Rev. Wright Got It Wrong

I tried hard to be objective. I watched the Bill Moyers' interview and came away thinking that this was a reasoned and cautious man. I felt that he presented, with some inaccuracies, the plight of the African-American situation with some clarity. I was concerned about his remarks, "I do what I gotta and he says what he has to say as a politician..". At some point, I felt that there was some tension. I dismissed it, because this was a civil dialogue between a journalist I admired and someone that I had heard about.

But then, he took the bait.

The media dangled the cameras in front of him and everything went to hell from there.

When atoms decay or split, they can create a reaction. Depending on the type of atoms (and I want to be careful, lest our Iranian friends are reading), and depending on the amount, you could have enough of splitting and decaying that could create hydrogen bombs or nuclear bombs.

The fallout with this Rev. Wright, who, within a matter of 2-3 days has morphed into a lunatic of the highest order was a nuclear explosion. We will feel the fallout now and probably through the election.

The tragedy of this recent act of stupidity on Rev. Wright's part is that it completely negates (in part, figuratively) what minorities, particularly African-Americans believe.

Yes, there are different styles of worship and learning, but that is where it ends. Wright, naturally, does not speak for the black community. He is a shadowy pastor wanting for the attention that he sees a former member of his church getting - someone who could very well be the next President of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

As I watched this disaster unfold, it dawned on me that Rev. Wright, though articulate, does possess some of the hallmarks of the underachiever; he wants the attention that someone else is getting, something that he will never get, something that he never had. He wants the successes without the sacrifices. He strikes me, at this point, as someone who harbors an inferiority complex and is quietly intimidated by others. But that is for the psychiatrists to determine.

The reality of Wright's "not deficient, just different" argument, is that if you argue the point ad nauseam, you flirt with negating the very merits of equality (Brown v. Board, Sweat v. Painter)...and what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence addresses.

Moreover, while it may be true that African-American ancestors were on the bottom portion of slave ships, as Rev. Wright reminded us, it is equally important to note - and historically accurate! - that some African Chiefs played a critical in the slave trade and probably could be seen waving goodbye, with loads of gunpowder (in exchange for women and children) as the Colonists left the coasts of Africa!

Therefore, by way of Rev. Wright's reasoning, this would mean that the slave traders and African-American ancestors who sold others into slavery, worshipped the same God! This would contradict what he argued in his speech. Is it possible for the slave trader and African Chief to have the same God in Wright's world?

In Sweat v. Painter, the University of Texas (1946) did not want to admit Mr. Painter to the all white law school, because he was black. As a result, they set up an underfunded school for black law students. It is reported that some black students had to borrow books and faculty from the main university!

A "we're not deficient, we're just different" philosophy would have been applauded by our friends at the University of Texas. Hell, Rev. Wright, even as an African-American, could have been made chancellor with his ridiculous logic. With his reasoning, Sen. Barack Obama, if alive in 1946, would be studying in a school that was "separate" - and "different" of course, with hardly any books and no faculty!

The recent numbers - CNN's Poll of Polls - have Sen. Obama's lead cut, yet,
again.

NATIONAL

45% Obama
44% Clinton

Real Clear Politics Poll

NORTH CAROLINA

+10.3% Obama

INDIANA

+2.2 Clinton

Sen. Clinton's Narrative Myth: The Result of Obssessed Ambition

I know that many voters are having trouble understanding the delegate math, or "delegate calculus" as some pundits like to call it. But a strange thing has happened since the Pennsylvania Primary. Clinton's narrative has morphed ever more into myth.

Sen. Clinton won this primary by 10pts, even though weeks before the primary she was ahead by over 20pts. She argued that Sen. Obama can’t "seal the deal" but she cannot explain why she squandered a 20pt lead and nearly lost a state where she has so many ties.

Sen. Clinton seems to have forgotten basic math, especially when it comes to adding.

The DNC decided not to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan because they moved up their primaries. These states, violated the very rules that they agreed to have the DNC impose if a state were to breach. Somehow, Mrs. Clinton thinks that, in her calculations, she is ahead in the popular vote. (this could possibly be true if you count FL and MI).

The DNC Chairman, Howard Dean, said that he will not change the rules at the end of the game. Florida and Michigan, sure, are swing states, but that does not make them more important than other states, he said. Case closed.

So what’s Sen. Clinton’s angle here? Why is she spinning that she has more votes?

Mrs. Clinton is trying to convince voters (and the superdelegates!) that she is more credible, because of the "higher amount of votes she has" in her calculations...which is no calculation... The superdelegates know that she doesn’t have more popular votes; she knows it; Sen. Obama knows it, but as always, she is playing some voters for a fool, thinking that they have forgotten that FL and MI are not included - and will not be - in the calculation.

