The Hillary Dilemma

Sen. Clinton is currently taking a bit of flack on the road. The issue is her decision to vote FOR giving the President support in dealing with Iraq. As we should know, the vote was meant to show solidarity in the American voice in negotiating and diplomacy with Iraq. The mistake was in thinking the administration wouldn't go whole hog and bring suffer here and abroad to prove a point.

Big mistake, as history now demonstrates. This was even more egregious online where people had the most freedom to question and show the counterpoints to the "evidence". On TV and in the street talk against the war was stifled. People were chosen for interviews and debates who were either soft or able to be beat back soundly, rigged matches. In the papers the evidence was shooed to the back of the paper. And various authorities were vilified, with fake claims (including being child molesters), or had their families humiliated.

In this situation, the bloggers and websites were the last bastion of clear argument against the suspect logic of war. And people like Clinton (almost the entire Congress) dismissed it, and then either bought into the fear or into the political expediency of giving Bush backing.

For some this is unforgivable, though their are plenty of other excuses people use to justify turning on the senator as well. But the isolation has been a long biting issue.

On Daily Kos they go into some of the concerns they have about why she, on the road now, won't just admit she was wrong then.

It is confusing to see it. Some say, as a women, it will be used to ridicule her femininity (The old tripe - A woman's prerogative is to change her mind - Yeesch!), or she doesn't want a mistake to mar her record. I don't know what to think. Seems it would be better to say it, and deal with any hits with her potent strength of will.

An advisor:

There was James Carville on CNN's Situation Room, desperately trying to explain why Sen. Clinton voted for the war, even though other senators who had been given the same faulty intel she had, voted against it: "But they weren't from New York," he said. "Their state wasn't hit. They didn't have to deal with the grief of these 3,000 people."

First, Carville? Why? Uh. But trying to tie the terrorist of 9/11 to Iraq is just disingenuous. Sure, the people of NYC wanted action and to be protected. But this war has not done that. Let's at least cop to this.



Of course this week, she has been working to show a stronger backbone in dealing with Bush's next potential war. IRAN.



Sen. Clinton:

It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.

Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.

Video here.

Dawkins responds to critics

At Times Online, Richard Dawkins is responding to a number of critics who have been repeating a series of arguments and claims against him and his atheism and confrontation of religion.







So Dawkins reponds to the claims of dogmatism:

Sir, Alister McGrath (Faith, Feb 10) has now published two books with my name in the title. If I seem “grumpy”, could it be because a professor of theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats (“Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?”) and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.

McGrath imagines that I would disagree with my hero Sir Peter Medawar on The Limits of Science. On the contrary. I never tire of emphasising how much we don’t know. The God Delusion ends in just such a theme. Where do the laws of physics come from? How did the universe begin? Scientists are working on these deep problems, honestly and patiently. Eventually they may be solved. Or they may be insoluble. We don’t know.

But whereas I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don’t know, what of theologians like McGrath? He knows. He’s signed up to the Nicene Creed. The universe was created by a very particular supernatural intelligence who is actually three in one. Not four, not two, but three. Christian doctrine is remarkably specific: not only with cut-and-dried answers to the deep problems of the universe and life, but about the divinity of Jesus, about sin and redemption, heaven and hell, prayer and absolute morality. And yet McGrath has the almighty gall to accuse me of a “glossy”, “quick fix”, naive faith that science has all the answers.

Other theologies contradict the Christian creed while matching it for brash overconfidence based on zero evidence. McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is McGrath an “ideological fanatic” because he doesn’t believe in Thor’s hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence he, lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts?

Check out the Gods Delusion, now available on CD!

Lawless Texas. Who knew they meant the laws of science?

Off of Pharyngula, we have the story of the Texas legislature, where a memo is being passed around.

The memo is one written by Georgia St Rep. Ben Bridges. Passed around the hall by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum.

The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools."

Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.

He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments "Hollywood's unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism."

What a great use of the state's time. Conspiracy theories and slurs against great standard bearers in science.

Weird ass lies, pseudoscience, and tinfoil hat quality ideas.

Sadly, it is not hard to imagine that plenty of them went home eager to brag about the proof.

And that fixed earth site? It is one that claims evidence that the Earth lies at the very center of the universe and is unmoving.

Yet, they think the flat earth people are crazy.

And they think the flat earth on the turtles back people are crazy.

Just because Bridges and Chisum aren't at the VERY bottom of the crazy pile, doesn't take away from the fact they are chocked full of CRAZY! And they want to make it law!

Al Franken is in

No, not as candidate for President. For the Senate, getting the Bush lackey Norm Coleman out of office.


Al Franken for Senate

If only I was still in Minnesota.

Darn, but maybe I'll have moved back there in time. One can hope.


Has someone given Ariana the good news?

Where's al-Sadr, I love that book.

Back to the al-Sadr question.
Word is not coming out of Iraq, from different quarters denying he is gone.

His people say he is still in country.

And others tell of his very recent to Najaf.



CBS News

A close aide who meets regularly with him said al-Sadr was not in Tehran. The aide said the U.S. report probably stems from a campaign by al-Sadr's people to put out false information about his movements amid fears he will be detained by U.S.-led forces. The cleric also is sleeping in different places each night, the aide said.

An official in al-Sadr's main office in the Shiite holy city of Najaf said the cleric had decided not to appear publicly during the current month of Muharam, one of four holy months in the Islamic calendar.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the information.

Lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, head of the Sadrist bloc in Iraq's parliament, also denied the U.S. report.

"The news was not accurate because Muqtada al-Sadr is still in Iraq and he did not visit any country," al-Rubaie told The Associated Press.

It almost seems the more likely scenario is tha tthe US lost him, and are trying to smike him out again.


That AMERICAblog story sounds a little paranoid, but this makes it seem more and more that the media, yet again, played into a militaty op.


Good job media, here's a cookie.

For some fun

To try to find something to laugh about after the last story, try God is for Suckers.

