Jim: Repeating, we arere still working out the kinks in our roundtables participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and me, Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ. Ty has some e-mails that he will bring up from time to time. Iraq Veterans Against the War and their Winter Soldiers Investigation are not off limits; however, we have at least two features planned on that which we haven't started working so if your comments fit better with either of them, you may want to hold that thought. Betty's got a topic down on the list which is rare so we'll move to that after Ty's first e-mail. Ty's picking the e-mails himself, he works the account here more than any of the rest of us. Also this is a rush transcript and the illustration that accomanpanies this feature is done by Betty's oldest son whom we thank for it.
Ty: Meredith Leigh DeRogatas e-mailed and asked that her full name be used. She's writing regarding an entry C.I. did for The Common Ills on Saturday. She writes, "I remember the summer of 2006 very well. I could tell by comments at your site" she means here "at The Common Ills and at Kat's Korner that C.I., while on board with the Troops Home Fast by CODEPINK, had a problem with it. I did as well and appreciated the repeated reminders about health conditions, checking with your doctor, etc. Somehwere in a roundtable that went up, I hate the archives, HATE them, during the summer of 2006, C.I. and Ava make comments that they're holding their tongues on one aspect of the action. It's getting close to two years since the action started but I am so glad that C.I. wrote about it today" she e-mailed on Saturday "because I did find the action to be poorly thought out, non-inclusive and potentially damaging. When I turned 14, I started starving myself which soon became binging and purging. In my high school junior year, my parents put me into a substance abuse treatment center because insurance would pay for it and private counseling had done nothing. Although no longer active in my disease, each day is a struggle and I found the message to starve yourself for peace to be offensive. I also found it very offensive that when certain participants wanted to stop-off in Jordan and then rush off to Lebanon, they called a 'victory' and the fast was forgotten. Had they believed in it, they would have continued the horrible action. They didn't which indicates it was 'starving for attention.' I remember all the big talk to the media about how 'We will fast until the troops come home, no matter when that is!' Obviously it was all talk and I'm with C.I. 'NEVER AGAIN' because women never need to be encouraged to starve themselves. As someone in recovery for my eating disorder, I say NEVER AGAIN. Thank you to C.I. for mentioning it and I hope you will make time to include C.I.'s piece in a highlight if nothing else because it is a very serious issue for many women."
Ava: It is a serious issue. I am so glad that Meredith wrote. Originally the organization didn't even include the advice that anyone thinking of fasting should see a doctor which, for liability issues alone, they damn sure should have. We had a big debate about that action and whether we noted it or not, let alone took part in it. We received hate mail here over cautionary notes and they went into the public account as well. But the reality is that the cautionary notes we provided should have been provided by that organization. I agree with Meredith it's not a minor issue.
Jim: What we ended up doing here and at sites like Mike's was encouraging a one-day-a-week action. C.I. went on the fast and was on it the entire time. There wasn't any cheating and Kat was very alarmed before she had to leave for Ireland due to a relative becoming gravely ill.
Kat: I was. I was appalled by the action, like Meredith. I'm not trying to call Mike out but he didn't get it.
Mike: No, I didn't. That's why we had a long, long talk here. That was Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava, C.I., Rebecca, Betty, Kat and myself. I don't believe anyone else was yet participating but I could be wrong. But I didn't get it. So everyone explained the points Meredith was making. C.I. and Ava were furious about the action and torn between supporting it or calling it out. They ended up taking part in it but did those things Meredith's talking about, the 'cautionary notes.' Due to the talk we had here, I plugged the one-day-a-week action at my site and took part in that and only that. But I readily own up to the fact that I wouldn't have seen a problem with it if that talk hadn't taken place.
Dona: The action had been called and we were left with weighing whether or not we hold our tongues, participate or what. Meredith is correct that there were 'cautionary notes' and that Ava and C.I. noted in a roundtable here that they were holding their tongues. To clear up about the archives, Ty, Jim and I flipped the template in early to mid 2007, the template for this site, and when we did that, we not only lost our weekly archives, all archives from every year run together. We did make a point to create a 2007 folder ("Third Estate 2007 archives by week") before 2007 went into the dogpile and vanished as 2008 began. But the biggest complaint remains the archives and, again, Jim, Ty and I did not realize flipping the template would reduce everything we'd done since 2005 into one link. It's a huge problem for dial up readers because it takes so long to load. For those who do load -- dial up or broadband -- you then have to go through page after page. It's a mess and I apologize for that. But in terms of that action, Meredith's right, it never needs to happen again.
