As us older people say, OMG. In 76 days, after eight years of decaying, destructive conservatism in Washington, a fresh progressive President and Administration will take the reins.
Campus Progress is ready to work with you, starting right now, to turn this immense promise into lasting positive change. We can be your gateway to participating in critical efforts ahead. Read on to see how we can work together.
Today’s young people have lived much of their lives under the fiercely conservative, cynical, and incompetent regime of George W. Bush. The current administration has stomped on our values and done tremendous harm to our society.
But the thousands of young people who have worked to build a resurgent progressive youth movement never lost hope. You have organized effectively around the urgency of progressive change, on issues from economic opportunity to global warming. Now you have a chance to come to Washington, and to organize on your campuses and in your communities, to make that change a reality.
It will not be easy. Powerful interests will be working to block progress. The conservative movement may be intellectually bankrupt, but it still has plenty of cash at its disposal. Millions of dollars also will continue to flow from entrenched special interests to K Street to pay lobbyists and lawyers for efforts to halt reform.
That’s where you come in. If you are young and progressive, you now have a chance to take over the world. Join with Campus Progress and our partner organizations, and let’s see what we can accomplish.
Work with us and our partners on our national efforts to generate alternative energy and halt climate change; to make education affordable, health care accessible, and good jobs available; to strengthen civil rights and liberties; to bring our troops home from Iraq and advance a smarter foreign policy. Work with this Administration when it leads for progress, and hold its feet to the fire if and when it disappoints. Apply for a Campus Progress Action Grant, so we can help you win an issue campaign in your own community.
Work with us to create events on your campuses and in your communities, with speakers, performers, and films that address the issues that matter most and inspire attendees to take action.
The Bush Administration has left a big mess to clean up. But few previous generations of young people have had such an opportunity to participate in the reinvention and reinvigoration of this country. You have done much to get us to this point. Here at Campus Progress, we can’t wait to be part of what you do next.
(Wash. DC) There's one major obstacle blocking a theft of the 2008 presidential election. It's highly significant and challenges even the most devious minds. That obstacle is "net new" Democratic primary voters in 2008. "Net new" Democratic primary voters represent the difference between primary turnout in 2004 and 2008. More on that in a moment.
Last week, Barack Obama confirmed what many had hoped was a misstatement made in the primaries. Washington Post:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took the occasion to chide Columbia for its lack of on-campus ROTC. "I don't think that's right," Mr. McCain said. "Shouldn't the students here be exposed to the attractiveness of serving in the military, particularly as an officer?" Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) readily agreed, calling Columbia's anti-ROTC stance a "mistake."
From last night's Democratic debate, as reported by The Hill:
Obama and Edwards both said that they supported withholding funding from higher education institutions that do not provide ROTC programs to students. Clinton initially said she would enforce laws to stop funding but later said of prominent schools that do not have ROTC programs that "there are ways they can work out fulfilling that obligation."
What they were talking about is the Solomon Amendment — a law passed in 1996 (and upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court) that allows the Secretary of Defense to strip a college or university of all Federal funding if the school bans/prohibits ROTC or any other military recruitment on campus.
If you recall, the LGBT and anti-war communities flipped out at this, and rightfully so.
Having ROTC and military recruiters on campus violates many university non-discrimination regulations. To create sympathy for their argument, the Post casts it in classist terms of elite universities being the only ones without recruiters. But the long shadow of the Pentagon does reach these institutions, in the form of "defense" research into everything from smart bombs to spy satellites to bioweapons.
And the Post wraps it up with a bit of flag waving:
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a misguided policy. For the time being, though, it is the law of the land, and we see no sign that the Ivies' protest is having any impact on it. Meanwhile, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines defend all Americans, gay or straight.
But it is having an impact, as all boycotts do (to a greater or lesser extent). They're also serving as an example to others. As more and more universities refuse to bow down and subsidize Empire, we'll see reduced capacity for another set of Middle East (or South American) adventures, which is, scarily, still a possibility nomatter who wins in November.