Watch the video of P-Funk, schooling evangelicals about the truths of the bible and life as an atheist.

It's a walking tour of the hard to except fact for some that once God is gone, Hell and other myths just don't scare the way they once did, old school.

If you are devout and devoted, maybe not your cup of tea, but if you are a blasphemer, or like people unprepared to do verbal battle stumble about, give it a try.

Bloggers on the out

SIGH.

This is one of those sad bits of business. Today, over the day, the bloggers who Edwards was using have resigned.

Their troubles have persisted since they started work. In the past, and possibly still, they were making critical statements, via blogging, about conservatives and religious leaders who they were in disagreement with, both personally and ideologically.

While pressure, from people who would never vote for him, didn't dissuade him from using their services...

they are OUT now.

Amanda Marcotte was first, with her announcement at Pandagon.

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

There is good news. The main good news is that I don’t have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it’s on. The other good news is that the blogosphere has risen as one and protested, loudly, the influence a handful of well-financed right wing shills have on the public discourse.

Bill Donohue doesn’t speak for Catholics, he speaks for the right wing noise machine. You guys pointed this out, you made a stink, you refused to walk into the same stupid trap that is laid out for liberals and Democrats by the right wing noise machine and I think you made a difference. While loyalty played into the pushback some, the real story is that we liberals are not taking this crap any longer and we’re pushing back. And now that I’m attached to only myself again, I’m ready and eager to join in the pushing back with you. Like Lorraine say, Jesus did not say to shut your piehole...

Then later another resignation:

I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. In spite of what was widely reported, I was not hired as a blogger, but a part-time technical advisor, which is the role I am vacating.

I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure.

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

This is all very sad news. They were doing good work.

Some want to lay all the blame on Edwards. But, really, none of us have a reason or evidence to say he shoved them out in an evil plan. What we have a re two talented and opinionated women with unpopular opinions.

This out a bit of added pressure on the campaign, and in this arena they could not go a defend themselves properly. Not without bringing more fire on the campaign, in a fight that had nothing to do with the main part of the campaign. Sure the campaign could make it its business. But that would be an EXCELLENT way to derail it. It isn't the idealism I would love to espouse and live by. But it is the reality of political strategizing.

So they stay, take hit after hit, and cause the campaign take more and more hits, Or, they leave, they fight the good fight.

As I am, I would love to have the candidate that would fight the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, O’Reilly, and Donohue. Someone who fights these smaller, but grander battles. And their is such a candidate. Dennis Kucinich. And he ain't winning.

I would rather have Edwards fight this out. But that is career suicide. And as such, someone in the campaign could have taken an hour, researched the bloggers' writing.

So I hope they do well. And we don't have to worry about them fighting the good fight. They already are.

No, I would need for more information to hold Edwards at fault.


No I look at the real killjoy here, and blame him. Bill Donohue (Pictured here...No, wait, that is Marvel's Hate Monger...man, hard to tell the difference.).

This guy will curse Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Atheists, Secularists, and then take offense at being called on it. Declare it anti-Catholicism. Don't except the bible as literal truth, your a bigot and going to Hell.

This guy is truly a Class-A schmuck. A mean, cruel, crude, vain, bigot, who gets on the news whenever he wants, and gets to speak for an entire religion.

This man deserves no respect, as he has earned none. How can anyone find fault with their criticism of him?


He and his ilk cause too many troubles in this country. These zealots inflict so much pain.


When do we start standing up to them already.

al-Sadr gone?

When the news first came on earlier, I almost thought he was deceased. But, no. It was news he had fled to Tehran. I stress the term fled, because that is the point the news is trying to run with now. He had a growing number of troop coming in, and a new focus on him. Not to mention warnings, and tip offs to what would be coming. So if their was a legit threat to President Bush, would we say he fled? No, we'd put it more strategically, more diplomatically.

But, word is, he's gone for weeks now. Much to the surprise of Ware of CNN. No sign he left, his offices act as if he is still there. Maybe to divert notice, but he is out of range, so why keep it up?

AMERICAblog has a paranoid idea:

This makes al-Sadr look like a wimp, I mean, the guy fled in fear from us.

This also makes Iran look like they're harboring terrorists or insurgents or whatever the word du jour is for "bad guys," and that helps bolster Bush's case for war against Iran (I mean, they're helping the enemy!). So it's a win-win for us.

In order to prove he's not a wimp, al-Sadr is forced to stick his head up and say "I didn't run" - then we get a clue as to where he really is, and maybe our forces can catch him. And if al-Sadr doesn't stick his head up, we still get to tag him with the "wimp" label.

In order to not give the US more cause to attack Iran, Iran is spurred to help us find al-Sadr in Iraq, to prove that he's not in Iran, or Iran is spurred to turn him over to us, if he really is in Iran. And if Iran doesn't help prove that al-Sadr is not in Iran, we still get to claim Iran is helping the bad guys and it buildds Bush's case for war with Iran.

Perhaps al-Sadr really is in Iran, and perhaps the Bush administration is telling us the truth. But considering that Bush and the Pentagon anonymous briefers have yet to tell us the truth about much of anything to do with Iraq or Iran, I'm going to wager that we're being lied to, yet again.

Paranoid...but would it be the first time the Administration has pulled this?

Democrats destroying Alliance

Rep. Duncan Hunter, candidate for president, on the Republican side, is going around today pointing out the Australian PM's belittling of Obama and those opposed to staying in Iraq for the forseable future.

He claims, this is proof that he and the others are destroying our alliances.

But...Autralia is happy to hang in, not with troops, but with lip service. That helps.

And why is everyone else backing out on us? The words of Democrats? How about the situation? The deaths, the end that is out of sight. the violence that never stops...how about that?

How about the logic that this war is making things better? It doesn't seem to be holding up.

ANd like the AMerican people, our allies are coming to see it is an empty promise when Bush asks for "just 6 more months". We are too many years into the next 6 moinths.