Rebecca: We are all for the troops home now. And new actions need to be tried. For that reason, we were willing to support it but C.I. steered people interested in it, I'm talking about online, to the one-day-a-week action if they were interested and wanting to take part. To back up on the entry Meredith's writing about, I'm breaking Jim's encouraged rule, CODEPINK currently has nothing up about IVAW's Winter Soldiers and that's why C.I. brought it up on Saturday. Kat probably wants to grab that.
Kat: I do. I have blogged at my site that CODEPINK needs to get serious about the illegal war. I don't mean "No humor!" I do mean I am damn tired of alerts from them about everything under the sun except the illegal war. I'm far from the only member of the community that feels that way or feels that the DC house is turning them into a lobby group. They have stepped away from the Iraq War and are off on all these other actions. I remember very clearly when the group that went to Lebanon returned. It was probably October and Andrea Lewis was interviewing Medea Benjamin for KPFA's The Morning Show. The Lebanaon issues were not resolved but the war had stopped there and I had to listen to a lengthy segment that barely mentioned Iraq. Any national action they had today I would probably not take part in. In the Bay Area, where I live, there are grumbles from CODEPINK members about the actions currently being taken nationally and I share those concerns.
Betty: For me, CODEPINK becomes useless with that action. We had concerns about the Troops Home Fast, but we agreed to support it and we did. But what followed was not about Iraq and that's the action I trace as the beginning of the end for me personally. I agreed then and now with C.I.'s comments -- and am glad they went up Saturday -- that women do not need to be encouraged to starve themselves. Both due to the issue of eating disorders and due to the fact that it's a "Have pity on us!" I think there's more than enough weakness in the 'peace' movement as it is. More than enough playing pathetic with candelight, silent marches. Had Iraq fallen off CODEPINK's radar before the action, I would have strongly called out the Troops Home Fast back then. But we thought, and C.I. noted reservations about the action in real time online and noted that CODEPINK was apparently trying to think outside the box, this is one action and there will be others. There have been no others nationally. And I'm not expecting them, regardless of the Democratic presidential nominee, to do anything of value in the lead up to the November election. If that is how it works, they will be dumped from my links. I have never seen a group work so hard to be useless.
Jess: Agreed. The film that's mentioned, Charles Ferguson's No End In Sight is the title. That is a piece of crap war progandad and I was already helping out at the public account for The Common Ills when the CODEPINK member was writing in with her dumb ass whines and promoting that film. Why a member of anti-war group is promoting a film that sells the lies that the Iraq War just needed planning is a question mark about the group for me to this day. Why they felt the need to promote that crap made by a man who supported the illegal war before it started, throughout making the film and while promoting it is a question mark. C.I. actively called Academy Award voters to campaign against that film and repeatedly noted, "Do we want to live with the damage for the next thirty years the way we still do from The Deer Hunter?"
Ty: On that, there's an e-mail about C.I.'s entry that says David Swanson promoted the film "so it can't be all bad."
Jess: If you're trying to end the war, you're not reading Swanson's crappy writings. He's nothing but a schill for the Democrats as he made obvious with non-stop promotion of Barack Obama who is not for ending the illegal war. And the impeachment movement should buy a clue: Short of Bully Boy starting a war with Iran, there is no impeachment. The window of opportunity has passed. You've wasted your time and everyone else's. The Democratic Party is happy to use the crimes of Bully Boy to promote "Elect Democrats!" They are not interested in impeaching Bully Boy. They have blown off the impeachment movement repeatedly. It's not happening. Buy a clue. Congress isn't interested, they're worried about their own and the presidential elections in November. All the Democrats will do between now and then is hold hearings intended to embarrass Republicans in the hopes of increasing their membership in Congress.
Jim: Spoken like a Green Party member. I'm teasing Jess, but I do agree with him. There's not anyone participating that doesn't support impeachment but there's no one that holds the belief it's possible barring war with Iran. Okay, let's go to Betty's topic which is race and gender. Betty, you wanted to do a preface remark or two.
Betty: Or three or four or five. We saw the usual crap last week as people pretended to be shocked by Geraldine Ferraro's remarks. When my father heard them, he asked that I push for them to be addressed here because he wasn't sure how much play they would get community wide. He was surprised, happily so, that Kat, C.I., Elaine and Mike wrote about it. But he thinks Ferraro got a raw deal, I agree, and so that's part of my topic. In a wide ranging review, responding to questions, the Democratic Party's 1984 vice-presidential candidate, shared that race was playing a part in this primary and noted that no woman of any color or race would get the treatment Bambi did. It is the truth and I'm not surprised that a lot of dumb asses didn't know better but I was appalled to see the likes of The Nation lie to their readers in efforts to yet again promote Bambi. John Nichols is a sad, sad joke.
