Clinton started months ago back in Iowa. They were calling for her to quit then. She showed true grit and determination for many months beyond that and, frankly, whether or not she was your choice for president, you should be proud of her efforts as a woman competing in what has historically been a man’s world. In the final analysis, Barack Obama didn’t win by a landslide. He didn’t embarrass Hillary Clinton. In fact, neither would have gotten to the necessary delegate count without the superdelegates thrown in. Carol Jenkins, president of The Women’s Media Center, said of Clinton, “All women have gained from her ability to go the distance and not be turned into a quitter.” Jenkins also rightfully pointed out that each woman would have to judge for herself whether or not she’d be willing to go through what Hillary Clinton went through.

Barack Obama said Tuesday that his relationship with REV JEREMIAH WRIGHT has changed because of what Wright said contradicts much of what Obama stands for has done and is trying to do. Obama said yesterday’s “performance” by Wright was a “bunch of rants.” Obama said what Wright said contradicts his fundamental convictions; was a:show of disrespect to me” and an “insult to what we have been trying to do in this campaign.” Obama said nothing Wright said yesterday was constructive and Wright “caricatured” himself. Obama said he made clear to Wright that his “sound bites” was inexcusable when he spoke with him before his Philadelphia speech.

Obama said Wright was never his spiritual mentor nor advisor but his pastor. That parses the words “mentor” and “advisor” when compared with what Obama described in his book. Obama has been sent reeling by Rev. Wright’s radicalism. Obama said it was only yesterday that he realized the tone and impact of Wright. Main stream media is filled with denunciation of Wright.

NEWT GINGRICH said yesterday and on Tuesday’s ABC SHOW the VIEW that Wright appears is trying to harm Obama. Observation and polls appear to prove that if that is correct Wright is succeeding.

Wright’s comments have raised Obama’s already majority unfavorability ratings even higher with 41% saying he hurts their opinion of Obama.

I watched all the Sunday talking heads shows and was extremely disgusted by what I heard. All of the Democratic leaders tried to minimize the impact of Barack Obama’s relationship to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Every one of them agreed with each other that each candidate had someone associated with their campaign who said wrong things and it was time to put that aside and get to the issues.

Excuse me? The sermons of Jeremiah White cannot be set aside that easily. The impact of what Rev. Wright preached was so shocking to White America (to use one of his terms) that it will reverberate throughout the rest of Obama’s campaign. Set aside for now the fact that this is the church chosen by Obama. The revelation that this hatred for America and Whites is being preached in Black churches is so mind boggling that it needs further discussion itself.

After watching the many vile tapes of the sermons I always end up with the same question. Why? I keep thinking back to the atmosphere after September 11, 2001. It seemed like everyone was pulling together immediately after that terrorist attack. People were turning to each other and to their churches for comfort and assurance. Yet amidst all of this tragedy here was this church leader preaching hatred and anger and spitefulness. (I also am surprised that Obama wasn’t in the pews that day for anyone the least bit religious wanted to gather together in church the Sunday after 9/11. You would think this would be especially true of a community and state leader.)

Some pundits on TV were also upset over the church’s tie in to Africa. One of the mission statements for the church is “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land’, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.” At first I was shocked by this until I started to think about it in other terms. For example, today just happens to be St. Patrick’s Day. Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s there was a big trend (and still might be) for Irish Americans to give money to Ireland and dream of visiting their mother land. And many Jewish people still use the phrase that traditionally ends the seder of “next year in Jerusalem” and give money to their spiritual homeland, Israel. Same with Catholics and Rome. So when put in that perspective I can better understand the church’s fascination with Africa.

But as to other shocking statements by Rev. White, I repeat my original question, why? What purpose does it serve to preach those hateful things? Why would you tell your parishioners “God Damn America”? How does that tie in with the typical sermons of God, Jesus, Love, Forgiveness and Christianity? Even more disturbing were the churchgoer’s reactions. How scary it is to see them all cheering and applauding these mean spirited things. I never realized that there is such a large group of people who hate America yet are our own countrymen. It was awful enough to see zealot Muslims aroung the world cheering when the towers fell. But to now discover our own citizens were doing the same thing?

As much as the Democrats wish to brush this aside these tapes are too disturbing to forget that easily. Iromically, White America had thought we were making progress in regards to racial problems. They were even coming out in droves to vote for a Black man. I think that most would have said that racial tensions were low and people were less prejudiced than in the past. What a shock to now realize how much some Blacks hate White people. Wow. If these tapes are representative of how many Blacks feel then we are sitting on a powder keg of hatred of Blacks against Whites and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is striking the match…

I read an interesting article highlighted in the Drudge Report. It was from an article in The Australian about Obama. The journalist, Geoff Elliott compared the reaction Obama is getting to how people reacted to Mandela. In other words, people are looking up to Obama as more than just a new leader, but as a cult figure even something “akin to a messiah”. Wow.