Rep. Hunter. You want to see what frayed your alliances? Look to your war, your leadership, and your bullying tactics with your friends.


Time to open your eyes to reality, and shut your mouth full of rhetoric.

McCain finds God, then kisses His Ass.

From ThinkProgress:

On February 23, Sen John McCain will be the keynote speaker for the Discovery Institute.

Excuse my while I get nauseous. The DI! The people who assault, lie about, and betray the good of science?

So he let Bush and his cronies call him insane, his wife imbalanced, and his daughter was a bastard child of an evil tryst, and that was the beginning, and then embraced and showed his liege his deep love and reverence. I could take a shot at me. But if I had a family, I would never stand for any crap remotely like what was thrown at him. But he's a politician who wants to be president. To hell with his wife and daughters feelings.

Then he took stands against the far right religious nuts. Now he goes to places he once denounced and plays the role of doormat. Because he wants to be president.

All he has left is campaign finance reform, which only ever got so far. And seems to have some nice loopholes for Senators running for president, from what I've heard.

It's all so convenient.


But, please let us get back to the science.

McCain on science.

Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?

McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they’ve got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don’t think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there’s nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.

Daily Star: Does it belong in science?

McCain: There’s enough scientists that believe it does. I’m not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.

Teach the controversy. The cry of the ignorant. Here is the controversy, again. Some people don't like the evidence, so they like to make things up and say it is true because it agrees with the bible. That's McCain Science.

Of course before he said:

“I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view,” he said. “I happen to believe in evolution…I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not.“

Well, he won't back his family up. Should I be surprised he'd betray science?


Did I mention he likes the war in Iraq?

Why would we want his as president again?

Passing the Buck

From the Neo-Truman Administration, what Bush likes to play pretend at being, it is time to start passing the buck again.

AmericaBLOG:

Asked by reporters yesterday to provide more information on the charge, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "The Iranians are up to their eyeballs in this activity." He called the Baghdad presentation a "very strong circumstantial case," saying that he was "not going to try to embellish that briefing" and that "any reasonable person . . . would draw the same conclusions."

White House spokesman Tony Snow offered similar responses. "Let me put it this way," he said. "There's not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that."

Pressed repeatedly, Snow answered, "Look, the Department of Defense is doing this. What I'm telling you is, you guys want to get those questions answered, you need to go to the Pentagon."

A call to the Defense Intelligence Agency brought a referral to the main Pentagon press office. That office referred a caller to the Washington office of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, which responded with an e-mailed copy of Sunday's briefing slides -- containing no mention of the "highest levels" allegation and a request for questions in writing. Written questions brought no response. An official from the Pentagon Joint Staff said last night that Pace had seen the briefing slides but had "no personal knowledge of any senior involvement by senior Iranian officials."

To quote the tedious Family Circus strip:

Who did this?

Not Me.

Going Dixie

This weekend The Dixie Chicks were big winners.

Take that death threat givers, CD burners (Note to public, kinda hard to burn CD's. - They are not shiny small records.), whiners of Country Music, and so on.

Song and Record of the Year, plus. And a darn good CD to. All of their CD's are good, in fact.

If you want to watch their performance from the awards the video is here and here.

What was it that set off the rancor. Must have been bad.

Just so you know, we're ashamed the President is from Texas.

That it? Where's the profanity? The death vows? The act of treason? The viciousness?

I mean, these ladies received DEATH THREATS...for this.

No wonder their not ready to make nice.

Scooby Doo Ending...It's Iran!...No, wait. It's really...

Who's under the next mask?

Crooks and Liars has thoughts and PowerPoint

Look, I admit, I don't know much about bomb-making. And I don't know much about how factories label bombs. But I do know that in Iran virtually all numbers were in the Farsi-Arabic script. They were not and do not resemble our numbers. Now, I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the implication that this round captured in the photo is bogus. Color me very skeptical. Any thoughts?

See what happens when you have no credibility on the important things? You end up questioned, more and more.

At Daily Kos, U.S. General Peter Pace has real doubts about what is being claimed:

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

The military doesn't look to be all the confident or passionate about laying blame. Do they have confidence in this White House?

But let us look back at the White House rock solid evidence:

Q What direct evidence do you have that Iranian leaders authorized the smuggling of weapons into Iraq?

MR. SNOW: What I first would do is just point you back to the briefing. What they have are a number of serial numbers, and so on. I'd just take you back to the transcript on that. If you're looking for the granular evidence, that's what they presented.

Q But that wasn't direct evidence linking Iran --

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way: There's not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that.

...Right...so weapons out of Iran...and a butt load of inference...Oh boy.


Also, it gets better:

Yesterday, Kevin Drum speculated that Iran might be providing the SCIRI militia with weaponry. Drum wrote, "In other words, if we had to guess where the bombs were going, we might guess that SCIRI’s militia is getting a share of the action too." There’s no need to guess any longer. CNN’s Michael Ware has confirmed that Iranians have been supplying weapons to SCIRI.

SCIRI is lead by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, someone Bush has bragged about (You know how that goes - Chalabi, Putin, etc.). His compound was raided around Christmas, where 4 Iranians were captured and arrested.

These are our friends? Or enemies? What is going on here?


Let's give the last word to the esteemed Juan Cole, of Informed Comment, who recently was on Countdown, with Keith Olbermann, making him a default Rock Star:

He'll take you through the data, and show you where the numbers just aren't adding up, and take you into the culture and thinking. A good read.

Bush has a Major Stunning Victory in North Korea...NOT!

The White House is just desperate to make the North Korean agreement sound like this major stunning victory.

But what has been gained? How is the significantly different than the agreement that NK made with Clinton's administration. Even Fmr Ambassador Bolton sees that, and is griping.

You remember it that agreement, right. The passed few years Bush's people have belittled and mocked it and Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State at the time. Zuckerman, in Hollywood, made a crappy political ad to run, and it didn't, that ridiculed Albright as a fool who doomed America. You remember all that right?