An interesting rundown of some of the fascinating on-the-ground changes happening in Venezuela at the moment.
The creation of communal councils, legally recognised in April 2006, served to bring together these different sectoral organisations around discussing and acting upon a local development plan.
The idea behind the councils is that it be the communities themselves that diagnose the local problems, democratically decide on the tasks to be solved and, with funding from the national, regional and municipal budgets, begin to tackle these basic problems.
According to Farias, there are currently 36,000 communal councils.
I'd love to see a documentary about these budding institutions. While Obama merely talks about "from the bottom up," average Venezuelans are actually living it.
EDIT: Wikipedia actually has a great systematic look at the structure/function of communal councils. Sweet! Participatory democracy = awesome.
The McCain camp has accused Obama of projecting a "holier than thou" attitude throughout his campaign for quite some time now. They started shouting even louder yesterday after the Washington Post printed this quote from Obama when addressing the House Democrats:
"This is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for... I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
Too bad the Post didn't even check to see if they got the whole quote. This is closer to what Obama actually said:
"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol..."
It seems hard to refute that Obama has become a symbol of what America can be, not what it has been for the past 8 years. We have never seen a candidate from either major party resemble anything close to Obama (and no, I'm not talking about his physical appearance). This is someone who has transformed himself from a no-name, one-term senator into the presumptive Democrat nominee. People are excited about what Obama could bring into the White House all around the world... and there's no denying that.
However, I can still see how Republicans would think the quote has some sense of arrogance entwined within it. To say that you have become a symbol of American greatness is a little presumptious (even though a lot of Americans think he is!)
To be frank, Obama probably is arrogant.. and thank goodness he is! I'm not going to vote for some shlep plagued by self-esteem issues. I want my president to be confident and secure in the ideals they believe in and the decisions they make. Obama has shown this by voting against Iraq... he didn't let unmountable pressure take hold of him and vote for something he didn't believe in. He stuck to his guns and it ended up rewarding him in the end...
Also, there is no way that any individual who has run for president does not have any sense of arrogance within themselves. You have to be somewhat self-important in order to think that you're the best candidate to run the country.
McCain's camp is just trying ANYTHING to break down the Obama-hype (aka using Paris and Britney... pathetic much?) In fact, I almost feel sorry for them that they don't have any better material.
I've become increasingly dismayed and angry at John McCain's recent attacks on Barack Obama. I wanted to try to ignore them, because getting upset would be exactly what they want. But these attacks have either, a) been flat-out wrong or misleading, b) beyond the traditionally acceptable political criticism, c) surprising from a candidate who said he wants to run a clean campaign.
Knowing that he can't win a debate on policy, McCain has resorted to a line of attack that tries to appeal to American's fears about Obama. He wants to cast Obama as the "other" who is not patriotic and does not want to see his country succeed. If Obama said this stuff about McCain, he would be assailed by the media.
First, McCain charges that because Obama opposed the troop surge, he was more concerned about winning a political campaign than winning a war. This just reeks of cynicism and right-wing fear-mongering. Nevermind the fact that McCain talks about the vague concept of "victory," as if one day we'll waltz away from Iraq dancing on the S.S. McCain. Nevermind that Obama, like many other patriotic Americans, including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, believed that the surge would mean more money spent, more American casualties and more distractions from the central-front in the War on Terror, Afghanistan. (I, for one, still believe he was right). The most important fact is that Obama took the extraordinarily unpopular position, risking political ruin, by opposing the war in the first place. McCain went along with it like a cog in a machine. (despite what he'll try and tell us about opposing a "failed" strategy, he was advocating "stay the course" as late as 2005).