Elaine: I think we saw the same thing we've seen repeatedly from the Obama campaign which is to scream racism over and over and I am sorry that Ferraro stepped down. I'm not a fan of her and C.I. and I have both noted our opinion of her in the past so this isn't coming from a "We love Gerry!" perspective. It's coming from a "Can we raise the level of intelligence in the room?" Apparently we can't.
Ty: I agree and I do think they use racism, the Bambi campaign, to silence dissent. For the record, you have Cedric, Marcia, Betty and I participating who are all African-American or Black, depending upon the term we choose to use. The Obama campaign has repeatedly used racism and, for me, it became most clear in October of 2007 when they elected to ignore protests and put homophobes on stage. That was insulting on so many levels including the fact that they fed into hatred as well as a stereotype that African-Americans must be homophobes. They get what they wanted, as the campaign admitted, and then they issue a statement that is basically acknowledging they used homophobia but saying they don't support it. I know Betty also wants to address Reverend Jeremiah Wright's remarks and this may be a good time to bring that up.
Betty: It's a mess of issues in one boiling pot so everything will probably all bubble over. My father also wanted me to push to have that addressed. Reverand -- let's not even call him that. Jeremiah Wright gave sermons which were offensive to begin with but, on top of that, thought they were so delightful that they must be sold online. I'm wording carefully right here and want to note that my father would be very offended if Wright was quoted directly on the most offensive remark. He stated that Black Americans should not sing "God Bless America" but instead blank damn America. People are trying to act like that's acceptable and, I agree with Mike, I think a large reason for that is because the people in Panhandle Media are not know for their Christian beliefs. That's fine and dandy and I don't take offense to that in most cases. Believe or not believe what you want. But don't claim to speak for religious Americans about what is acceptable and what isn't. The next Malcolm X says it, I would applaud it. But there's a world of difference between what we expect from our clergy and what we expect from our activists. That is not acceptable behavior in a church coming from the leader of the congregation. It is offensive on so many levels including the most basic issue of langague.
Marcia: Mike was right, like Betty's saying, if you weren't raised in a church, you're looking at it as "It's social criticism." But, as Betty's pointing out, it is not the way we conduct ourselves in church. It is not acceptable. It is offensive. And let's get to the heart of it which is that no preacher, pastor, person of the cloth, stands up in a church, at the front of a church and damns anything. Damnation has a very specific meaning to anyone raised in a church. I don't expect the non-believers to get that. Fine. But don't turn around and tell the rest of us that it's a 'smear' against Obama or that it's no big deal. It is a HUGE deal.
Cedric: And I would assume, correct me if I'm wrong, Marcia, that a preacher comfortable calling for the damnation of anything is comfortable calling for the damnation of something else. If he had said, "Damn gays," I think we'd all be offended, religious or not. But those of us who are religious have every right to be offended and appalled by that. He's not just a man, his position makes him a representative of God, he leads the prayer, he is the church's spiritual voice so when he calls for damnation of anything, it has a level to it that non-believers do not get. Now they already don't believe so they're not getting what he was calling for but he was calling for the United States to be damned. They blow off religion as it is so they don't grasp the power -- and abuse -- of Wright's statements.
Rebecca: I'm going to jump in with some basics. Damnation, from Webster's, is "the act of damning; the state of being damned." Which is defined as "to condemn to a punishment or fate" and "to condemn to hell" and "to bring ruin on". I'm not religious or irreligious, I was raised as a church goer and the issue has come up again since we're new parents, the issue of do we want to provide that or not, my husband and I are debating that with regards to our baby. Pastor, by the way, is defined as "a spiritual overseer."
Cedric: Because that's what he or she is. So when Wright's condemning the United States to hell, it is offensive. When he's calling for ruin of the country we live in, it's offensive. And it was really offensive to watch Panhandle Media either ignore this issue or minimize it. He is the head of a church, standing up in front of the church as the leader and using the Lord's name in vain while calling for the damnation of the United States.