Well, we are back there, and the White House is SO proud.

They are just like a kid who knock an expensive clock off a wall. They put the backing back on the glass front back, see it is ticking again, put it back on the wall, and back away slowly. Why does this or that deserve an especially big pat on the back?

What's changed really?

Oh yeah, NK now has nukes.


MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Heck of a job, Condie.

Edwards blogger story won't die...Donohue keeps resurrecting it.

At the Carpetbagger Report

They continue following Bill Donohue, Catholic League, and his quest to shame John Edwards. Still angered at the fact his chief bloggers have, in the past, attacked his compatriots.

To try and up the ante. He is pressuring Clinton and Obama to do so as well. He is hoping his religious standing will be enough to get them to do so.

So far they have been quiet, which is good and bad. They aren't helping a fellow dem. But they aren't piling on either.

Though:

It’s one thing to talk about Clinton’s and Obama’s bloggers; it’s another to ask Clinton and Obama to publicly congratulate Edwards on his bloggers.

One can hope they ignore Donohue's suggested path.

It’s not enough to make hiring decisions that these conservative groups — who will never vote Democratic — approve of; rival campaigns have to repudiate the hiring decisions of others or face an alleged backlash.

Ridiculous.

With Hillary, it's different.

Horse's Mouth has an article looking at the New York Times coverage of the democratic primary race.

They are troubled about Patrick Healey, and how he is differentiates the candidates.

NYT:
In these instances and similar moments in New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton stuck to a set of talking points that she and her advisers hope will ultimately overcome the antiwar anger that is particularly strong among Democrats likely to vote in primaries. She took full responsibility for the vote, said she would not vote for military action in Iraq again, and then pivoted quickly to frame Iraq as President Bush’s war. This answer was usually met with applause.

NYT:
In Iowa on Sunday, on his first trip there as a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama reminded voters that he had been against the war from the start and said he had offered a plan for winding down American involvement. His strong statements against the war in Iraq drew applause at each of four stops, from Waterloo to Ames.

Got that? When Hillary repeats a standard stump formulation, she's sticking "to a set of talking points." When Obama does the same thing, he's "reminded voters" of his positions. Let's be clear: The point here isn't that Hillary doesn't use talking points or that Obama does use them. Rather, the point, as Bob Somerby has noted, is that all politicians are scripted and use talking points to some extent, and reporters make an editorial decision to describe some candidates and not others in such terms. In the case of Hillary, Healy makes the editorial decision to describe her as such constantly. He goes out of his way to paint Hillary as political and calculating so often that it's becoming suspect.

Just for the heck of it, I went back and looked at all the pieces Healy has written or co-wrote as lead writer about Hillary since she entered the race. Many of them go to gratuitous and even silly lengths to describe her as either choreographed, scripted or political -- to the point where it's obvious that there's a pattern at work. Examples after the jump.

If ONLY it was this guy alone. But Clinton's acts, thoughts, words, motivations are constantly being played as evil machinations.

Let us not forget the Revelation lovers that declared her the Anti-Christ.

She doesn't deserve this crap. If you wnat to fault her. Let's base it on reality. There is plenty there, in reality, to gripe about.

But this is just to the continued playing of the old sad stereotypes about bad women. She isn't a real women (like Obama's not a real Black.). She isn't the right level of warm and cuddly, she's cold, frigid, and sharp. She doesn't bake cookies right, just poison. I'm waiting for the guy who's going to call her and her ideas BARREN and DEAD. You know it is coming.

She isn't womanly enough. In spite of the fact she has a well-adjusted sweet and smart daughter. Yeah, the stereotypes and knee jerk analysis is the most accurate way to know her. Sure. Thanks MSM.

Heck of a job. Keep the STEREOTYPES alive!

Obamamania

Obamamania - An obsesses need to tear down and belittle Barack Obama. Most commonly suffered amogn conservatives and the MSM.

Well, you knew it was coming, we have been watching the surge (non-Iraqi) growing. Having built him up, puffed him up, it is time to destroy our heroes.

I am still undecided on my opinion of the man. But this garbage is just RIDICULOUS.


Over at Crooks and Liars, they have video Of Howard Kurtz, perpetually disappointing journalism, discussion with Gwen Ifil, of PBS.

MS. IFILL: Well, probably. But before I get to that, Tim, I really have to respond to the comment that Howie made about the black enough story. I—you know, I, I guess I could paraphrase Lloyd Benson and say, “I covered Jesse Jackson, I know Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama is no Jesse Jackson.” But what I mean when I say that is people seem to set up this really interesting test for Barack Obama of blackness, which I have found absent in any other dialogue involving people who clearly appear to and identify and work in the black community, and I—I’m not quite certain where it comes from. As you know, Tim, I’m, I’m the son of West Indian immigrants. I, I don’t know if because I’m not the son of African-Americans—the daughter, that is, of African-Americans who are born in this country that makes me less black. So I’m a little puzzled about this discussion. I don’t know quite what, what—where it’s coming from, other than maybe some folks who haven’t been invited to the party. (full transcript below the fold)

I'm puzzled to. Troubled as well.

Over on FOX, Bill Kristol, digs in even deeper and nastier.

KRISTOL: We’re electing a war president in 2008. If I can go back to Obama and Lincoln for just one second, Lincoln’s “house divided” speech in 1858 was a speech saying we cannot live as a house divided on slavery. And he implicitly says we’ll have to fight a civil war if necessary on this.

Obama’s speech is a “can’t we get along” speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858. Let’s paper over these differences, rise above politics and all get along. That’s not Giuliani’s mode. And I think in a war context, social conservatives want to win the war against Islamic jihadism.

So it's even a twofer. He would leave blacks in slavery, the race traitor he is AND, just to spit in his face, he's freaking Rodney King.

Sadly, Juan Williams was sitting there, and didn't take note. But he isn't being paid for that.





Your conservative thinking at work.



