-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/02/we-received-a-nice-note-from-tavis-smiley-about-barack-obama/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I'm telling you, folks LIT HIS #*$% UP this week, telling him to BTFU off of Obama.
They weren't having it.
Tavis is SUSPECT to me.
He's a smart man, who didn't say JACK as Obama was being Dogwhistled by Billary. All those that stayed silent will forever be SUSPECT to me.
And, he shows how small he is, by not allowing Michelle to be there. She would be fabulous, and he knows it. But, she won't take his mess or anyone else's. She'd make any of them COME CORRECT.
But I wanted to address what I think is a growing irrational exuberance concerning Obama. The dream of a black president is so far down on the list of changes I want this country to accomplish that I have a hard time getting excited. There are some things that supersede my desire for a black president and they have to do with the integrity and welfare of this country and our constitution.
I would love to see a secure vote. I would love to see the constitution restored. I would love to see the abolition of slavery. I would love to see wage equality between race and gender. I would love to see corporations not treated as persons or citizens. I would love to see citizens treated as persons.
Now, concerning Michelle’s attendance in lieu of the rock star.
“Allowing her to participate would be the graceful thing to do. It would allow African-Americans and those who love them a chance to get to evaluate her perspective on our issues even more carefully.”
Point of order – the appearance at the State of the Black Union was for candidates seeking nomination for president. Michelle doesn’t qualify. Charming as she is, she isn’t an elected official, is not running for elected office, and is in no way accountable to the electorate. In this forum, under these circumstances, her opinion is irrelevant. She can make no commitments and can’t be held accountable.
If you can’t make it, say you can’t make it. Don’t treat it as though it is insignificant just because your popular. Especially when it was significant enough to get you where you are now. Plainly, Barack thought it was important enough before all the hype. I’m certain he has “better things to do than talk to Tavis” just don’t disrespect the forum or the people, or the process.
There are two kinds of Black leaders – those who speak to white folk representing the interest and concerns of black folk; and then, there are those who speak to black folk about the interest of white folk.
Just change black and white to poor and rich and you have Obama.
I have no faith that he will suddenly get religion once he is in the white house. I have real problems with a man who has no real stake in my history or culture as a descendent of slaves being presented as a model of “Blackness.”
Aside from the Joel Osteen, production heavy, speeches; the great camera work and staging; the fantastic branding and marketing campaign financed by Big Energy and Banking – all innovations in the political process that demonstrate David Axelrod is a real innovator – I have no reason to feel enthusiastic about an Obama presidency. If I go by his policy or voting record (what there is of it) his position is going to further destroy the middle class, privatize every carbon based product through a felonious cap and trade regime and drive America further into feudalism. Barack Obama is the Black republican Alan Keyes wished he could be.
I understand we have to finish this. I understand it is a matter of pride. I just would love for the African American community and Black folk to do this right and not let our emotions cloud our judgment. I honestly fear that the desire for a Black president has caused us to turn off our critical thinking and accept blindly anyone who looks like they might win. This puts Blacks in the position of substituting the judgment of others for our own. Had we done that in any other struggle we would still be in Jim Crow or out right slavery. We have a four hundred year history of political engagement with the idea of America. I find it troubling when Obama can’t even see past to the 60’s. Black folk articulated the platform for human rights out of their struggle for equality and citizenship. Now being black and articulating the political tradition of American liberty that developed out our history is no longer acceptable. Obama wouldn’t exist had our tradition not made it possible. Now he is scared to engage it because it would alienate people. Sounds weak to me.
I don’t mean to rant. But I do feel that the community has lost its sense of perspective. We are so drunk with hope and anticipation at “finally making it” that we are about to sell our soul. I would ask that we remain sober, methodical and rational while we are in the twilight at the crossroads.
Respectfully,
Xenophon
Calling Tavis out on his BS is NOT "growing irrational exuberance concerning Obama". It is what it is: calling BULLSHIT plain and simple.
And what is this?
If you can’t make it, say you can’t make it. Don’t treat it as though it is insignificant just because your popular. Especially when it was significant enough to get you where you are now.
Tavis Smiley's bullshit marketing conference (sponsored by McDonalds, Walmart, etc.) got Obama where he is now? Riight....
