Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist and a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Read his column here
Ruben Navarrette says Sarah Palin's critics challenged her because of prejudices about small-town values.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- During the presidential election, some Democrats demanded to know how I could defend Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Simply put, Palin is my people. She's small-town folk who wound up in the big leagues.
Because I grew up in a small town with a population of less than 15,000 people, I was disgusted by the insults and condescension coming from those who think of themselves as the enlightened elite. Meanwhile, in small towns, I detected great affection for Palin. People talked about how she was "a real person" who "reflected their values."
The most significant divide in America isn't Red State vs. Blue State, it's rural vs. urban. The country mouse and the city mouse are still slugging it out.
In 1982, New York Mayor Ed Koch ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York. Some say the deciding factor was when Koch described life in upstate New York as "sterile" and said he dreaded living in the "small town" of Albany, if elected. That didn't play well in rural areas.
Now comes Colin Powell. During a recent appearance on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Powell attempted an autopsy on the Republican Party's failed presidential bid. He went after Palin, accusing her of pushing the party so far to the right that it went over a cliff.
Don't Miss
Commentary: What Alaska learned about Palin
Navarrette: Respect Obama's choice of Warren
Navarrette: What went right in Illinois scandal
In Depth: Commentaries
"I think [Palin] had something of a polarizing effect when she talked about how small-town values are good," Powell said. "Well, most of us don't live in small towns. And I was raised in the South Bronx, and there's nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx."
You'd think the presidential campaign was about conservatives picking on urbanites. It wasn't. Sure, some Republicans probably made a mistake by using phrases such as "real America" or "real Americans" as a rallying cry for the base. Americans who live in cities might have thought they were being slighted.
But those phrases referred as much to people's politics and values as it did their zip code. I live in a city with a population of more than a million people and I never thought the GOP singled me out as not being a "real American."
If anything, it appeared that big-city liberals were tapping into prejudices about small-town America to belittle the governor of Alaska
After Powell attacked Palin, one of the governor's most vocal defenders, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, returned the favor by attacking Powell.
"What is this hatred for conservatives and small-town people and Sarah Palin?" Limbaugh asked on his radio show. "I know a lot of people that are from the Bronx, Gen. Powell, and if you think the values there in the Bronx today reflect the ones you grew up with, take a trip back and see if the street corners and the activities there are the same as when you were growing up."
Limbaugh got it. When people use phrases such as "small-town values," it's as much about time as it is place. The idea isn't that people who live in small towns have better values than people who live in cities. It's simply an attempt to recall, with nostalgia, what life was like when more Americans lived in small towns.
It used to be that more families ate dinner together and high school students worked summers and after school. It used to be that our schools didn't make excuses for why some kids don't learn because they were too busy trying to teach them.
It used to be that parents weren't interested in being their kids' best friends, only good parents. And it used to be that people pulled their own weight and would never dare ask for a handout.
During a recent interview with the conservative newspaper, Human Events, Palin was asked if she thought her humble background accounted for some of the flak she got from the media. Palin acknowledged that she didn't come from elite stock, but said that she was grateful for that.
"I got my education from the University of Idaho because that's what I could afford," she said. "No, I don't come from the self-proclaimed 'movers and shakers' group and that's fine with me. It's caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pull myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am."
Sarah Palin understands a lot about America. Too bad many Americans don't understand Sarah Palin. No worries. They may get another chance to acquaint themselves with her -- in say, four years.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
GOP Hopefuls Offer Radical Changes to Health Care
by Julie Rovner
All Things Considered, January 14, 2008 · With health care a top issue for both Democratic and Republican voters in this year's presidential campaigns, candidates from both parties have unveiled plans for curbing health costs and boosting insurance coverage. But voters might be surprised by which party's plans would actually change the health system more.
The Democratic candidates have mostly emphasized covering the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance.
"The single, most important element ... is does it cover everybody?" said former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at a health care forum last fall. "Because if it doesn't cover everybody, then I think whoever the candidate is should be made to explain what American they believe is not worthy of health care coverage."