Then we have Salon.com. Daily Kos, covers their coverage of Obama.





UPPITY? Did they ACTUALLY go there? Yes and no, they switched it to smug now. The wonders of this age.

Ouch. Just, ouch. It's an incredibly negative article, and one that directly engages Obama's race and concludes that he became an effective politician when he embraced his whiteness. But it's difficult to tell how the racial politics of the article would read without "uppity" right there up front.

Is this the only way they have to approach him? To understand him?

IWF continues war on femininity

Feministing has more on the almost comical (except they seek to drag womanhood back into the Dark Ages) IWF (Independent WOman's FOrum).

The IWF now is declaring that feminism makes women slutty.

Daughters and granddaughters of the women who started the sexual revolution of the 60s have tossed aside what remained of sexual taboos. Gloria Steinam [sic] must be tickled pink. Just check out what’s going on with the younger generation and you’ll get the picture. Only the picture is not a pretty one.

Obviously something has gone terribly awry. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles, ordained by God as part of the created order, have been blurred. Men have become un-masculine, thus unattractive to women; women have become un-feminine, thus unattractive to men. Granted, some women have a feminine appearance. But don’t let that fool you. In the blink of an eye, females spew obscenities that would make a bull rider blush.

Another trend among the younger generation is “freaking.” At student dances all across America (including middle schools) kids are dirty dancing. Teens are simulating sex to the beat of the music, usually with, but not limited to, a partner. Young people’s creative minds have come up with expressions like “dog dancing,” “lap dancing,” doing “the grind,” “the nasty," and “the wax." I won’t explain. Use your imagination.

Can you follow their logic? ALmost comedy, but they are scarey serious with this gargabe. What it comes down to is that girls these days aren't Christian enough.

But they do hate those dirty, dirty women.

Here is the sites final thoughts.

So how is all of this related to feminism? I don’t know. West never really seems to make the connection. But it’s not just rambling anti-feminists who are talking about the feminist/slut relationship. Too often, I’m seeing third wave feminism conflated with vapid consumerist-types of sexuality, from the Pussycat Dolls to Girls Gone Wild—even by other feminists.

Yes, young feminists talk about sex. They write about it. They even have it from time to time. But let’s not confuse politically-informed and thought-out feminist perspectives on sex with drunken tit flashing. It’s insulting.

CNN Atheist Redux

Well, tonight finally got back to the question of the Atheist.
As previously touched on: 1, 2, 3

At Pharyngula, they have thoughts on the redo tonight.







They had on, as opposed to the horrible lineup of Christians and British Atheist drunks, Ellen Johnson of American Atheist, and an actual American atheist, Rachel Maddow (Pictured here.), of Air America, and a crusading progressive to brute, and Jesse Lee Peterson, a priest that made a fool of himself.

So we had the sad story, a short, but to the point interview with Richard Dawkins, and an atheist, secular progressive, and priest making an ass of himself. That is a rather large shift from the beginning. And over the weekend, as a near nonexistent minority pelleted CNN with complaints about the followup lineup, they radically altered it.

So what began as a hatchet job, ends as a chance to teach the viewers a bit about atheists

...and why they DON'T bite.

CNN...it's a start. Good boy.

At One Good Move they have the video.

Religious scam in Minnesota

From Pharyngula:

Minnesota has its own Christian ministry scandal, but it probably won't get that much national attention, since there's no sex and it's just the usual "minister fleeces flock" story. Mac Hammond runs one of those mega-scam mega-churches in a Minneapolis suburb

His line:

"Noah was the first investment banker," he said at the start of one recent sermon, which was filled with folksy charm, biblical references and business jargon. "He was buying stock when the rest of the world was liquidating."

From the Star Tribune:

He got one of many laughs when he said the Star Tribune story had "left out" his two motorcycles. He also quipped that his Porsche has been "an expensive ministry tool" because a State Patrol officer who gave him one of four speeding tickets he has gotten in it went through church membership classes. He said he buys expensive clothes because "if I look decent, I preach better, so I'm really doing it for you, amen."

He's in trouble right now because he has been using his church for political purposes (to promote Michele Bachmann, of course, who else?) and he's been skimming the cream off the church to hand him sweetheart loans for his personal real estate games and for his own plane. Jesus really wants him to have that plane. Here's hoping there's enough dirt on him to shut this con artist down.

The congregation was presented with the annual report, which said the church had $34 million in gross revenues last year and gave $3 million to charitable causes and evangelism.

Gee, where did all the money go?

The troubling irony of Creationist scientist

As pointed to on Pharyngula, a young earth creationist has just finished his PhD in Geoscience.

Young Earth = Earth < 10,000 years old

Geology = Earth > 1,000,000 years old much much much older

How does this computer?

"I was working within a particular paradigm of earth history. I accepted that philosophy of science for the purpose of working with the people" at Rhode Island.

And though his dissertation repeatedly described events as occurring tens of millions of years ago, Dr. Ross added, "I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates."

So he worked and researced. He accepted the results, for writing up. But he thought the results were false and wrong. He thought is dissertation was a lie.

AND he is now a professor! Even as he openly claims his work is false and a lie.

Still, where would he go now?

Liberty Universoty, of course.

Today he teaches earth science at Liberty University, the conservative Christian institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell where, Dr. Ross said, he uses a conventional scientific text.

If his training was a lie, I guess he doesn't have any scruples about lying a little more: I've seen the job ads from Liberty University, and a "young earth philosophy" is a prerequisite for teaching there. He teaches something called CRST 290, which is in a "religious studies" category, taught as part of their required instruction in "creation studies".


CRST 290: History of Life

An interdisciplinary study of the origin and history of life in the universe. Faculty of the Center for Creation Studies will draw from science, religion, history, and philosophy in presenting the evidence and arguments for creation and evolution.

I think the University of Rhode Island might want to review their doctoral programs a bit. It looks like someone can slip through with only the most superficial knowledge of their field, and can admit to faking it throughout their entire training. This kind of slack in the standards diminishes the luster of degrees from RI.