Obama did say he couldn't make it because he is not only busy, he is at a CRITICAL juncture in his run with Ohio and Texas on the line and the Clinton's pulling every dirty trick in the book non-stop. Obama has already escaped being ghettoized once and going to this conference to be set up by a stealth Clinton water carrier (Tavis) is NOT a good move because he is running for President of the ENTIRE country - not just Black America!
Long before Tavis's playa-hating, SEVERAL black folks have noted - after watching it on CSPAN for years - that the SOTBU conference is primarily an echo chamber and a marketing force for Tavis and his books. Last year, they spent half of the conference criticizing Barack Obama because he did not announce his candidacy there. Tavis is full of it and obviously shilling for the Clintons. Even his most ardent fans have noted that.
And you know what? It makes me hella more confident in him, that he can stand up and say "this isn't a high school clique, and your needs - though I do care about them - do not outweigh those of the American public, just because you are famous/rich/influential".
That's how I know he will follow through with what he says about standing up to all the OTHER rich/famous/influential people who are gonna try to sweat him.
You go ahead and handle your business, Senator, I'll be making some calls to my friends in Houston and Austin on your behalf.
Tavis Smiley's bullshit marketing conference (sponsored by McDonalds, Walmart, etc.) got Obama where he is now? Riight....
Could not have said that any better...the notion that Tavis is the "next generation's" keeper of the brass-ring is total bullshit. Let me go ebonic, "Tavis, you ain't got no dayum ring!"
If I here another trifling, Uncle-Ruckus negro tell me that my support is just an "emotional" response...people who can neither understand nor embrace the concept of a "post-racial" America deserve to keep "picking the cotton."
Obama is a rock star. Plain and simple. People can sit an analyze the politics and the stances, but most of us don't KNOW any of these people personally, and we make up our minds based on what we THINK we know. And he's a rock star. And he's slick... I agree with Bad Tux on this. But I like that. As a graphic designer, and somebody who spent 7 years in cable television ad sales before being a techie (which was before being a graphic designer), I admire the HELL out of his marketing strategy. It's tight. He got the right people to do the job. They did their research. When they did his logo, they planned it down to the nitty gritty... If you go to his site and click on "People", for every group he's trying to talk to, he adapted his logo to represent the target group. As a designer, let me tell you, shit like that thrills me to the bone. Because it means that if he didn't come up with the plan himself, he has the ability to go get the people to make the plan... and recognize a good plan when he sees one. They paid attention to the details. And there's a saying that goes "God is in the details". Hillary's site, by comparison, is really old, unimaginative, and completely ordinary. She ASSumed she had it going on. She took her spot for granted. Just like she took her votes for granted.
Obama has charisma. We haven't seen that kind of charisma in a long long time. We thought we saw it in Bill, but that's cuz we hadn't seen it since JFK, since Malcolm, since MLK. Hell, my 8-almost-9YO kid is flicking the channel to CNN to see what the news is on Obama. This is a kid who's obsessed with Naruto and Comedy Central.
Does this mean Obama will be a good president? I dunno. On the one hand, I still firmly believe that it's money what makes our world go round. On the other hand, the man has raised over $30 MILLION dollars in a month. That's big. He gives me goosebumps when he speaks, despite myself. And I trust no one, but I find myself being sucked in. I find it very interesting that he was able to convince "white" states like Missouri and Alabama.
“In politics, when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins. Elections are decided in the marketplace of emotions, a marketplace filled with values, images, analogies, moral sentiments, and moving oratory, in which logic plays only a supporting role. Westen shows, through a whistle-stop journey through the evolution of the passionate brain and a bravura tour through fifty years of American presidential and national elections, why campaigns succeed and fail. The evidence is overwhelming that three things determine how people vote, in this order: their feelings toward the parties and their principles, their feelings toward the candidates, and, if they haven't decided by then, their feelings toward the candidates' policy positions.”
Link
Now would you please be so kind as to define what you mean by “post-racial”.
I'm not black, but I have gotten variations of this exact same argument; almost always from people who haven't actually done any research. It boils down to a sort of cynical Occam's Razor: the shittiest outcome is the most likely. The truth is, pessimists are wrong just as often as optimists, but if they are right, the world is shit, and if they are wrong they will still be waiting for that hammer to fall. Forever.
It's alright to feel good about this guy, he's not a messiah who will make everything better but all indications are that he'll make a smart, capable, progressive statesman.