Next was the absurd charge that Obama didn't make time to visit wounded troops in Germany. Obama says that the Pentagon was concerned that such a visit would be viewed as too political, since this portion of his overseas trip was paid for with campaign money. McCain accused Obama of taking time to go the gym, while ignoring our troops. Of course, Obama had already spent time with troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. Also, he REALLY supported the troops by supporting Jim Webb's GI Bill, which McCain opposed, and then tried to take credit for. McCain is doing the same thing that these viral emails are trying to do: use Obama's unfamiliarity (augmented by his skin color, name and background) to foment doubt in the minds of American voters about his patriotism. This is politics at its worst. These attacks are personal, not political, have nothing to do with policy, and are aimed at the appealing to the worst prejudices of the American people.
We would never question McCain's patriotism. Nor should we. We don't have to, because we can win the election on policy.
Will we ever live in an America that sees race as a continuum, instead of just black and white (or black and white and Asian and Latino)?
Gary Kamiya wrote an excellent article on Salon.com today that deals with race in America, especially as it pertains to Obama and his candidacy. Ironically, I was just having a conversation with a friend and I mentioned to her that I was a little disappointed in how Obama has self-identified as completely black in the public eye, instead of being proudly biracial. I understand, because I too am half-black and half-white just like Obama, but it upsets me that the Senator believes that America is too close minded to deal with biracialism. Is it? Here's an excellent quote from the article:
"Mixed-race people, particularly those of black and white ancestry, have long been forced to navigate this complicated terrain. Their experiences show just how inadequate our traditional ways of talking about race are. As their numbers grow and their perspectives become more familiar, they will inevitably erode the cornerstone of America's racial pathologies, the one-drop rule -- the idea, deeply rooted in white racism, that any amount of black blood defines you as black. And no one will do more to undercut that racist rule than Obama".
I hate that I live in a country where, when people see me, all they see is black, and I would hate it equally if all they saw was white. I believe that being multiracial is a huge blessing, and I try to identify equally with both sides of my family, but I definitely feel like it's a complicated societal balancing act. People seem to always expect me to "act black" or "act white". Admittedly, because of how and where I grew up (suburban white America, with my white mother), most people say that I "act white". This hurts me deeply, because I feel like sometimes people think that I think I'm "too good" for them. In reality, for social reasons, it's just been harder for me to meet as many black friends. However, according to Kamiya, the opposite is true for most mixed-race people. As a result of the fact that society defines them by their "non-whiteness", many seem to find it easier to identify with their minority ancestry. This is the case with Obama, and I completely undestand. He grew up in a predominately white community in the 1970's so he didn't really have the option to identify as white or even biracial, because of the historical "one-drop" rule (whose remnants still haunt us today) that states that if you're "one drop black", you're black. I know that I've had a much easier time with race issues in my life than he must have had in his, and I pray that my future children (who, mathematically, would have to be multiracial, simply because I am) will have an easier time than I've had. I hate the fact that in the 21st century we still have to fit neatly into racial and cultural boxes, and perhaps Obama's candidacy will start to bring some of these issues into the national dialogue, and break down some of our antiquated ideas about race.
If anyone has any insight or wants to share his/her own experiences (especially if you have some insight about being mixed-other than black and white), please reply. I'd love to hear what you think.
The Obama pound, exchanged between Michelle and Barack on Tuesday night, marked a historic moment. Yeah, there's that whole first black nominee for president thing. But more significant, is the fact that the greeting which has been described by confused white journalists as a "fist bump," "closed-fist high-five," "a frat-tastic fist bump" and a "'Hezbollah' style fist-jabbing" is finally being introduced to mainstream culture. Read More »
→ Clinton receives 105 pledged delegates from Florida and 69 pledged delegates from Michigan, giving her 87 votes.
→ Obama receives 67 pledged delegates from Florida and 59 pledged delegates from Michigan, giving him 63. This lessens his lead over Clinton from 202 to 174.