Republicans, on the other hand, tend to stress ways to bring down health care costs. Here's how former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson put it at the GOP debate just before last week's New Hampshire primary: "We've got the best health care in the world. It costs more than it should. We can either go one of two ways. We can let the government take it over, and that'll lower costs — like they do in other countries. We will also sacrifice care, which nobody wants to do. We're not going to do that in this country. Or we can make the markets work more efficiently."
Different Directions
It's true, said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, that the Democrats want to rely more on government programs and the Republicans more on the free market to fix what's wrong with the nation's health care system. It's also true that Democrats are proposing to spend more money on their plans, he said, "but it's actually the Republicans who are proposing the bigger transformation of the health insurance system and indeed the more radical change, and that's been completely lost and misunderstood."
That's because most of the Democrats — still smarting from the failure of the last health reform effort in the 1990s — want to build on the existing system, in which most people get their health insurance on the job. Their plans would have government fill in around the edges and offer subsidies to make coverage more affordable.
Republicans, on the other hand, want to go in an entirely different direction — using the tax system to encourage people to purchase their own individual coverage.
"Only 17 million Americans right now buy their own health insurance," said New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a New Hampshire debate.
"If 50 million Americans were buying their own health insurance — because it would be just as tax-advantageous to do it that way — and we had a health savings account, people — economists believe there'd be a 30 (percent) to 50 percent reduction in the cost of health insurance and quality would come up."
That last contention is debatable. But what isn't, said Altman, is how the average consumer would be affected by the Republicans' proposals.
"Because they see a world in which we move away from the current employment-based system, and to some extent our existing public programs, and many more Americans purchase their health insurance themselves," he said. "That's a much bigger change."
Employer-Sponsored System
But other health analysts aren't convinced the GOP plans are really all that radical. Joe Antos of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said he thinks the Republican changes would likely be more gradual.
"I think what the main Republican candidates are really talking about is the idea that we want to level the playing field on taxes, but I don't think they seriously imagine the employer-sponsored health system is going to dry up and blow away — in fact it won't," he said.
That's mainly because big employers, at least, still use health insurance as an important tool to recruit and retain workers. And besides, he said, when it comes to changing health care in this country — nothing ever happens fast. That's something Democrats and Republicans do agree on.
All Things Considered, January 14, 2008 · With health care a top issue for both Democratic and Republican voters in this year's presidential campaigns, candidates from both parties have unveiled plans for curbing health costs and boosting insurance coverage. But voters might be surprised by which party's plans would actually change the health system more.
The Democratic candidates have mostly emphasized covering the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance.
"The single, most important element ... is does it cover everybody?" said former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at a health care forum last fall. "Because if it doesn't cover everybody, then I think whoever the candidate is should be made to explain what American they believe is not worthy of health care coverage."
Republicans, on the other hand, tend to stress ways to bring down health care costs. Here's how former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson put it at the GOP debate just before last week's New Hampshire primary: "We've got the best health care in the world. It costs more than it should. We can either go one of two ways. We can let the government take it over, and that'll lower costs — like they do in other countries. We will also sacrifice care, which nobody wants to do. We're not going to do that in this country. Or we can make the markets work more efficiently."
Different Directions
It's true, said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, that the Democrats want to rely more on government programs and the Republicans more on the free market to fix what's wrong with the nation's health care system. It's also true that Democrats are proposing to spend more money on their plans, he said, "but it's actually the Republicans who are proposing the bigger transformation of the health insurance system and indeed the more radical change, and that's been completely lost and misunderstood."
That's because most of the Democrats — still smarting from the failure of the last health reform effort in the 1990s — want to build on the existing system, in which most people get their health insurance on the job. Their plans would have government fill in around the edges and offer subsidies to make coverage more affordable.
Republicans, on the other hand, want to go in an entirely different direction — using the tax system to encourage people to purchase their own individual coverage.