Marcia: Well maybe some in Panhandle Media also want to see the US damned? I mean that's worth raising as a question. But they totally missed the boat. On Friday at work, this was the second most discussed issue. I was streaming IVAW's hearings so that was the most discussed issue. But all but one person I work with is African-American and only one woman, African-American, was defending it. She's a conservative and started going off about how she believed the "voo doo" in New Orleans was responsibile for Hurricane Katrina, that it was God's punishment. I'm moving to a different aspect of Wright's remarks, by the way. Before I could speak, a co-worker, African-American male, spoke up to explain to her that Wright was saying the US actions with regards to other countries were responsible for 9-11. As he slowly walked her through it, she said, "Oh, I didn't hear his remarks." Having them explained to her, she was offended. Now blowback is an acceptable theory and I'm all for a discussion of it but I'm not really sure it belongs at the front of the chuch in the type of language Wright uses. But in terms of calling for the damnation of the United States, that is unacceptable for a man of the cloth. It carries more weight coming from someone who is supposed to know something about damnation because he or she is supposedly saving us from eternal lives in hell, in the flames of hell. This was not a minor thing and if anything else had been damned and the man hadn't been the head of Barack's church, it would have been called out.
Ty: And it wasn't just said, it was marketed. That church found that damnation so 'inspirational' they sold it on DVD. That church is nuts and it has damaged Barack's standing among African-Americans which is the only reason he issued that pathetic statement where he stated he found some of Wright's remarks offensive.
Betty: And we're supposed to believe he finds it offensive when the reality is he allowed that man to spritiually guide him for 20 years. Today, when there's an uproar, he is suddenly offended but he sat through that and many other sermons for 20 years. The deluded will buy that he finds it offensive. Hopefully that will be a small number. Now I like Malcom X. I read him. He's not dead to me nor are his critiques. But White Panhandle Media holds MLK up as the standard and more or less ignores Malcom. Wright is no MLK and Wright is no leader. That Barack Obama belonged to that church is offensive. And we need to think -- beyond religion because that was my larger topic -- about what the indications are. There is too much obsession of his pretty, stolen words. We need to be looking at records for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama which Bambi doesn't want because his record is tiny and what's there is frightening.
Wally: Cedric ran this by me Saturday morning because he'd been talking about this with Betty. They want to talk about gender and race in terms of the two Democratic Party candidates. The concern is that America lept on board with Bully Boy in 2000. Yes, Al Gore won that election but Bully Boy went into the Oval Office and there were the many months of he's not that bad, give him a chance. We knew all we needed to know about Bully Boy in 1999 and 2000 if we had paid attention, from the people he surrounded himself with to core beliefs.
Betty: Neither candidate has the support of all targeted groups they supposedly have. Hillary has a number of women supporting her and Barack Obama has a number of Blacks supporting him. Is this merely knee-jerk reactions of gender and race? I want to explore what the candidates really indicate. I wanted to do that before Saturday but, listening to the IVAW hearings, I especially wanted to. My mother turned to me during one section and said, "Well I guess we just heard from Blackzilla." She was referring to a woman who felt the need to use her time -- to misuse her time, which she did the entire time she rambled and I'll come back to that -- to slam Hillary with the implicit endorsement of Obama and I don't know how many White people caught that because it was coded. And there is a Black code the same way there is a code for religious, White conservatives. But let me criticize Blackzilla right now. I won't be kind like C.I. and wait a few years. To Blackzilla, "Get your act together. You were an embarrassment throughout. No one needed your free association rambles at the microphone. You were supposed to be testifying. You were supposed to have a presentation together. Had you been speaking of a trauma you'd gone through, I'd be happy to cut you some slack for meandering. But you weren't and you just wasted time and that was before you got around to your slam on Hillary. So, Blackzilla, before you next speak about sexual violence, get some notes together and don't waste all of our time standing before a microphone trying to figure out what you want to say. You were an embarrassment and, thankfully, you were the only one who embarrassed themselves so."
Wally: I figured Betty was going to bring that woman up. I know C.I. and Ava have something from that panel that they're going to highlight and I'm fine with us working on something together about that panel, but I agree with Betty that if you have no testimony of your own to share, you get your presentation together before you stand up in front of microphone. That was the most disjointed waste of time when that woman was speaking. And, my opinion, except for two, it was a weak panel because it didn't stick to the topic.
Marcia: Sorry, I'm still laughing at Betty's mother's name for her, Blackzilla. I agree with it but I'm too tickled and need a moment to get serious.
Jim: Okay, let me be moderator because Marcia's not the only one laughing at that nickname. The issue that Betty's raising is that with large numbers of women of all races behind Hillary and large numbers of African-Americans of both genders behind Barack --
Ty: More so with males on Barack.
Jim: Okay, well with those numbers, we want to explore what the candidates actually have to represent for what's seen as their core constituencies. Let's start with Hillary and Ruth, like Elaine, mainly listens so let me bring Ruth in right away.