It also says something even worse of Liberty University. They'll hire any old hack to teach their courses.

Darwin Day

As if you didn't know,

it's DARWIN DAY!!!

The 198th Birthday of one Charles Darwin, sparker of great ideas, and great controversy. Religious controversy, but still...they are still keeping it up to this day.

Abstinence Education, abstaining from educating

From SFGate.com, we have a look at the latest studies into the effectiveness of Abstinence-only sex education.

Still not looking good. The best results for it still lie in

While that was too few to reach any conclusions...

The jury is still out...

This is the best support.

Now let's finish the sentences.

"While that was too few to reach any conclusions," he wrote, none of the six programs delayed the age at which the students first had sex.

"The jury is still out," Kirby said in an interview. "At the same time, abstinence-only programs are replacing programs where we have good evidence that they do work."

So not only are they showing no proof of having an impact, they are preventing legit and serious education options from being used.

Why?

For one, some parents aren't comfortable. Which means they don't want to deal with it, and they don't want someone else to either. Heaven forbid the kids get accurate and clinic knowledge. Heaven forbid your kids be aware of the dangers to them. Heaven forbid the kids get real advice, not bullet points, spread to support a socio-political position.

Which is the other trouble with science and reality. It is inconvenient. Gays are freaks. Sex before marriage is evil. FEAR IT.

And we need myths. Or, they'll go blind!

She believes comprehensive sex education should be required, rather than merely permitted, by the state. "Because there are so many myths out there," Brindis said, and teens grow up in a culture dense with sexualized mass media.

"One myth I've heard is that a person can't get pregnant the first time, and by the way, 20 percent of teens do. I've heard that if your boyfriend drinks Mountain Dew you won't get pregnant, or if you have sex standing up. Or if you sit on a cold sidewalk after you have sex -- I heard that in Southern California.

"I see in my work how early childbearing is both a result of poverty and how it contributes to an endless cycle of poverty. There's a lot of people who believe knowledge is dangerous, that if you give kids more information about condoms they'll go out and have sex.

"But isn't it better," Brindis asked, "to give young people and our large immigrant population the tools to plan? I can't think of anything more moral."

This is what they want kids left with? They aren't reducing the odds of the boys and girls getting sexual. But they are preventing education and debunking of sex myths that could keep their kids, childless, healthy, and alive.

Their parents. Shouldn't they be the adults then? Grow up, and grow a pair (testes or ovaries -- Just be adults!).


More reality:

"On the other hand, we know that people in this country greatly value sexual intimacy regardless if it's in marriage. So it's not accurate to say that abstinence is the value of the United States when it's not held by 95 percent of the population."

Kids, don't do what EVERYONE else is doing...Really.

And the Bush Administration:

In November, the Bush administration appointed a new abstinence-friendly chief of family planning at the Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Eric Keroack had been medical director at a Massachusetts pregnancy counseling organization whose Web site states: "The crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality, and adverse to human health and happiness."

And to think we once thought, about 50 years ago, it would be none to long before women would have easier access to the pill, and more control of the issue...but I'll finish that thought later in a rant.

"What's really sad is that Bush is trying to take some of the policies that didn't work in Texas and implement them nationwide."

That grand leadership at work people! Aren't you thrilled?

Hillary fundraising

On Daily Kos they have coverage of the first open fundraiser by Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately Hillary Clinton is someone who gets tarred a lot in the media, long before she even stood for office.

Like Obama, I would prefer if she were to win or lose, it have nothing to do with empty biases and prejudices.

That would be a shame for this country.

Iran and Us

The government is ramping up claims again that Iran is the source of our Iraqi troubles (Or is it al-qaeda ... no ... wait ... Hey, maybe they're in league.). They are also offering up some evidence, pointing to some serial numbers, and then their are the dates in the 2006 range. It sounds like good evidence.

But the people at Daily Kos have a question:

It's easy to see how no one could expect such a message to be found, given that Iraq never has any electricity. Using this method, a second, even more incriminating message was presumably found. For the benefit of the readers, I reconstruct the message here:

"Asef, I wonder if we should start thinking about making these IEDs without the serial numbers. I know we have a nice history with numbers and that the accounting department really appreciates them, but still it just seems to me as though these serial numbers really put our country at great risk. Given that this Bush guy seems to be itching for any excuse to use bunker-busting nuclear weapons against our country, might it be the case that we ought not to mark these weapons with numbers that uniquely identify them as being made in Iran? Ah well, who am I to question the manufacturing procedures of our extremely mysterious and well-trained secret army? Good luck on your evil mission."

Maybe this seems paranoid, and it might be.

But I remember last war. When Powell was at the U.N., he was reading a transcript where some Iraqi soldiers were discussing their illegal weapons.






In essence it was like this:

"Hey we have to move and hide these illegal weapons."

"Yes, we must be careful."

"Imagine if the Americans knew. We would be in trouble."

"Yes, we must be careful, or they will find out."

"Yes, we must be careful, because if the Americans learn of this illegal weapon, we will be in trouble."

"Yes, we must hide the illegal weapons."

That was what it was like, to my ears. It just ringed false to me.

And, based on what I know of our sources and support in the region, I would have called it a fake instantly. But their were journalist then that knew about our oddballs and screwballs being relied on, and they didn’t question.

So after all this, when a question like, why serial numbers, pops up, I have to think,

“Yeah! What the hell!”

It isn’t my fault that the president and his lackeys lied. It isn’t my fault they betrayed out trust.

So it is up to them to restore the trust. It is up to them to dot the i’s and cross the t’s.

It is up to them to make things right.


Here is another question is here.

But what do we make of the claim that Iran is supplying Shia militias with IEDs that are killing our soldiers? An astute reader might point out that up until now the reporting has been that IEDs were the weapon of choice for the Sunni insurgents and not Shia militias - that up until now we have been told that it was the Sunni insurgents that were killing American soldiers. If we are to believe Mr. Gordon, it is now Shia militias that are blowing up American soldiers with IEDs. An astute reader might question such a claim as somewhat incredible. An astute reader would be right.