"Only 17 million Americans right now buy their own health insurance," said New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a New Hampshire debate.
"If 50 million Americans were buying their own health insurance — because it would be just as tax-advantageous to do it that way — and we had a health savings account, people — economists believe there'd be a 30 (percent) to 50 percent reduction in the cost of health insurance and quality would come up."
That last contention is debatable. But what isn't, said Altman, is how the average consumer would be affected by the Republicans' proposals.
"Because they see a world in which we move away from the current employment-based system, and to some extent our existing public programs, and many more Americans purchase their health insurance themselves," he said. "That's a much bigger change."
Employer-Sponsored System
But other health analysts aren't convinced the GOP plans are really all that radical. Joe Antos of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said he thinks the Republican changes would likely be more gradual.
"I think what the main Republican candidates are really talking about is the idea that we want to level the playing field on taxes, but I don't think they seriously imagine the employer-sponsored health system is going to dry up and blow away — in fact it won't," he said.
That's mainly because big employers, at least, still use health insurance as an important tool to recruit and retain workers. And besides, he said, when it comes to changing health care in this country — nothing ever happens fast. That's something Democrats and Republicans do agree on.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Obama calls truce with Clinton
RENO, Nevada (CNN) — Barack Obama is calling for a truce of sorts with rival Hillary Clinton following days of a heated back-and-forth between both the Democrats' presidential campaigns over Clinton's record on civil rights.
“I may disagree with Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards on how to get things done or how to get there, but we share the same goals, we're all Democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights," Obama said told reporters in Reno, Nevada.
The comments follow several days of heated rhetoric from both campaigns following Clinton's remarks to a reporter last week on the legacies of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done," she said, in her continued argument that her experience shows she can get more done as president than Obama.
Some African-American leaders criticized the remarks as denigrating the civil rights movement and Dr. King. The criticisms were amplified by Obama's campaign and Clinton later said she was "personally offended" the campaign was "distorting her words."
Meanwhile, speaking at a Clinton campaign event Sunday, BET founder Bob Johnson lashed out atObama's campaign over the criticism, and seemed to take a swipe at the Illinois senator's admitted drug use as a young man.
"As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book," he said..
Johnson later claimed he was not referencing Obama's past drug use specifically, but was referring rather to his time as a community organizer.
Speaking Monday, Obama said he wanted to end the current "tit-for-tat" with Clinton.
"I don't want the campaign in this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat back-and-forth that we lose sight why all of us are doing this," he said. "If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading, or in some way is unfair, then I will speak out forcefully against them, and I hope the other campaigns take the same approach."
Shortly after Obama's comments, Clinton released a statement saying it's time to "reach common ground."
"We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side," the New York Democrat said. “And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”
– CNN's Alexander Mooney and Chris Welch
“I may disagree with Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards on how to get things done or how to get there, but we share the same goals, we're all Democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights," Obama said told reporters in Reno, Nevada.
The comments follow several days of heated rhetoric from both campaigns following Clinton's remarks to a reporter last week on the legacies of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done," she said, in her continued argument that her experience shows she can get more done as president than Obama.
Some African-American leaders criticized the remarks as denigrating the civil rights movement and Dr. King. The criticisms were amplified by Obama's campaign and Clinton later said she was "personally offended" the campaign was "distorting her words."
Meanwhile, speaking at a Clinton campaign event Sunday, BET founder Bob Johnson lashed out atObama's campaign over the criticism, and seemed to take a swipe at the Illinois senator's admitted drug use as a young man.
"As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book," he said..
Johnson later claimed he was not referencing Obama's past drug use specifically, but was referring rather to his time as a community organizer.
Speaking Monday, Obama said he wanted to end the current "tit-for-tat" with Clinton.
"I don't want the campaign in this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat back-and-forth that we lose sight why all of us are doing this," he said. "If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading, or in some way is unfair, then I will speak out forcefully against them, and I hope the other campaigns take the same approach."