Kathleen Parker, who was featured in the Washington Post yesterday, calling Obama and Edwards "girly boys", also wrote the appalling article above (alliteration!!!) apparently in defense of those who think that being a "real American" means having WHITE ancestors who arrived in the U.S. before some arbitrary date, 1800 perhaps? Seriously? She begins with a quote from a young West-Virginian who says that he dislikes Obama becasue he's not a "full blooded American". As some other bloggers out there have pointed out, Obama's grandfather fought in WWII. What about that is not American? What exactly is the qualification for being a "real American"? Is she proposing, by defending this opinion, that anyone that came to the U.S. after a certain date is a doesn't belong here?
In addition to that revelation, Ms. Parker points out that understanding America is "about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots". I'd venture to say that the millions of people from around the world who apply for U.S. Visas every year, who have worked and saved for years to have enough money in their accounts to even apply to enter our country, understand commitment and the value of hard work. It is unacceptable to defend those who believe that the only true Americans are white people whose family came over on the Mayflower.
Ms. Parker also indicates that multiculturalism is evidently cause for concern for many "real Americans": "What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative". I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that multiculturalism was the new damaging trend. The U.S. has always relied on "multiculturalism" for its success: it was immigrants who created some of the most important technological advances in American history. Also, our country was literally built on the backs of slaves who were stolen from Africa. Without that "free" labor, we would not have experienced the type of rapid economic growth that occurred in the 19th century. My black and white (I'm mixed) forefathers fought and died for the values of an America that still treats me like a second class citizen because I, like Obama, don't "look" American. Ms. Parker's post proves that racism is still alive and well. It is clear that even if Obama wins the presidency, we still have a lot of work to do to become united states, instead of the ones divided, along racial/social/cultural lines, that we have been for hundreds of years.
The phrase "anti-American sentiments" is and has been ubiquitous in the mainstream media ever since clips of Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright have surfaced and been circulated on cable news and the internet. His statements have been branded as anti-American. It seems to me that the phrase is very loaded and complex, but not entirely clear. It deserves dissection and reflection.
What does it mean exactly? Is it an objective or a subjective idea? America is not only a place, but a conceptual being, ever-changing and dynamic. It represents many ideas and people. It would be nice if the media discussed its meaning, but that may be too much to ask of them. Think about what it means to you. For the purposes of this article, it means simply what the words say (and the negative connotations inherent in them): opposed or against America.
Is that what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is? Opposed to America? Why doesn't he get the hell out of here then? Maybe, he is not actually "anti-American." Who can be sure? However, he is certainly critical of the American government's actions and has made it known in a very inflammatory way that has made it very easy to make the leap to the label anti-American. In spite of this swift mental transition, if one considers the greatness of our constitution, they will remember that it is the right to denounce and disagree with the actions carried out by our government that helps form the foundation of our democracy. If we could not or did not, then we would probably have a monarchy. Yet, thankfully we get to recognize, speak about, and attempt to fix past mistakes and injustices.
Despite the fact Wright has the right to voice criticisms of former and present U.S. actions--no matter how rabble-rousing they may seem--we should also discuss the huge response that he has elicited. It seems that people are afraid of him and feel a strong responsibility to denounce his words. What is behind this fear?
Could it be that people fear a revolution in America's African-American community? Are people afraid that Wright, an influential pastor in the United Church of Christ, is spewing anti-American sermons to countless congregations, inciting impassioned rhetoric that eventually will rally the masses of African-American parishioners to fight against America?
Could it be? Does he have such power? Is he dangerous? The media, the GOP, and Hillary all have an interest in having you (or in Hillary's case, the superdelegates) consider the idea (tune in!), but this notion is completely ridiculous. All the same, he is anti-American so he is opposed to America.
However, fearing Wright is irrational. Alas, it is very easy and many people disturbed, angry, afraid, or outraged.
Be that as it may, we should not fear Wright, because, first of all, he is extreme and paranoid, stating that the U.S. government had a plan to spread HIV among African-Americans. Most people in America find this absurd and therefore he will discredit himself. Second of all, U.S. foreign policy should be criticized. If it weren't we'd be lacking a major characteristic of a free and open society and we wouldn't have constructive discussions about the decisions we make abroad (discussions that are sorely needed).