And frankly, how arrogant it is to think that whether or not he has a stake in your version of blackness is relevant to that? It's not an Oppression Sweepstakes, and he's not running for America's Next Top Black. This is the same exact bullshit Gloria Steinem is pushing, just under a different mantle.
has attacked Barack weekly on the TJMS. Never an attack on Hillary.
I sincerely believe he and Hillary
came up with this mess together!
I am so sick of these so called
advocates claiming they LOVE Black people when all they do is advance their personal agendas.
Obviously some folks do not seem to understand it is a new day and time to do things a new way. The hatin is tired Tavis...no one is listening.
If I here another trifling, Uncle-Ruckus negro tell me that my support is just an "emotional" response...people who can neither understand nor embrace the concept of a "post-racial" America deserve to keep "picking the cotton."
What the does this "post racial" mean? Surely you don't think America is equal now do you?
As for Tavis--in his own words, he better check himself before he wrecks himself. Barack and Michelle are doing the work of three Clintons (Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea), and Barack has to contend with the Clinton name recognition and established base. Barack doesn't have time to pander to one demographic--the Tavis Smiley fan club. If Tavis doesn't accept Michelle's attendance, then it will be to his detriment because blacks will see how he's working to sabotage Obama's campaign. And in case Smiley didn't know it, blacks are his base.
"And frankly, how arrogant it is to think that whether or not he has a stake in your version of blackness is relevant to that? It's not an Oppression Sweepstakes, and he's not running for America's Next Top Black. This is the same exact bullshit Gloria Steinem is pushing, just under a different mantle."
Gloria Steinem is a woman's activist and that is her number one above all else is to push womens issues and she makes no apologies for it. I can respect that.
I wish Black people had the same kind of determination to push the Black agenda and make no apologies for it and to see other Black people do well before all else.
TLW
Don't get me wrong. Guys like Tavis have served a useful purpose as self-appointed spokespersons for black America. And I guess black America still needs Tavis as its Charlie Rose, an interviewer whose romance with his own voice drwons out the person being interviewed.
But Tavis, we are heading into a time of new maturity, and -- one hopes -- new and real power. The grown-ups are going to be doing real politics, and they will be making decisions about what to do on a given day and where to campaign based, not on the ego of a of a Tavis Smiley or a Creflo Dollar or an Al Sharpton or a Reverend Ike or a Jesse Jackson, but on what wins.
That you should could even suggest that, in the midst of this life and death campaign, a man who could be our next Presdient should come down to add lustre to your punditry machine fully reveals the kind of self-absorbtion that has kepot black America on the margins of power.
This is the big time, Tavis. The real thing.
Do us a favor and, if you can't get out of the way, at least temporarily shut off the hot-air machine.
You realize this is politics and everything is quid pro quo. If you can’t address my interest you don’t get my vote. Nothing personal just the way the game works.
“Intellect and emotion don't exist separately, in a vacuum. You have to know that.”
You’re ranting not reading. That is why I posted:
“In politics, when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins. Elections are decided in the marketplace of emotions, a marketplace filled with values, images, analogies, moral sentiments, and moving oratory, in which logic plays only a supporting role.”
“exact same argument”
What argument is that?
That because he comes form a different history and background his understanding and experience may be significantly different? Isn’t that what he’s running on?
“It's not an Oppression Sweepstakes”
Where do you get these phrases? Is there a book.
My experience and history and culture, make me aware and concerned about the increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth and resources in this country. It makes me acutely aware of how the “American” identity is supported through systematic exploitation and discrimination. It makes me take a position that the idea of meritocracy and an egalitarian society (please notice I didn’t say color blind) is a good thing. It also makes me realize that certain forms of exploitation such as corporate corruption and usurpation of the political process prohibit the attainment of that goal. Therefore, my version of “Blackness” as you call it requires that the interest of human welfare supercede any profit motive. Especially when it is driven by a fictive entity like the corporation. Having a historical chain of memory (read oral tradition) that extends beyond the Mayflower, I have a perspective that is different than Mr. Obama’s. So if I disagree with him, it’s because he articulates a position that in my historical perspective and judgment, which like all is culturally centered, appears to lead to tyranny and feudalism – a consolidation of corporate profit and government coercion that widens the gap between rich and not rich. Rising Inequality
This is America, still. Why would I vote for someone who can't address my issues and needs. Because he's Black? Oh hell no.