Shortly after Obama's comments, Clinton released a statement saying it's time to "reach common ground."
"We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side," the New York Democrat said. “And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”
– CNN's Alexander Mooney and Chris Welch
Clinton Receives Tepid Reception at MLK Event
January 14, 2008, 5:28 pm
By Patrick Healy
Speaking to black and Hispanic New Yorkers this afternoon, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to quell the controversy over race and the Democratic presidential nomination fight by crediting the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King for his “march for freedom and justice” that had benefited both herself and her rival, Senator Barack Obama.
But Mrs. Clinton’s appearance and remarks, before the Local 32BJ union in midtown Manhattan, were not exactly a smash. The audience, made up mostly of security guards, applauded steadily when she entered but did not roar – and there were a few scattered boos. Much of her speech was met with silence. Less than half of the room gave her a standing ovation when she left.
Mrs. Clinton heaped praise on Dr. King, whose upcoming birthday was the focal point of the labor union event, and stressed the importance of Democratic and racial unity. She did not explicitly address the recent uproar over her remark; last week, as part of her new strategy of presenting herself as a “doer” and Mr. Obama as a “talker,” she said:“I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.”
Mrs. Clinton has been criticized by Obama supporters and others as minimizing the effectiveness of Dr. King (and, to a degree, Mr. Obama). This afternoon, however, she accentuated the positive, saying she was thrilled that “a woman and an African-American are running for the presidency of the United States.”
“We may differ on minor matters, but when it comes to what is really important, we are family – we are all bound together to insure that the least, the last , and the lost among us be given every opportunity to break the chains that still hold them back and down,” she said.
“Both Senator Obama and I know that we are where we are today because of leaders like Dr. King and generations of men and women like all of you,” she added.
The audience did not applaud during this portion of her remarks; they reacted more positively when Mrs. Clinton talked about the role of faith in her life.
Afterward, several audience members said in interviews that they admired and respected Mrs. Clinton but were not especially moved by her comments. A couple of them said that the pace of were delivery was too quick, without pauses or artful cadences, to build much excitement. Others said they were troubled by the specter of race in the Democratic contest, though they added that they were not entirely clear on what Mrs. Clinton had said last week about Dr. King.
As for the key question – which one of their own to support in the New York primary on Feb. 5, the hometown Mrs. Clinton or the African-American Mr. Obama? – several people said they were undecided but leaning toward Mr. Obama.
“My older relatives all like Hillary – I’m in my 50s – and all of my younger relatives love Obama,” said Joyce Tabb, of East New York, who worships at one of the co-sponsors of the event, St. Paul Community Baptist Church.
“Hillary is very good – she’s a Christian woman, she’s been to my church – but Obama is so fresh and brilliant,” Ms. Tabb added. “We’ve got a woman and a black man. It’s
By Patrick Healy
Speaking to black and Hispanic New Yorkers this afternoon, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to quell the controversy over race and the Democratic presidential nomination fight by crediting the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King for his “march for freedom and justice” that had benefited both herself and her rival, Senator Barack Obama.
But Mrs. Clinton’s appearance and remarks, before the Local 32BJ union in midtown Manhattan, were not exactly a smash. The audience, made up mostly of security guards, applauded steadily when she entered but did not roar – and there were a few scattered boos. Much of her speech was met with silence. Less than half of the room gave her a standing ovation when she left.
Mrs. Clinton heaped praise on Dr. King, whose upcoming birthday was the focal point of the labor union event, and stressed the importance of Democratic and racial unity. She did not explicitly address the recent uproar over her remark; last week, as part of her new strategy of presenting herself as a “doer” and Mr. Obama as a “talker,” she said:“I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.”
Mrs. Clinton has been criticized by Obama supporters and others as minimizing the effectiveness of Dr. King (and, to a degree, Mr. Obama). This afternoon, however, she accentuated the positive, saying she was thrilled that “a woman and an African-American are running for the presidency of the United States.”