Ruth: Okay. Well Hillary is a woman. Hillary has spoken out for decades on women's rights. She supports the right to choose and reproductive rights. She is a woman who worked and had a family. In fact, no offense to Bill, but since the Obama campaign tries repeatedly to reduce her to 'wife of,' we should probably note that Hillary brought in a large portion of the money pre-White House. Their daughter Chelsea works. So a woman's right to work isn't under seige with a Hillary presidency. As Dona pointed out, the Supreme Court is getting no attention. Why is that? The next president will likely appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade is under attack and we're one judge away from the right-wing achieving their destruction of it. We know Hillary is not going to nominate anyone whose record indicates an inclination to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Dona: I agree with everything Ruth just said and I'm amazed that the Supreme Court is not an issue in this election.
Rebecca: Well I'm not. For one thing, Barack Obama has no record to point to -- 'present' isn't a record -- on reproductive rights. I'm probably leaping ahead but, as Betty said, everything's bubbling over. So when you can't make that argument for your candidate, Katha Pollitt, for instance, isn't going to be raising alarms about the Supreme Court. Add in that we're talking about Roe v. Wade and issues impacting women lives always receive less attention, as do women, and haven't we seen that in the election coverage thus far?
Wally: After I got off the phone with Cedric Saturday morning, I was talking to my grandfather and mother about this and my mom wanted Elaine's post Friday noted. Elaine was talking about how abortion, which she supports, is not a personal concern for her.
Elaine: Right, I had my tubes tied years ago. Even if I hadn't, I'm probably too old to get pregnant. So it would be really easy for me, if I was just going to focus on myself, to say, "Eh, who cares about abortion?" But abortion rights were fought for and won and I think people -- women and men -- need to be really concerned about what happens with the Supreme Court because the right to privacy -- already under attack in terms of our papers and our homes -- could be shredded completely and don't think for a moment that some conservatives don't object to Roe v. Wade due to it's finding of a right to privacy. Add in that for those opposed to abortion, as soon as it's overturned, they will find a new target and opposition to abortion has largely been about opposition to the rights of women. So we should be thinking about what's next on the chopping block after the right to abortion. I really agree firmly with Betty that we need to be asking what the records indicate and what the candidates represent. I think it should be noted that the promises of Hillary's record are also true of Cynthia McKinney's.
Ruth: In terms of the right to privacy, if I could add one more thing, the Supreme Court case finding on right to privacy goes beyond just Roe v. Wade. I am thinking of my grandson Jayson and I am forgetting the case --
C.I.: Lawrence v. Texas which overturned so-called 'sodomy laws' -- so-called because, when applied, it was only applied to same-sex couples. It is actually founded on the 14 Amendment and due process but it can be seen as part of our recognition of the right to privacy especially considering that the plantiff was engaged in sex in the privacy of his own home -- consentual, no-money exchanged, both parties being of legal age sex.
Ruth: Thank you and so I think we need to think in terms of what happens if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Like Elaine said, a great deal will be on the chopping block. The Supreme Court matters. In 2004, we heard somewhat about it; however, Katha Pollitt showed up late to whine that we did not hear enough. Apparently her brain hasn't kicked into action yet this election cycle and may not since she has decided homophobia is a-okay in order to support Barack. Since 2004, we have seen two Supreme Court Justices replaced. One was opposed to reproductive rights, one was a semi-supporter of reproductive rights. Both men who replaced the justices are opposed to reproductive rights. It matters now even more than it did in 2004.
Ty: Let's flip it over to Barack because I think we know Hillary's record.
Mike: Well what's the record? Present? The laughable 'Feminists for Barack' haven't pressured him in any way on the issue of reproductive rights. The cowardly and communist crowd got on board with him and he never even had to give a speech on abortion. They sold out themselves. He's got no record on abortion. He has a record of endorsing and using homophobia if it gets him what he wants.
Betty: In terms of Hillary, her politics on women's rights represent the majority of women. In terms of Barack, he does not represent Black people.
Cedric: He doesn't like the 'messy' sixties that without which he wouldn't be running for president. He's a bit like the push-up bra junior 'feminists' in that he's got no sense of history or loyalty to those who fought for the advances we have. He's not promings African-Americans anything. More than that, he's not in favor of affirmative-action. He's now twice skipped out on Tavis Smiley's State of Black Union. There is no represntation other than skin color.
Marcia: I would agree with that. There's no representation factor with him. He's not part of the struggle and never has been. It's a complete failure of Black Intellectuals that he wasn't pressed or held accountable. As a gay woman, I have no faith that my rights would be protected with him in the White House. His actions in South Carolina were typical of the way he's repeatedly run his campaign and, with no record, we really just have his campaign to go by. I think we've repeatedly seen red lights that should have had us stopping. In terms of Ferraro, she did the unthinkable: She noted the emperor has no clothes. The reaction, to get back to that, was typical with Whites and African-Americans who should have used the opportunity to educate instead screaming racism. She wasn't racist and she wasn't wrong. And race is not an 'off limits' topic but when you ignore it, as so many Whites in Panhandle Media do, you probably don't want anyone else exploring it.