I judge Obama by the company he keeps, his staff, his voting record, and his policy positions. Not out of the well spring of my hopes and desires to see a Black face in the oval office or some urge to be in a "historical" moment. I look at what he has done and what he plans to do.
Within that framework, he hasn't earned my vote. He has yet to deliver a policy position of substance. Which means no numbers or mechanisms. Change is not a plan it's a platitude.
Yeah--my problem is that folks like Xenophon and Tavis Smiley are holding Obama to a higher standard because Obama's black while giving the Clintons a free ride. Blacks only make up 13% of the population. What black candidate will get elected pandering to 13% of the population? Yet, Sen. Clinton can pander to middle-aged white women and still possibly get the nomination. Is that fair?
My other problem with Xenophon is the latent racism in his/her comments that Obama supporters are irrational. Krugman and Krauthammer have also touched upon this. What do these pundits always say? Obama is a great orator, but he lacks substance. In other words, Obama's a great activist who inspires people, but it's going to take a white man/woman to get the job. Does that sound familiar? Why is it irrational to go with the black man? How can we say we've progressed as a society when getting excited about the black candidate is irrational, while women getting excited about Clinton (simply because she's woman) is normalized?
For those who say they don't know anything about Obama's policies, google his website! He has a whole sections on his policies. Saying he lacks substance just proves how lazy one is.
I can't believe the number of Black folks who fell for John Edwards' populice bull shit! He went from the poster child of the DLC to Hughey Long in the span of four years. Please! As Russ Feingold said, his whole campaign was running away from his entire Senate record. And now he's poised to ensorse Hillary Clinton whom he called everything but a corporate whore. John Edwards is showing his true colors. He's nothing but a damn red neck like Bill Clinton pissed that the colored boy got in his way. And now he plans to use his 'southern appeal' (telling White folks in OH and PA to stick with White) to sway this election for Hillary Clinton. Fuck John Edwards and Tavis Smiley!
What issues do you presume are more important to African Americans than the rest of America? Black folks have consistently ranked education, the economy, health care and the Iraq War as issues of most concern to them, MAINSTREAM ISSUES. And Barack can speak to those issues as well as issues of civil rights and justice from Texas, Ohio and Pennslyvania as well as he could sitting on Tavis' stage paid for my corporations like Wal-mart and McDonalds that are union busting poor Black and Brown workers and killing more Black folks than cigarettes, respectively. We don't have to go through Tavis to get our issues addressed.
Now, I read that same article (Washington Post, I think?) talking about how passion wins and the role of intellect is usually just to justify emotion when it comes to voting.
But may I point out, if you want to put that rational impulse to work, the welfare of our constitution would be very well tended to by, say, a constitutional law expert and teacher? I think that's a pretty solid point in his favor, although it has the happy side effect of making me feel good, too. And I had been waiting and waiting for somebody to talk about infrastructure as a long-term economic solution (which would also address issues like the decimation of the black population of New Orleans due to substandard levees, but more broadly issues of poor people and even more broadly, American people), and Obama unveils a wide-ranging and solid plan to do just that, and it tickles my logical desires pink; that whole economic stimulus bullshit had me worried, you see. I like the guy, he seems to be a really good man with a rock-solid character but what makes me believe in him, believe that he will be an effective leader, is the substance. So I'd appreciate it if you did not make the offensive and unflattering assumption that choosing Obama results from some sort of hysteria.
The exact same argument refers to: feminists who have told me that as a feminist, I owe my vote to the woman, regardless of what I think of her politics (hint: not much). The idea that only someone who exactly shares my experiences can govern my country well. Sorry, but that's extra-stupid with a side of WTF. I'm not a man, I'm not black, I didn't grow up in Hawaii, my husband has never been governor or president of anything useful; and as far as I know, neither candidate has a gay southern baptist preacher dad or enjoys painting with acrylics because they lack the patience for oil...identity politics are innately myopic, and leadership of a country as huge and diverse as this one require seeing the forest AND the trees.
I can't believe the number of Black folks who fell for John Edwards' populice bull shit! He went from the poster child of the DLC to Hughey Long in the span of four years. Please! As Russ Feingold said, his whole campaign was running away from his entire Senate record. And now he's poised to ensorse Hillary Clinton whom he called everything but a corporate whore. John Edwards is showing his true colors. He's nothing but a damn red neck like Bill Clinton pissed that the colored boy got in his way. And now he plans to use his 'southern appeal' (telling White folks in OH and PA to stick with White) to sway this election for Hillary Clinton. Fuck John Edwards and Tavis Smiley!