“We may differ on minor matters, but when it comes to what is really important, we are family – we are all bound together to insure that the least, the last , and the lost among us be given every opportunity to break the chains that still hold them back and down,” she said.
“Both Senator Obama and I know that we are where we are today because of leaders like Dr. King and generations of men and women like all of you,” she added.
The audience did not applaud during this portion of her remarks; they reacted more positively when Mrs. Clinton talked about the role of faith in her life.
Afterward, several audience members said in interviews that they admired and respected Mrs. Clinton but were not especially moved by her comments. A couple of them said that the pace of were delivery was too quick, without pauses or artful cadences, to build much excitement. Others said they were troubled by the specter of race in the Democratic contest, though they added that they were not entirely clear on what Mrs. Clinton had said last week about Dr. King.
As for the key question – which one of their own to support in the New York primary on Feb. 5, the hometown Mrs. Clinton or the African-American Mr. Obama? – several people said they were undecided but leaning toward Mr. Obama.
“My older relatives all like Hillary – I’m in my 50s – and all of my younger relatives love Obama,” said Joyce Tabb, of East New York, who worships at one of the co-sponsors of the event, St. Paul Community Baptist Church.
“Hillary is very good – she’s a Christian woman, she’s been to my church – but Obama is so fresh and brilliant,” Ms. Tabb added. “We’ve got a woman and a black man. It’s
The Clinton-Obama contest gets rougher
Will the battle for the Democratic nomination turn into a debate about race and gender?
By Walter Shapiro
Jan. 14, 2008 COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Every warm-up speaker in a presidential campaign should aspire to be seen, heard (briefly) but never, ever remembered. Bob Johnson, the founder of TV's Black Entertainment Network (BET) and the owner of basketball's Charlotte Bobcats, broke that cardinal rule of politics with his 10-minute stream-of-conscious introduction of Hillary Clinton.
From the moment he took the microphone at a Clinton town meeting at Columbia College, Johnson came across as an accident waiting to happen. He started off referring to Barack Obama as "a young, articulate black man" before explaining, "As a black person, I can call him articulate." Johnson ended up sniffing that Obama is "a guy who says that: I want to be a reasonable, likable Sidney Poitier [in] 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.'"
But these were not the lines that gave Johnson Sunday honors for self-inflicted political wounds. What did it was Johnson's riff that Bill and Hillary Clinton were "deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood ... I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book." Despite the laughter from the largely white crowd sparked by the obvious cocaine reference, the Clinton campaign later released a statement from Johnson claiming (warning to readers: Be prepared to giggle) that he was "referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer."
It is implausible that Clinton (or anyone else in her campaign) whispered to Johnson backstage, "Bob, be sure to mention that coke thing." As political surrogates, billionaires -- just like big-name actors -- are the sort of ego-driven figures who are far too self-assured to follow the make-no-waves scripts provided by a campaign. But what Johnson's off-message comments may reflect is the larger frustration within the Clinton campaign over how to challenge Obama, a candidate bathed in non-stick coating.
Normally, the afterglow from winning the New Hampshire primary lasts more than five days. But Sunday was a day unlikely to be commemorated in Hillary's personal highlight reel. In addition to Johnson's gift of gab, Clinton had to endure an hour of jousting with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," complaining on six separate occasions that her words were being "taken out of context." She was buffeted over her earlier maladroit comment that Lyndon Johnson had more to do with passing civil rights legislation than Martin Luther King Jr. (It is never a good sign when a Democratic candidate feels compelled to stress, "Dr. King ... is one of the people I admire most in the world.") And once again Clinton had to justify her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (It is never a good sign when a candidate for president complains to Russert that he is pursuing a "Jesuitical argument.")
After facing off with Russert, Clinton found blessed refuge at Sunday services at Northminster Presbyterian Church in Columbia. Speaking from the pulpit to the largely black congregation, Clinton declared, "This is a moment worthy of celebration. Many of our parents and our grandparents -- and, I dare say, probably many of us -- never thought they would see the day when an African-American and a woman were competing for the presidency of the United States." John Edwards is, of course, still in the mix, but it is a telling symbol of change that the white male is running third.