I think she has given in to her own myth. And this is the result of an obsessed ambition. Perhaps she thinks that she can convince voters that FL and MI are being counted, much like she convinced the voters in Ohio that they really did lose jobs because of NAFTA without admitting that she supported the legislation with enthusiasm.

It seems to me that Sen. Clinton is addicted to her own myth.

She simply cannot get away from twisting the truth. We know she cannot provide health care for every American; we know she did not dodge sniper fire in Bosnia and we know that Chelsea was not in New York on 9/11. Sen. Clinton said that she negotiated open borders in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees. But the border was opened a day before she arrived! And now, she expects the voters to believe that somehow Florida and Michigan are counted in the primary math here.

Here is some math from RealClear Politics that is simple and needs no re-interpretation. I hope she can figure it out.

1. Total Delegates Obama +135
2. Total Pledged Delegates Obama +156
3. Popular Vote Obama +1.7 percentage pts
4. North Carolina (Polls) Obama +15.5
5. Indiana (Polls) Obama +3.0

RCP Avg

Democratic Nomination Obama 48.8%
Clinton 42.2%

Sen. Clinton is a lawyer, so I suspect, at this stage of the primary, she knows what the phrase,
"compelling argument" means.

Sen. Clinton Will Destroy The Party Before Seeing Obama As President

I am of the belief that Sen. Hillary Clinton would rather see Sen. John McCain get elected as President of the United States, than lose to Sen. Barack Obama and return to the Senate.

The evidence that points towards this is overwhelming; delegate math, negative campaigning, and of course her response to Sen. Obama's comments about voters in "small towns" in PA. Here is an excerpt of what Sen. Obama said:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Sen. Obama was not "looking down" on anybody. He was pointing out a real truth that has plagued, not just small towns in PA, but also towns in Ohio (remember NAFTA?) and other states that have lost jobs because of the current administration and lunatic policies (NAFTA) that Sen. Clinton supported.

Sen. Clinton responded with, "that's not my experience" in response to Sen. Obama's remarks. Oh really? Well, what is it then? You cannot tell me that people who have seen jobs leave their towns are happy and enthusiastic. You cannot tell me that people in PA or Ohio who have seen plants shut down have not either privately or publicly displayed some level of bitterness.

Mrs. Clinton used this as opportunity to make it seem as though Sen. Obama was "looking down on people".

"They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on.", Mr. Obama said. That, to me, clearly does not sound like someone is looking down on another person or persons.

It is tragic, that Sen. Clinton on the brink of failure - failure to get the nomination - will stoop so low, after squandering a double digit lead in the PA polls, and suggest that her "opponent" is so insensitive that he would suggest such a thing.

These are the politics of a desperate candidate, who, after having her own ethics called into question, will attempt to create an image for her opponent that would be unappealing to the voters of PA.

Once again, as with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue, the media picked up on this - something which really had no fuel - and gave into the Clinton machine. And sadly, we have another fight; never mind the issues - the main issues - but now we have merely a comment made and then the media and Sen. Clinton hit the airwaves with their spin.

Tragic.

And yet, "it still moves". The Obama campaign will survive. Sen. Clinton does not want a position in an Obama White House, that is why she will (a) fight to the death and (b) do whatever she can to destroy Sen. Obama, thereby letting McCain win. If I can't have it, nobody in the party can...

I would rather have a President who speaks realities about my predicament, than one who lies and lies..and lies...and lies and characterizes these lies as words that were "misspoken" even though she was often reading from prepared remarks!

This is why the Democratic election is so remarkably unprecedented. Not so much because you have a woman and an African-American, but because the African-American candidate - his demeanor and his way of deflecting, and tolerating, is so representative of what many people go through day-to-day.

Sen. Clinton's energy does not come from her belief that she is "more qualified" To be sure, they are probably equally qualified at this point. But her energy and obsession is fueled by the myth that she, and her economic background (earning $109 million over a 6-7 year period) is better and that even if she lies and lies and lies, she is still entitled to win, because of who she is, and of course, who her candidate is....

She reminds me of a disgruntled baseball pitcher, whose team has no shot at the World Series.

The next batter she faces happens to be the opposing team's pitcher, who interestingly, has a pretty impressive batting average. The pitcher who is batting could very well see his team go to the World Series. As the pitcher on the mound, what does she do? Does she walk him? No. Does she throw a change-up? No. She hits the opposing pitcher who happens to be the opposing team's ace. End result? He cannot pitch in the world series.

Every time she says something, she is hitting the Democratic Party!