People might say that I am giving the incendiary pastor a free pass. Maybe I am. But in all fairness, we are paying increasingly more attention to what a Christian pastor is saying about America than what our lame duck president does with the remainder of his time in office, or perhaps more importantly, what our megalomaniacal vice president is doing.
Therefore, yes, I am saying that what Wright has said is not a relatively huge deal. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, still not getting anywhere with Iran, still in a recession, and we are in the midst of electing our next president. The words of one ex-Marine former pastor are not in the forefront of my mind.
Notwithstanding, if we are going to be preoccupied with Wright's angry oratory, then we may want to try to figure out why someone, who believed in America so much that they gave up their college deferment to serve in the marines and subsequently on Lyndon Johnson's medical team, has altered his beliefs and is now so passionately resentful of his country.
A recent articled titled "If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead" from Salon.com is so biased and un-nuanced - to the point that the article is essentially worthless - that I’ve deciced write my first blog post here in over a year (and create a new username because I can't get into my old account) to point it out. As an Obama supporter, it kind of drove me up the wall, but hopefully I can turn that frustration into something more conciliating than the article itself.
These comments are not meant to endorse either of the two candidates for the Democratic nomination. They simply point out my thoughts on the recent uproar over Jeremiah Wright and the Clinton campaign's response.
"Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination" -- New York Times
A couple of days ago, the New York Times put out a Political Memo titled "Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination." The article analyzes the waning chance of Mrs. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination for President. With the popular vote and delegate count in Mr. Obama's advantage, only around ten contests to go, and a growing concern for weakened party unity if the contest were to last up to the Democratic National Convention, there is little room for error on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
Recognizing this, Clinton's campaign has shifted the focus onto Obama's relationship with his pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has made racially charged criticisms and harsh condemnations of U.S. behavior. NYT reports that Clinton's campaign hopes that in the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, scrutiny of Obama's past will uncover more doubts "that would underscore Mrs. Clinton's warning to Democrats that they were rallying around someone who was untested and unvetted," (NYT).
Therefore, the Clinton campaign is not going to emphasize her superior policies or her thirty-five years of experience. They surely will not make the argument that she is the more effective leader of one of the most participative and scrutinized elections in U.S. history. Rather, the Clinton machine will focus on what is truly important: Obama's relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
"Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama's association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election," (New York Times).
Unfortunately for Clinton, framing Obama as unreliable due to his relationship with his outspoken pastor is weak at best. This reality, to which the Clinton campaign is trying hard not to give any credence, can easily be seen by asking a few questions.
First, is Obama's association with a pastor who made anti-American comments worse than Clinton's vote for the resolution to use force in Iraq (a concrete vote enabling us to get where we are in Iraq today? Or, association with pastor critical of U.S. policies?)?
Secondly, does the fact that Pastor Wright has made inflammatory anti-American remarks mean that Obama holds the views expressed in those remarks? Unless there exists a proven, omnipotent process of pastor-to-layperson osmosis of views, this writer would have to say no. After all, members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other government officials sat through each one of George W. Bush's State of the Union Addresses. Does it follow that they all agreed that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq should have been defined as an axis of evil?
A third question to ask in order to vet the Clinton campaign's logic: does Clinton have associations with shady or controversial persons, and if so, does that mean she is "untested and unvetted" as well? If Clinton's argument that Obama is "untested and unvetted" due to his association with Pastor Wright is capable of holding water, then in order for her to be tested and vetted, which Mark Penn deems a process that "will make a big defference," Clinton cannot have associations with controversial figures. Unfortunately, she does, but perhaps friends convicted in the Whitewater scandal don't count because they are associations that have passed the "controversial threshold," which means--as everyone knows--they have been known for at least seven years.
Despite the characteristically hollow nature of the argument that is to form the foundation of the Clinton campaign's new strategy, you can be sure that they will advance it anyway.