The problem is that with a dizzying two dozen primaries scheduled between now and Feb. 5, the Democrats run the risk of having the emotionally charged issues of race and gender dominate all other concerns in choosing a presidential nominee. The problems facing the next occupant of the Oval Office range from nukes in Pakistan to neighbors packing because their mortgage has been foreclosed. Yet the political news of the last week for Democrats has revolved around Obama's debate crack that his opponent is "likable enough," Clinton's battle with tears on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, and the skirmishing over Martin Luther King's legacy.
With Obama spending Sunday stumping in Nevada (a state whose Jan. 19 caucuses are now riled by legal maneuvering over voting sites) and Clinton in South Carolina (where the Jan. 26 primary may shape the race), we are in the final days when personal campaigning actually matters. After South Carolina, Americans are about as likely to win enough money in the lottery to retire as they are to talk to a presidential candidate face-to-face. It will all be a blur as voters grapple to make their decisions based on fleeting images and all too little time for serious deliberation. As Stanford University political scientist Jim Fishkin puts it, "We have voting in a few unrepresentative states and then we have a mass televised spectacular in which the aspiration for participatory democracy turns into passive audience democracy."
The irrationality of the "too much too soon" political calendar has long been known -- but only now are voters about to come face-to-face with its demands for instant and irrevocable decision-making. The Democrats will hold only three more debates before the Lollapalooza Feb. 5 primaries. Media consultants estimate that a week of TV advertising in California, New York and the more than 20 other Feb. 5 states will cost about $35 million. These are daunting numbers and it is possible that only Obama (who is already on the air in Arizona and California) will have the resources to commit to a full Feb. 5 ad buy. What this means is that many voters will not even have the luxury of studying anything as substantive as 30-second campaign spots before they vote in the primaries.
Tempers are frayed this week in both the Clinton and Obama camps. There is too much on the line -- and too little time. Speaking to reporters in Las Vegas, Obama complained that the Clintons have "decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign and I don't think anybody's who's watching would deny that." All it will take is a spark (like Bob Johnson's toastmaster-from-hell introduction) for both campaigns to erupt in a blaze of fiery charges. It would be tragic if instead of making history, the Clinton and Obama campaigns end up giving the Democrats a primary fight they would rather forget
By Walter Shapiro
Jan. 14, 2008 COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Every warm-up speaker in a presidential campaign should aspire to be seen, heard (briefly) but never, ever remembered. Bob Johnson, the founder of TV's Black Entertainment Network (BET) and the owner of basketball's Charlotte Bobcats, broke that cardinal rule of politics with his 10-minute stream-of-conscious introduction of Hillary Clinton.
From the moment he took the microphone at a Clinton town meeting at Columbia College, Johnson came across as an accident waiting to happen. He started off referring to Barack Obama as "a young, articulate black man" before explaining, "As a black person, I can call him articulate." Johnson ended up sniffing that Obama is "a guy who says that: I want to be a reasonable, likable Sidney Poitier [in] 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.'"
But these were not the lines that gave Johnson Sunday honors for self-inflicted political wounds. What did it was Johnson's riff that Bill and Hillary Clinton were "deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood ... I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book." Despite the laughter from the largely white crowd sparked by the obvious cocaine reference, the Clinton campaign later released a statement from Johnson claiming (warning to readers: Be prepared to giggle) that he was "referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer."
It is implausible that Clinton (or anyone else in her campaign) whispered to Johnson backstage, "Bob, be sure to mention that coke thing." As political surrogates, billionaires -- just like big-name actors -- are the sort of ego-driven figures who are far too self-assured to follow the make-no-waves scripts provided by a campaign. But what Johnson's off-message comments may reflect is the larger frustration within the Clinton campaign over how to challenge Obama, a candidate bathed in non-stick coating.