NMP,
Someone on another board wrote this:
I never thought Bill Richardson would come out of this with more of my respect than John Edwards.
NMP,
I was like, who you tellin'? You know how much I've been down on Richardson, but, he's shown far more character than Edwards, who, if he endorses Clinton, he'll be written off forever for me.
To some people, if he admits that he occasionally plays basketball, he's "too black." To others, anything short of wearing an Africa pendant means that he "isn't black enough."
This is how the media pigeonholes all of us, pits us against each other, and keeps us perpetually distracted from actual issues.
As a black man yourself, Xenophon, I would think you should be able to empathize with that struggle.
Any Black person born in America is going to experience the same racism, regardless of where their parents came from. Especially someone born in the 60s.
Just like descendants of white immigrants didn't have to have ancestors who owned slaves in order to benefit from white privilege.
An Obama Presidency will not solve all of the ills of our society...but it will move us one-step closer toward achieving the Dream that MLK died for nearly 40 years ago.
Apparently, community organizing is not substantive-enough work for some of you.
The idea that *O* can not relate to the suffering of the poor is damn-near sinister.
It is essentially swift-boating a war hero while you were either hiding out in the national guard (BUSH), serving on the Board of Walmart (HILLARY), or making millions as a trial lawyer (EDWARDS).
I "double-dog dare" Edwards to endorse Hillary. If you think what Ann Coulter said about Edwards was rough, "he AIN't HEARD nothing yet."
John should know by now that Elizabeth doesn't like it when people talk too negatively about her husband...
First, thank you to those people who have called out Mr. Smiley for his self-obsession.
Next, thank you to those who keep laying waste to the divisive notion that we can only get behind Obama because we are too stupid, too caught up in the rapture, to know any better.
And finally, I want to know one thing. Xenophon, which presidential candidate are you voting for, if any?
-Don't forget the "C" word: CULT.
You mean the transportation plan that includes, Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant? That one? Certainly we need to improve our infrastructure. But it seems to me that the welfare to work model on which the original legislation is based is going to end up subsidizing middle class commutes and drive out less educated workers, particularly from urban areas. Here is why. The JARC grant was primarily to assist the newly accountable “welfare to work” group. It helped them commute eight hours a day in some cases to 8- 10 hour jobs. They had to work, usually I affluent suburbs, where there were jobs. Hard to get to the burbs without transportation, hence the JARC. The problem with the new model is – you need job creation to help the poor out of poverty. If the only jobs you are creating are “green technology and manufacturing jobs” that leaves out most of the poor who are under educated. So what you have is a massive gentrification plan that displaces and relocates the poor from the city to …wherever, and the subsidizes the middle class, as oil and materials makes transportation ever more expensive – think $10 a gallon oil. So in effect what you have in his transportation policy is a further stratification between educated and less educated; rich and poor based on legislation designed to help people out of poverty. You improve infrastructure and access to transportation and at the same time remove those who are less educated and poor.
BTW, if anybody other than the Electoral College voted to elect a president, I would vote for … Barack.
I don’t know; is worrying about the welfare of those displaced by gentrification a racial issue? I learned it from my grandparents who had to migrate from the south during the great migration. Somehow I thought in a democracy asking a candidate to address contradictions I policy was part of the process.
PS
"tickles my logical desires pink"
desire and sensation (tickles) are by definition irrational. The only way to reconcile a rational operator like logic with irrational elements like desire and sensation is through an irrational synthesis, usually through some artistic or phatastic construction ... like an archetype (like a hero), a metaphor (salvation), analogy (titilation).
As Obama has said, this is a movement from the ground up...its up to the people to contact the campaign and/or do their own research for the candidate's views...and not hope the candidate is going to knock on your door.
The Tavis Smiley will learn that the electorate have decided which direction they want the country to take...and resent his threat to Obama -- that his decision to not appear at the BS State of Union -- is a miscalculation --what a crock...and thank you for your support Tavis Smiley
"BTW, if anybody other than the Electoral College voted to elect a president, I would vote for … Barack."