You know what this looks like? When we needed al-qaeda to be our problem, their Sunni brothers were our nemesis. When we need Iran, it is now all about Shia.

We ahve always been at war with Eastasia!

The Republican alure

Republicans are so fascinating drawing you in with their charming ways.



For instance, changing their history, and LYING about it.

The other day, Rudy went on Fox News and told Sean Hannity that he was in favor of the late-term abortion ban provided it made an exception for the life of the mother. So we went and unearthed a bunch of quotes of Rudy back in 2000 in which he very clearly expressed his opposition to the ban. Those multiple quotes we unearthed can be found here and here.

...

From the New York TImes:

Mr. Giuliani’s campaign aides say his positions on abortion have not changed, and that his stand on what critics call partial-birth abortions has been mischaracterized, saying he opposed a ban only if it failed to include an exception to protect the life of the mother. But the ban vetoed by President Clinton did include such an exception.

...

The fact that Rudy is pro-choice makes things tough enough for them; if religious conservatives learn that he was for partial birth abortion before he was against it, things will likely get even tougher. Now the remaining question is whether other big news orgs will hold Rudy accountable for his glaring flip-flop on the issue.

They are also quiet and mysterious. They know how to keep SECRETS

A standing executive order, strengthened by President Bush in 2003, requires all agencies and "any other entity within the executive branch" to provide an annual accounting of their classification of documents. More than 80 agencies have collectively reported to the National Archives that they made 15.6 million decisions in 2004 to classify information, nearly double the number in 2001, but Cheney insists he is exempt.

Explaining why the vice president has withheld even a tally of his office's secrecy when offices such as the National Security Council routinely report theirs, a spokeswoman said Cheney is "not under any duty" to provide it.

...

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see Article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see Article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

...

In an extraordinary internal challenge to the unruly Office of the Vice President (OVP), the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) has formally petitioned the Attorney General to direct the OVP to comply with a requirement that executive branch organizations disclose statistics on their classification and declassification activity to ISOO.

...

For the last three years, Vice President Cheney's office has refused to divulge its classification statistics to ISOO, despite a seemingly explicit requirement that it do so. Prior to 2002, such information had routinely been transmitted and reported in ISOO's annual reports to the President.

What a rebel!



And, they know where to put the BLAME.

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Senator John McCain, a Republican contender for the White House in 2008, chastised Europe on Saturday for failing to supply the troops and money to win in Afghanistan and said NATO's future was at stake.

In tough comments that singled out specific countries, McCain told NATO allies to move beyond the "false debate" over security and development priorities in Afghanistan -- a dispute that dominated a defense ministers' meeting earlier this week.

...

Despite Afghanistan’s direct links to the attacks of September 11th, the Bush administration has continued its policy of benign neglect toward Afghanistan, instead directing essential resources and troops to the debacle in Iraq.

...

It sounds like McCain is criticizing European countries precisely because they are following the Bush administration's lead - or is it only acceptable to devote inadequate resources to Afghanistan if it's in pursuit of another, worse war?

Apparently the Pottery Barn rules don't count in Afghanistan. We break it, they have to pay for it. Europeans are so immature.


Republicans, drawing you in with their denials, keeping you with their perpetual withholding, and making you love them all over again with the words, "It's your fault." SIGH!

More on Sylvia

Continuing the talk of the earlier Sylvia Browne criticism, we have some thoughts from the afore mentioned Two Percent Company.




They continue breaking down the StopSylviaBrowne response to legal threats.


And while you are in the mood, you should check their Allison DuBois page, detailing her lies.

Troubles in the Bush Budget '07

On McClatchy Washington Bureau, their is some troubling analysis of the new budget being put forward by Bush and his Administration. The analysis finds unadvertised tax traps.

Take a look.


Some facets that are particularly troubling are:

Critics allege that Bush is using sleight-of-hand measures that tinker with complex funding formulas linked to the inflation rate. These measures, which include changes affecting Medicare, Social Security and income taxes, aren't advertised as tax increases. But just like hidden tax hikes, they'd raise revenue from millions of unsuspecting taxpayers.


Right now, for example, individual seniors with annual incomes greater than $80,000 and couples with incomes greater than $160,000 pay premiums on a sliding scale for medical services covered by Medicare. The more income beneficiaries have above those thresholds, the less of the bill the government foots.


But under Bush's proposed fiscal 2008 budget, released on Monday, these income thresholds no longer would be indexed to, and rise with, the rate of inflation. As a result, as nominal income rises over time with inflation, more and more people would meet the formula's definition of higher income.


How many more? Leslie Norwalk, the acting administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said this week that 1.7 million seniors would be affected by 2017.


"By not indexing, what effectively you are doing is lowering these thresholds so that over time, more and more people will be affected by these higher premiums until eventually everyone is," said David Certner, the director of legislative policy for the AARP, the lobby for older Americans.

I am not saying that every health care and social security idea in it is bad. But the White House is trying to hide the costs to citizens, just and unjust.

At least when Reagan went back to taxes after all the posturing, he just did it in the open (He did plenty of other things in the shadows, but still.).

Obama's in.

This is old news at this hour.

But if you would like to watch the video of the announcement, it is on the TPM Cafe.

This is the video.

Stop Sylvia Browne...Dot Com. No really, we gotta stop her.

Sylvia Browne, psychic master...by which I mean, fraud!

Their are many interested in outing her lies and making people aware of her trickery.

Such as the Two Percent Company.


Also their is StopSylviaBrowne.

This is site is of some extra interest at the moment. At Bad Astronomy Blog they have the story of the sites fight with Sylvia Browne and her phantasmal lawyer. Spooky. Nah, he's a normal lawyer. Even spookier!