Normally, the afterglow from winning the New Hampshire primary lasts more than five days. But Sunday was a day unlikely to be commemorated in Hillary's personal highlight reel. In addition to Johnson's gift of gab, Clinton had to endure an hour of jousting with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," complaining on six separate occasions that her words were being "taken out of context." She was buffeted over her earlier maladroit comment that Lyndon Johnson had more to do with passing civil rights legislation than Martin Luther King Jr. (It is never a good sign when a Democratic candidate feels compelled to stress, "Dr. King ... is one of the people I admire most in the world.") And once again Clinton had to justify her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (It is never a good sign when a candidate for president complains to Russert that he is pursuing a "Jesuitical argument.")
After facing off with Russert, Clinton found blessed refuge at Sunday services at Northminster Presbyterian Church in Columbia. Speaking from the pulpit to the largely black congregation, Clinton declared, "This is a moment worthy of celebration. Many of our parents and our grandparents -- and, I dare say, probably many of us -- never thought they would see the day when an African-American and a woman were competing for the presidency of the United States." John Edwards is, of course, still in the mix, but it is a telling symbol of change that the white male is running third.
The problem is that with a dizzying two dozen primaries scheduled between now and Feb. 5, the Democrats run the risk of having the emotionally charged issues of race and gender dominate all other concerns in choosing a presidential nominee. The problems facing the next occupant of the Oval Office range from nukes in Pakistan to neighbors packing because their mortgage has been foreclosed. Yet the political news of the last week for Democrats has revolved around Obama's debate crack that his opponent is "likable enough," Clinton's battle with tears on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, and the skirmishing over Martin Luther King's legacy.
With Obama spending Sunday stumping in Nevada (a state whose Jan. 19 caucuses are now riled by legal maneuvering over voting sites) and Clinton in South Carolina (where the Jan. 26 primary may shape the race), we are in the final days when personal campaigning actually matters. After South Carolina, Americans are about as likely to win enough money in the lottery to retire as they are to talk to a presidential candidate face-to-face. It will all be a blur as voters grapple to make their decisions based on fleeting images and all too little time for serious deliberation. As Stanford University political scientist Jim Fishkin puts it, "We have voting in a few unrepresentative states and then we have a mass televised spectacular in which the aspiration for participatory democracy turns into passive audience democracy."
The irrationality of the "too much too soon" political calendar has long been known -- but only now are voters about to come face-to-face with its demands for instant and irrevocable decision-making. The Democrats will hold only three more debates before the Lollapalooza Feb. 5 primaries. Media consultants estimate that a week of TV advertising in California, New York and the more than 20 other Feb. 5 states will cost about $35 million. These are daunting numbers and it is possible that only Obama (who is already on the air in Arizona and California) will have the resources to commit to a full Feb. 5 ad buy. What this means is that many voters will not even have the luxury of studying anything as substantive as 30-second campaign spots before they vote in the primaries.
Tempers are frayed this week in both the Clinton and Obama camps. There is too much on the line -- and too little time. Speaking to reporters in Las Vegas, Obama complained that the Clintons have "decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign and I don't think anybody's who's watching would deny that." All it will take is a spark (like Bob Johnson's toastmaster-from-hell introduction) for both campaigns to erupt in a blaze of fiery charges. It would be tragic if instead of making history, the Clinton and Obama campaigns end up giving the Democrats a primary fight they would rather forget
Sunday, January 13, 2008
McCain On Calling Soldiers Telling Them Mom Has Been Deported
I could not find the article. But I have heard it on the news and read it second hand. Help me out.
OK, we can tell American soldiers mom is in jail for breaking the law. Pretty cool. But we can not tell a legal soldier that his illegal immigrant mom is in jail and being deported because McCain says that is uncool.
Analysis. WAKE UP!!!!!!!! If you do not have the courage to tell an American soldier his illegal mom is being deported for breaking the law but you have the courage to tell an American soldier his citizen mom has broken the law and is in jail, then you McCain do not have the courage to lead a nation.