Does that mean you aren't going to vote at all? Or you're going to vote for the candidate you think the Electoral College is going to vote for? And if so, who's that?
In terms of political strategy, yes, I totally agree, Identity politics is long dead. If I had to hear another people of color remark I’d gag. But if “post racial” were to mean, as some take it to mean, color blind I have to object. I don’t want to be colorless. I don’t want it to be ignored. I don’t want to be homogenized into some mutant form of latte drinking yuppie. My culture has served me well and the people who participate in it are dear to me. (Notice never a word about race). I think the process, the democratic one in which we are so passionately engaged, can handle me not thinking very much of the Pilgrims or any of the colonist that invaded America so long as we abide by the rules of the constitution. They can also hadle me questioning a public servant for dismissing a portion of the constituency on which his success depends. He may not win without Texas; he absolutely will not win without the black vote. We can agree to disagree. We can argue over the issues of allocation of wealth and methods of determining need within the framework of our civil society. That way the cultural identity of Blackness isn’t reduced to the experience of slavery and racism. Racism is a symptom secondary to exploitation. Let’s end the exploitation and then, I think, racism will be rather easy to relegate to the past.
what threat?!?
Breath, chill ...
Does that exempt him from answering questios about his platform? Does it prevet him from better articualting and integrating his information, especialy if it's online? Since he hasn't passed very many bills its kind of hard to figure out which pieces of legislation he is refering to or intended to refer to. Sometimes the details matter.
Even though I normally wouldn’t do this (I find something vulgar about violating the sanctity of the voting booth). I have a state that allocates the electoral votes to the winner of the majority of popular votes in the caucus. So yes. I will vote (in spite of the unsecure electronic machines). I cannot vote for president (a little thing like the Constitution of the United States prevents that – me not being an elector and all). I will vote in the caucus for electoral votes (I suggest you have your state adopt a similar procedure). And finally, I will vote for His Lord and Glory Barack. May Big Pimpin’ rule forever.
Now, why does that matter?
Some of us have read all the material, understand it and still have questions. Some of us our serious about our democratic system and participation in it. Some of us play to win. So when an employee of mine tells me he has better things to do than worry about my vote ...
"Even though I normally wouldn’t do this (I find something vulgar about violating the sanctity of the voting booth). I have a state that allocates the electoral votes to the winner of the majority of popular votes in the caucus. So yes. I will vote (in spite of the unsecure electronic machines). I cannot vote for president (a little thing like the Constitution of the United States prevents that – me not being an elector and all). I will vote in the caucus for electoral votes (I suggest you have your state adopt a similar procedure). And finally, I will vote for His Lord and Glory Barack. May Big Pimpin’ rule forever."
I live in Maine. We elect our 4 electors proportionally. Well, sort of. But that's another story...
I abhor the Electoral College.
Reason #1: OHio
Reason #2: TeXas
Reason #3: Polls that show *O* slightly behind Billary in both states.
*O* needs to be in TX with a sombrero on his head, hollering "Si se puede!" until March 4th arrives.
@Xenophon, thanks for instigating this debate. You think that Obama is, "dismissing a portion of the constituency on which his success depends," and what's interesting to me is that I DO NOT FEEL DISMISSED at all...but i'm an AA who has an income that exceeds the poverty level.
Why does *O* have to specifically target AA poverty to make you happy? Why does *O* have to be the "black" candidate for you as opposed to being the "universal" candidate? There are poor caucasians and latinos in this country who need support as much as AAs...should they be ignored too?
There are more NON-AAs on welfare than AAs...it's the Republicans who have traditionally equated being poor to being black...and thus exploited that racist premise to win elections.
Feb 19th Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries.
Feb 21st debate with Hillary in TX.
Feb 26th debate with Hillary in OH.
Mar 4th four primaries - TX, OH, RI and VT.
Obama doesn't need to discuss policy with Hillary on Smiley's show Feb 23rd, between the first and second debate with her.
I think Hillary may have accepted the invitation to Smiley's show only because she thought Obama would be there. Now she's pressuring Smiley to make sure Obama shows up so she doesn't sit there alone looking dumb. That's not Obama's problem, IMHO.
About a week ago we started seeing references in the national media (ABC, New York Times, L.A. Times) to Mr. Obama spawning a "cult of personality" — a theme that had existed in Illinois for some time but mysteriously didn't substantially appear in the national media until about Super Tuesday. The maxim in political strategy is always go at your opponent's strength.