Browne didn't like the fact the site had her name in its name. Nor the fact they were working so hard to out and show her for what she is. A FAAAAKE!

The lawyer sent Robert a letter, saying that the website name was an infringement on her trademarked name, that the site infringed on some of her logos, and various other ridiculous and frivolous claims.

This was there response:

Your letter of January 26 has set forth no factual or legal basis as to how Mr. Lancaster is in violation of any of your clients’ rights. Unless you are able to cite some support for your claims, Mr. Lancaster will neither cease nor desist from operating StopSylviaBrowne.Com. He is involved in the distribution of important information about this person who, you are reminded, has chosen a life in the public eye.

It is a fact that bears mention that Ms. Browne is a person of wealth and resources far in excess of Mr. Lancaster. There have been instances where monied individuals have used the courts as tools to bully their detractors. You are put on notice that any suit filed without basis will be met with a vigorous defense that will take full advantage of California’s anti-SLAPP law and include motions for legal fees and sanctions. In such suit, this letter will be produced as evidence that your clients were aware that no grounds existed for any lawsuit. You are also put on notice that it may be a breach of ethics for a lawyer to prosecute a case knowing that it has no footing in law and knowing that it is being used to harass the defendant.

Oh, snap!

And the lawyers go scurrying back into their huddle.

What's the Obama?

Yeah, dumb pun. But the shots being taken recently at Sen. Obama have been even more tedious, empty, and banal.

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama

I do have a number of issues with him, as a presidential candidate. He is "young". And inexperienced. I have never seen either as innate advantages in leadership positions. He is an unknown to me still. I am not clear how he falls on various issues. As I am unreligious, his piety doesn't offer me comfort, nor has it made him unacceptable.

I just don't know enough yet. That is his flaw. But he can change my mind.


Unfortunately, for some that is the least of his troubles.

Tucker Carlson, has, as previously mentioned, called his church, and therefore his piety, too Black. And also seems to, in turn, think him unchristian.


But for others this man is just not black enough. For others, like Debra Dickerson, he isn't even Black. She appeared on The Colbert Report recently and asserted to the world that his family history disqualified him from being BLACK.

You see Obama's mom is a Caucasian from Kansas and his dad's black from Kenya. But seeing as his dad is from a part of Africa that was not preyed upon by slavers trading in America, he can't be Black. This making any sense?

Apparently it has been decided, that people who don't have ancestors who were slaves in the 18th century...are not actually Black. Apparently the term Black has NOTHING to do with skin color, or a basic connection to Africa.

Who made this decision? Who has the authority to make this classification even?

If Obama had been coming of age in the 1950's, he would be forced to the back of the bus, with the real Black people. He would face the segregation laws, not be allowed in certain schools, restaurants, and bathrooms.

But the rule is in the book, I guess. What can we do about that?

This attitude is really disturbing and not new at all. With all the issues black activist look to face, with all the conflicts that are decried, this juvenile and down right insulting definition points to a very serious problem. Why go dismiss, deny, and turn on members of the community? Though to some these people don't count anyway.

What a waste. What narrow mindedness. The history of Blacks in this country is a long AND diverse one. Their have been descendants of slaves, but also immigrants of all sorts. And these "others", have faced the same persecution, threats, and abuse. But they also received more abuse from those that should have allied themselves to them. It is a shame.

I do truly feel sorry for this country if their is a sizable segment of the Black community who would vote against Obama for his heritage. I hope that if he is not the general choice of this group, it will be for any of a multitude of other reasons. Not bigotry.


In the Daily Kos article quoted previously, they continued on looking at how this is not an issue limited to Obama, but is a smear thrown at many candidates.

This isn't the first time Obama has had to deal with questions about his political-racial purity. During his first run for Congress in 2000, his opponent, incumbent Representative Bobby Rush, employed a well-worn tactic among entrenched Black incumbents: He suggested that his opponent wasn't "Black enough" to represent the voters of the district. Rush won and Obama continued to serve in the state senate.

Other Black candidates have used this unseemly tactic against fellow African Americans. Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry used it against Patricia Roberts Harris in his successful 1982 reelection campaign. Congressman Earl Hilliard tried it also, albeit unsuccessfully, in his 2002 race against Artur Davis. This "Blacker-than-thou" politics plays on social class, is fraught with danger, and is the unfortunate by-product of the quest to keep power and influence by any means. While unfortunate, it is no surprise that questions are now being asked about Obama.

This call for, in essence, purity of the whole, is a silent continuing threat to Black society. Not addressing and facing it, is an unhealthy choice.


And how can it still be afforded in this day and age. And afforded with such pride.


On Huffington Post they have more.

Of course, there are some Black leaders who are turned off by Obama's educational pedigree and multi-racial background and, thusly, don't think he can aggressively represent Black interests. For them, Columbia and Harvard universities are not the stuff of "real" Blacks.

It is a concern to many that Obama may not be able to nail down the Black communities support. But if it comes down to this, it is...



I'll close with one more of the petty and ridiculous tarring that Obama is forced to deal with. From MyDD, Matt Stoller, looks at a reporter who seems upset with Obama.

Now, Obama's about to endure a going-over that would make a proctologist blush. Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili?

How suspicious! The answer, as both Brad Delong and The Poorman note, is that Swahili and Arabic are extremely similar languages because of millenia of trade between East Africa and the Middle East. Delong writes, ""Barack" is both a Swahili word meaning "blessed by God" and an Arabic word meaning "blessed.""

Obama / Bin Laden
Barack Hussein / Saddam Hussein
Barack - Swahili / Arabic
madrasa / public school

And on it goes. Whether it is purposeful, or ignorance, it continues. Obama has an odd name, he has some tie to Islam, and he has lived places we have never been, with names we may not be able to pronounce. The fact the media is happy to jump into and then embrace the fear and paranoia is damning of them.

How dare they buy into the fear mongering for a moment. They need to grow up. They are embarrassing.


There are many people in this country that need to grow up. It is all just embarassging.