We call that triffling.
OK, we can tell American soldiers mom is in jail for breaking the law. Pretty cool. But we can not tell a legal soldier that his illegal immigrant mom is in jail and being deported because McCain says that is uncool.
Analysis. WAKE UP!!!!!!!! If you do not have the courage to tell an American soldier his illegal mom is being deported for breaking the law but you have the courage to tell an American soldier his citizen mom has broken the law and is in jail, then you McCain do not have the courage to lead a nation.
We call that triffling.
Robert Johnson and Clinton Lovefest????
Ok and now I think we have seen it all. The master of meanless Black television (BET rap videos and suggestive lyrics) and Senator Clinton. Who would have thought it?????http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/politics/13cnd-campaign.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5088&en=e7ee546798dffc06&ex=1357966800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
So first we haul out Magic Johnson and now this. Why????? Well she could put the dislike of comments pertaining to Dr. King to the Obama campaign but many of us heard it realtime. It was a clear case of the Clinton machine inserting foot in mouth.
For many of the voter's the very thought of that it would take someone else or Obama to tell us that MLK's memory had been insulted is well, you know, kind of sickening.
Analysis. Clinton needs a new tactic and fast pertaining to the subject of MLK. Dragging out the Master of BET will not help. In fact it only hurts her cause.
So first we haul out Magic Johnson and now this. Why????? Well she could put the dislike of comments pertaining to Dr. King to the Obama campaign but many of us heard it realtime. It was a clear case of the Clinton machine inserting foot in mouth.
For many of the voter's the very thought of that it would take someone else or Obama to tell us that MLK's memory had been insulted is well, you know, kind of sickening.
Analysis. Clinton needs a new tactic and fast pertaining to the subject of MLK. Dragging out the Master of BET will not help. In fact it only hurts her cause.
A Past Presidents Place
From The State a paper down in SC. http://www.thestate.com/presidential-politics/story/282561.html . Interesting because it brings out that many Blacks in SC are offended by remarks from the Clinton Camp.
Yah Think?
I really like Bill's defense of his wife. I wonder what would have been said by the media if Bush one would have been as vocal pertaining to Bush two.
Anaylsis: You would still be hearing about it. Even though this is the first time a president's spouse have ran for president, historically even though relatives have run, the past president stays in the rear despite how he feels.
Yah Think?
I really like Bill's defense of his wife. I wonder what would have been said by the media if Bush one would have been as vocal pertaining to Bush two.
Anaylsis: You would still be hearing about it. Even though this is the first time a president's spouse have ran for president, historically even though relatives have run, the past president stays in the rear despite how he feels.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Clintons Racist or Race Baiting
Second course: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080111/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_fairytale_dc . Ok did Obama, did he support the war or not? There we have it. Call Big Al and state your case. Poor job at best Bill.
Analysis. Once you know Bill, you can not unknow
Analysis. Once you know Bill, you can not unknow
Clintons Racist or Race Baiting?
So now we have it and here it is from the desk of ElvisInTheMorning. Grab yourself a coffee and let's grab some Political Fast Food. The table was set with this article in the Politico : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html I think as I always have the Clinton's are a little on the southern side. Ol'South that is. During the past campaign if you know the lingo, there are certain buzzwords used like irresponsible, and naive http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3409544. It is almost as if they are talking about a child when they speak about the man. Oh let's not forget the fairytale comment (we know that one) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/08/bill-clinton-targets-media-coverage-of-obama/ and I have this one the ol'hip black friend comment by a staffer that was reported in The Guardian. So live from the United Kingdom because you wanted to see it!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/comment/story/0,,2238184,00.html . You see I did not want you to think I just set around all day and make this stuff up. Where was the american press when this was said or maybe I will see this on Jan 22. Could have missed it today.
Analysis: I think you have both. Racist and Race Baiting. Grab it and run
Analysis: I think you have both. Racist and Race Baiting. Grab it and run
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)