If you turn him on that, the battle is over. So, the cult of personality perfectly targets his strength: That Mr. Obama has a wonderful personality. The Clintons (presumably) are suggesting, in effect, that he may be delectable, but he's not electable. That it is unhealthy to adore a leader — undemocratic, in fact.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/EDITORIAL/381006128
contrarian purists like xenophon will never be satisfied. he probably voted for nader.
what was the elitist "mayflower" quip for? nobody cares about your pedigree.
There is no reason for Obama to walk into the trap that is Tavis Smiley's bullshit marketing conference (sponsored by McDonald's, Walmart, etc.) The primary result of those conferences have been book sales for Tavis Smiley and perhaps a few cruise ship tickets for Tom Joyner's Fantastic Voyage.
It is NOT pertinent for Obama to show up to this thing to appeal to MOST black people.
I think Hillary may have accepted the invitation to Smiley's show only because she thought Obama would be there. Now she's pressuring Smiley to make sure Obama shows up so she doesn't sit there alone looking dumb. That's not Obama's problem, IMHO.
Yeah, right. Hillary Clinton has turned down SOTBU in the past too. She's only going because she, her husband, Bob Johnson, Andrew Young and other surrogates screwed up South Carolina for her and the Negroes fled.
The SOTBU will turn out to be a Hillary Hankerchief Head Conference because the Negroes present will NOT challenge her and WILL GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid making her feel uncomfortable.
If Obama's calendar is really open on the 23rd (the campaign does not make every date public) then maybe he and Michelle can catch a breather and spend some quality time together.
I wonder what job she offered him...
What we NEED to do is keep an eye on all these sell-out fools and make sure the elected officials end up as greeters at Walmart... like Al Wynn who voters forcefully replaced during the potomac primaries. As for Tavis... I think he will get the picture when those ratings start droppin and he can't GIVE a book away.
nuff said.
Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
He's not just a talker. He's a doer. Pass it on....It's impressive
An Open Letter
To TAVIS SMILEY
by: Sheila Price
Dear Mr. Smiley,
I would like to start out by saying that I am a 45 year old white middle class library professional. I am also a great admirer of yours and listen regularly to your television show and radio broadcasts. I have a lifetime of experiences watching the inequality and lack of empowerment suffered by our African American community and as a result of this I have a deep empathy and passion for the struggles of black people.
I felt compelled to write to you concerning not only your lack of endorsement for Barack Obama, but also what appears to be somewhat of a negative doubt-raising tone concerning Barack Obama. I must say I am absolutely shocked and amazed that you, one of the leading African American "thinkers" of contemporary culture, not to mention a significant role model for black youths, would even consider not endorsing Barack Obama for president let alone raise doubts about his competency.
With all due respect Mr.Smiley, it is because I have read your "Covenant with Black America" that I care so deeply for what appears to be a serious contradiction between what you stand for and what you are communicating to the public regarding your lack of support and empowerment for one of, if not the only, seriously credible candidate for President of the United States. I'm especially concerned about the message that sends to the African American youth of today. Surely, you, being a highly intelligent and competant man, are able to easily find the vast amount of information out there concerning Barack Obama's exceptional experience and extremely respectable character not to mention his very effective and credible plans for the future of our country.
One only has to visit the Barack Obama website to find these things out or read one of his books or one of the books written about him. Yesterday was an historic day for our nation, for all of our nation, but especially so for our African American population when the Kennedy's stood side by side with Barack Obama at his rally in Washington DC. This was an extremely powerful endorsement for Barack and a source of great pride for African Americans. It is with sincerity and urgency that I implore you Mr.Smiley to stand tall with us for Barack Obama.
The time is now for the blinders to come off and to cast off the seeds of doubt. Barack Obama is not only the best candidate for the job of President of the United States, white or black, he is the best person to realize the ideals you put forth in your "Covenant with Black America". I'm not sure what the underlying reasons for your lack of support have been. I would be very interested to hear from you regarding them so that we could dispel any further doubt together. Because that's what Barack stands for, bringing people together to gain a better understanding of eachother and to demolish fear and hatred.
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate with you. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Sheila Price
Cleveland, Ohio
From a www.Blacks4Barack.org commenter
Those are not churches, those are corporations masquerading as churches for the tax benefits. Investigate all of them.