Rebecca: Well, no link because it's Andrew Sullivan, but he outlined at The Atlantic very clearly how his support was due to Barack's perceived race. And of course, Peter Hart's article in Extra! last year outlined the various White gas bags creating the myth of Bambi based upon the fact that he was seen as Black. Again, this was an opportunity for education. Both in terms of the topics of race and in terms of the media, but instead, we got outlets failing to provide that and instead expressing faux outrage.
Elaine: Well, let's talk about that. C.I. and I went to the fundraiser for Barack's Senate run. We were excited. He was supposedly 'anti-war' and we were surely excited about the idea of the White-White Senate getting some diversity. But here's what happened, we're face to face and he's not for withdrawal. His skin color no longer mattered. He was a fraud and a fake. We left.
Now what Samantha Power's revelation to the BBC did was take that beyond private conversations to the public but no one wanted to deal with it with very few exceptions. The idiot at TomGram knows how to keep The Nation money rolling in, bury it in the midst of an article, an overly long, badly written article. That was your revelation, that told you that Obama was not about ending the illegal war. Now when I began noting that and when C.I. began noting that, that Barack was not for withdrawal, and explained that face-to-face, we didn't know he was going to run for president. He's now running for president and Panhandle Media continues to repeat the lie that he will end the illegal war. On the issue of the illegal war, the only difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that he's been caught repeatedly lying though Panhandle Media works overtime to pretend otherwise.
Betty: And they really do and they really did. Include the idiot David Swanson with his sexist posts that he thinks are okay because they're not racist. We've seen a very ugly campaign season and I was so disappointed when it was announced on Friday that they were calling a truce. Whenever the heat gets turned up on Bambi, it's time for a truce. Jesse Jackson Jr. can get on TV and lie about Hillary and not be called out but when realities emerge about Bambi, it's time for a truce? There should be no truce and there should be no nonsense that race hasn't played a part or that White people have repeatedly ignored the way the Obama campaign has used racism throughout the campaign.
Cedric: I'd agree with that. I'd also argue that the press has worked overtime to ignore how race has been repeatedly used by the Obama campaign and that they use "racist" to clobber anyone who critizes. I think Ty wanted to speak on that.
Ty: I did. Robert Parry, Robert Scheer, all the rest of you, you're not Black. You're not an honorary Black. I know the idiot Randi Rhodes thinks she's an 'honorary' one. She's not. And when Bill Clinton and others can be called racists for observations, you better realize that you're going to have to shut your mouths a great deal over the next years because otherwise you will be called racists the same way you have called other White people racist. With old assholes like Robert Scheer, this African-American male gets the idea Bobbit Scheer is scared of African-Americans. Boo, Bobbit, boo! He can't call out real racism and he's an old dottering fool who thinks that by supporting a candidate just due to the candidate's skin color makes him 'down' and 'with the people.' It doesn't. So all you Bambi Lovers trying to lie for your candidate who are White, grasp the fact that no African-American hears you and thinks, "They get it!" You don't. You prove it day after day with what you write about, who you highlight and who you book on your programs. I am highly offended that Bill Clinton was smeared and that's been something that's bothered me and has only amplified. I realize that a bunch of you pathetic Panhandle Media types were around in the 90s and had no influence. You'll have no influence in the future as well. But no one should ever forget the shameful behavior you have exhibited.
Marcia: Well, to make a different point, C.I. said at one point that it was about fairness and that Hillary should rise or fall on her abilities. I've seen none of Panhandle Media's Bambi groupies make that same case for Bambi. And they can't because, if left to the merits of his actual record, he has no candidacy.
Mike: Well, this is something Elaine, C.I and I have been discussing, how shallow it reveals Panhandle Media to be. To take it back to the point that the bulk of what Bully Boy's done being clear before he was sworn in, it's very clear what Obama will do. If Obama gets the nomination and isn't creamed in the general election -- which will most likely happen -- you're going to have to either hear mea culpas from Panhandle Media or they're going to pretend they didn't support him. Either way, the time for the truth is now.