The Clinton campaign should stick to making the argument the Hillary is ready to be president. Focusing on Obama's pastor's incendiary sermons does not create a dialogue with the American people that can create the ideas and motivation needed to accomplish the goals we should be setting for ourselves.
For the past seven (7) years, the Mainstream News Media has favored the Bush administration and has refused to publish facts and report upon issues that are critical to the survival of Democracy in America. Their bias and downright refusal to honestly report the facts rather than spin and propaganda has been well documented - yet because it’s election time, in spite of a track record that indicates the MSM is as much to blame for our downward spiral into fascism as the President himself - Democrats on both sides of the isle are buying into the havoc the MSM is creating within the Democratic party itself, which is evidenced by John McCain’s rise in the polls which indicates he is polling ahead of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s obvious I don’t understand the politics of Presidential elections as I watch the GOP pull ahead on matters the public has already condemned LINK, however, as long as we give credence to a MSM that has actively hid the truth from the American people for seven long years and are hell bent on distracting the public from the real issues this nation faces while they create havoc within the Democratic Party - I see the ultimate consequence of our infighting resulting in another loss to the warmongers that are intent on destroying America. Have we forgotten the damage the MSM has wrought upon America? The Enablers Of Fascism, The Mainstream News Media
Firedoglake published an Op-Ed that reveals the MSM’s influence on the Presidential campaign as it pertains to the Obama/Clinton debacle - and when we realize that much of the indignation and hyperbole of this controversy has been created and fanned by the MSM, we should also understand that it’s not by accident, but meant to influence the election and help to place another GOP candidate in the White House!
The Media’s Race Problem
By: David Neiwert Thursday March 20, 2008 6:00 pm
Probably the most remarkable aspect of the recent feeding frenzy about Barack Obama’s so-called “pastor problem” — besides the agility and smarts that Obama has displayed in handling it — is not as much what it reveals about the state of race in America as what it reveals about the state of the American media.
The Washington Post’s report on Obama’s speech observed that this was a controversy that “threatens to engulf his presidential candidacy.” Yet as far as anyone can tell, it was having only a marginal effect on the polls in the race before it blew up on the networks, and it was not generated by either of Obama’s political opponents, or by any particular interest groups.
No, this is a controversy cooked up almost entirely within the media realm. Once they sank their fangs into it, the whole zombielike corps of pundits, cable talking heads, and radio talk-show hosts couldn’t let go of it. And equally remarkable was the bias that was on display in discussing it: News anchors and talking heads flatly referred to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s videotaped remarks as “anti-American,” “hate-filled,” “vicious,” “offensive,” and so on and on.
It’s telling that none of them also observed that, for the most part, Wright’s remarks (aside from his conspiracist comments about AIDS, which were indeed inexcusable, but which received little or no play before Obama’s speech) were factually accurate, and deeply reflective of a reality that most African Americans live with — and which most white Americans do their best to ignore, deny, and forget. The remarks that were broadcast all over YouTube and replayed endlessly on the cable talk shows were, no doubt, were impolitic, but they were also largely true.
Hacktackular Howie Kurtz, the Post’s “media critic,” in his column today — while notably failing to critique the media for its performance — essentially admitted that this was a media-driven frenzy:
[I]t wasn’t until last week, when Fox News and ABC News bought DVDs of Wright’s sermons from the church, that the simmering controversy reached full boil. The recordings have long been sold by the church, but journalists did not seek them until now.
Kurtz’s description also encapsulates the blinkered bias that was at play in not just the discussion leading up to Obama’s speech, but in the general response to it:
To their credit, the network newscasts ran four or five sound bites to evoke Obama’s broader argument that while the anger of older blacks like Wright, 66, is understandable, the country needs to move beyond the racial wounds of the past. But Obama, 46, is trying to win the Democratic nomination, so the anchors kept returning to one core question.
“Is it enough to reassure white voters?” ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked.
“Does it make too many white voters uncomfortable?” asked CBS’s Katie Couric.