Jess: Let me jump in on that and, in honor of Betty calling out that bad speaker at the hearings, let me call out someone. Peace Mom, I'm voting for Nancy Pelosi now. Cindy Sheehan showed up last week with a column about the Bully Boy. If there's anything a "Peace Mom" should have written about, it was Bambi's non-binding 'promise' to withdraw combat troops if elected. She didn't do that and I'm sick of her. I'm sick of her being a dupe and a stooge. She was a panelist for some unknown reason at the KPFA aired Green Party debate. She's not a Green. She has endorsed Cynthia McKinney so maybe, having done that, she shouldn't have been included on a panel to begin with. But what did she do with her time? Blah-blah-blah. Did Peace Mom bring up Iraq? Hell no. Peace Mom trashed Hillary in comments at Common Dreams. She joined in with the Bambi crowd. She refused to call out Bambi or to plug my party's candidate, Cynthia McKinney. Cindy Sheehan, we don't need your help, you're not a member of the Green Party. Stick to losing your campaign and butt the hell out my political party because anyone so sickening that they would stay silent on Barack Obama isn't anyone I support or need to hear from. Maybe you really should have retired because you have learned nothing from your experience and you are showing no bravery while you're hopping all around the country pretending to run to represent my area in Congress. I'm announcing right now that there will be no positive attention to Cindy's campaign unless and until she can use her voice to call out Barack Obama. She's useless otherwise. She comes off like a fake and phony by propping up a man who's not only not going to bring ALL troops home but, it turns out, is offering pretty words he doesn't intend to keep. A lot more parents are going to bury their children and that the Peace Mom is going to go silently along with the lies means I have no interest in her and I will use my "kill" option for any piece suggested on her. I am offended as a Green Party member that she's advancing Obama's campaign while claiming to support Cynthia McKinney. I have no use for her and I've spoken to many other Greens who feel the same way. Again, should anyone propose an article about Cindy and should she continue to be silent on the realities about Obama, I will use my vote to "kill" that piece. It will not happen, we will not praise someone who wants credit for endorsing Cynthia, credit with Greens, but sneaks onto the Common Dreams website to take part in Hillary Hatred while refusing to call out Obama or promote Cynthia. Every Green I've spoken to is disgusted. For that reason, a number of Greens in the Bay Area will be voting for Nancy Pelosi if things continue.
Jim: Wow. I don't think anyone knew that was coming. Okay, we need to wind down and Dona's note says C.I. has spoken the least.
Ty: Then let me pull out another e-mail. A jerk off e-mails complaining the C.I. is "calling superdelegates for Hillary. And you said you would stay out of the election."
C.I.: I have stayed out of the election. I haven't endorsed anyone when there was a large field. I've given a lot of money to the Democratic Party over the years and I know a number of super delegates. The race is now down to two people and Obama has not been held accountable, the press has not covered him accurately which is why so many idiots believe he's 'anti-war.' Elaine and I know a great deal more than we've ever shared here and we do not support him. It was always clear that, short of getting honest about the war, I had no use for Bambi. It comes down to him and Hillary? Hell yeah, I'm making calls. I'm also doing face to face lobbying. I'm not calling strangers, I'm not lobbying strangers. I'm talking to super delegates I know, that I have known for many years. This isn't a normal part of the election process and I will participate in it. Along with many things cited already in the roundtable, equally true is that Africa is where US imperialism wants to move next. Bambi has surrounded himself with not only imperialists but ones who have advocated for wars in Africa. Due to the way he's perceived, wars in Africa would receive little calling out under a Bambi presidency. A Hillary presidency would be another matter. It would be another White face on US imperialism if she attempted it and it would be loudly called out and possibly stoppable as a result. There's a reason Bully Boy went to Africa to hunt up base locations. He didn't find any. Mr. Pretty Words might. Mr. Pretty Words would certainly give a 'benevolant' stamp on US imperialism -- remember, he's not opposed to war -- and I don't think we'd see the calling out required to stop any of those wars. I also don't think his chances are great in a match up with McCain and I've never hidden the fact that I'm a Democrat. I'm not Laura Flanders or Matthew Rothschild or any of the other groupies hopping on the Bambi wagon and pretending to be a Democrat, I've been a Democrat my entire life. I'll be damned if these interlopers of questionable character are going to continue their assualt on the Democratic choice which is what Hillary is -- overwhelmingly is to the bulk of Democrats. Hillary hasn't run "Be a Democrat for a Day!" campaigns as Barack Obama did in Nevada and Ohio. The very base that Panhandle Media claims to want to connect with has supported Hillary in large numbers. In terms of long range vision, the Latino population is the segment that is growing the most and will determine any political party's future prospects. They have overwhelmingly backed Hillary. Despite the lies and predictions from Laura Flanders and others, Latinos have repeatedly stood with Hillary and that is a growing segment of the population and one that will determine future elections. For the good of the party, that needs to be seriously considered, whatever decision is made. Barack Obama has divided the party, has made gestures to Republicans, has preached "unity" in a manner that, had Nancy Pelosi done the same, she would never have become Speaker of the House and the Democrats would not have won control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections. They spread a lot of lies, the Bambi campaign, and a lot of astro-turf. He does not help the ticket, that's a lie and we dealt with it a long time ago here. Hillary excited working people and because Panhandle Media has another candidate of choice, they want to ignore that fact. To clean up the mess Bully Boy's leaving America with will require a lot of work and that's not going to come about by making gestures to Republican members of Congress who not only went along with it in real time but have no regrets about it. The country needs a fighter and a uniter and that's Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party. Do we want to live through four years of weak leadership which, if called out, results in charges of racism? That's really the only club the Bambi campaign has to use and they use it repeatedly. Do we want to see someone who will nominate to the Court a nominee Democrats can rally behind or someone who wants to reach across the aisle and nominate the same type of candidate we could get from a President John McCain? As Ruth pointed out, the LGBT community has been targeted and, if he becomes president, and they are targeted further, who's going to speak up for them? Self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders who couldn't and didn't say a word about Bambi's use of homophobia as a campaign tactic? In terms of accountability, Panhandle Media's already demonstrated that they are comfortable calling out Hillary so we could have a semi-functional media under her as president as opposed to the fawning, groveling press they have already indicated they will provide Bambi with. Afri-Com is a huge issiue and it's one that, like the Supreme Court, is being ignored. Bambi's advisors want war with Africa, they've advocated for military action there already. Him in the Oval Office could sell those wars to Americans -- especially when you have a fan club posing as a press. Hillary couldn't sell it. Equally true is that the biggest criticism of Bill Clinton -- and Hillary is not Bill -- from the right, that didn't have to do with sex, was that he listened to the people. He 'polled' and he 'tested.' Cut me off when you need to, Dona, but if people are going to use Bill as a gauge for Hillary, then let's give some credit where it's due. By that gauge, Hillary would listen to the people. And spare me the Iraq e-mails, neither candidate is calling for an end to the illegal war so put it aside, or vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, or for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. Equally true is that anyone with a record will make mistakes and I find it hilarious, as one of the few calling out the sanctions in the 90s, how many are outraged by them today. So many who gave passes in real time, now want to scream about the Iraq sanctions. The reality is that whomever is president will be called out for something in 20 years and that's just how it works. It's because knowledge is not a base line and progress is never complete. For those reasons, any country will always have embarrassments in their past and good for that because otherwise you're saying that people don't evolve, that understanding doesn't increase from generation to generation. You're saying human development is static. Were the race right now between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't be contacting super delegates. But there was a difference between Edwards and Clinton on the war. Ditto Bill Richardson. There is no significant difference between Obama and Clinton on the Iraq War except, as was pointed out earlier, Barack has a pattern of lying about it. Actually there are two more, Bambi's non-pledged plan depends upon mercenaries replacing US soldiers and Bambi's surrounded by a large number of advisors who are advocates for 'counter-insurgency' which is nothing more than 'kill the people.' But aside from that fact, we're left with two temperaments. Barack's a go-along, Hillary's a fighter. We're left with other issues and Barack appointing the next Supreme Court nominee is frightening considering his refusal in Illinois to stand up for reproductive rights and the fact that, as Mike pointed out, alleged 'feminists' have given him an endorsement without ever making demands. Hillary has a record on reproductive rights and on the rights of women. Among the advances that have been made in the last decades was our society's increased rationality with regards to the LGBT community and Bambi's use of homophobia indicates that goes out the window. I agree strongly with Dona that no one can claim to be a feminist and support a candidate who uses homophobia. Equally true is that no one can claim to be a feminist and elect to support a candidate with nothing to indicate support for women and trash a candidate with a record of support for women's rights including reproductive freedom. Considering that he didn't feel his own wife was either trust worthy enough or smart enough to go to a job interview by herself and instead had to tag along, I think we have a public understanding of where he stands with regards to women. If Cindy McCain was sharing that story, feminists would be calling out John McCain for that action. Instead, nit-wits like Katha Pollitt want to act like it's no big deal. When women are again facing back alley abortions and are under attack, it's going to be really hard for 'feminist' Katha to justify her support for Barack. As Betty's topic underscored, it's not that people will be facing something new, it's that a Barack presidency means they will be confronted with all they ignored during the campaign.
Jim: Let me again say "wow." And I'll also note that C.I. did not just endorse Hillary for president, but was stating that Hillary was the best of the two choices left in the Democratic Party primary. That's not a sentiment any of us disagree with.