Their entire preoccupation, indeed, was with how Wright’s remarks might discomfit whites — while never examining the deeper questions of whether white complacence about race might be something worth challenging, as well as their own roles in failing to make that challenge. MUST READ ARTICLE!
It was only a few months ago that Progressives and Liberals across the country reacted in utter disgust as the MSM marginalized Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Ron Paul - and whether we like it or not, it was the MSM that decided, not the American people, which candidates were acceptable to participate in the Presidential elections. Have we forgotten so fast that the MSM has been the leading purveyor of propaganda in the United States? When we examine and condemn their past behavior, why then are Americans now giving so much credibility to their obvious meddling in the election process by doing their best to promote and exacerbate the fractures that are rising within with the Democratic Party? Who ultimately benefits from the MSM “stirring the pot” and promoting an air of indecisiveness and confusion within the Democratic Party?
The answers to the above questions are obvious, and while we have to watch the news to collect some details, Liberals, Progressives, Independents, and especially Democrats need to take whatever the MSM has to offer as it pertains to Democratic candidates with a grain of salt and remember it’s been the MSM that has supported this illegal and corrupt Presidency from the beginning - and I believe they are up to their old tricks, and unfortunately, many in the electorate are buying their manipulations of the news hook, line, and sinker - without remembering who they are and what their ultimate goals are - and that’s to install another GOP President in the White House! From what I’ve been witnessing, their campaign to create unrest and disenfranchisement among Democrats is working as planned, and it’s up to the American people to wake-up and realize the MSM isn’t our “friend” - but represents the GOP by and through their corporate masters!
Senator Obama spoke yesterday as the Texas and Ohio primary results were coming in. In the midst of the usual inspirational plea to change America, he said something that caught my attention (video: 00:25 seconds in):
We believe that a child born tonight should have the same chances whether she arrives in the barrios of San Antonio or the suburbs of St. Louis, on the streets of Chicago or the hills of Appalachia.
The beginning of the presidential race was extremely exciting for climate change fanatics, with all the democratic contenders trying to one-up each other and McCain taking back the Republican lead despite his calls for higher fuel efficiency and climate protection.
But my enthusiasm gave way to frustration as I looked into each candidate's platforms. Edwards was the only candidate calling for moratorium on coal and no nuclear. Barrack Obama and Hillary continue touting the 'clean coal' bandwagon while McCain claims that nuclear, and nuclear alone, will solve the climate crisis. Just in case you have been giving in to the brainwashing by the cutzie 'clean coal' commercials on CNN, or McCain's rhetoric on nuclear, let me explain why, as youth, we should be up in arms about these solutions... that are not.
...Read this one: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama. I'm sure many of you have already enjoyed this piece by Andrew Sullivan in the Atlantic, but of everything I've read about this much-talked-of contest, it's the best. It's about how one candidate has the ability to fundamentally disrupt the now petty arguments we've been having as a nation since...well, since around 1961--the year Obama was born, but just a few years before Hillary cut her teeth entrenching herself, very vocally, on one side of these arguments.
Perhaps it should not be expected that we have a President of the next generation already--we've only had 2 Baby Boomers, and before that we had no less than 5 elected members of the "Greatest Generation." But last night, Hillary said something that really stuck with me. One of her biggest applause lines was "It did take a Clinton to clean (up) after the first Bush, and I think it might take a second one to clean up after the second Bush." If you think about it, this endorses a terribly anti-progressive view of the future, a cyclical one actually. By Hillary's logic, after her presidency (which could extend until 2017), we'll be no further as a nation than we were in 1989, and still mired in the exhaustive debates of the Boomer generation that Sullivan details in his article.
You can also imagine the familiar cultural parameters of a dialogue between party nominees John McCain, who was tortured for 6 and a half years in Vietnam, and Hillary Clinton, the conflicted former protester and wife of a draft dodger.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Flash back several months (courtesy 
The Obama pound, exchanged between Michelle and Barack on Tuesday night, marked a historic moment. Yeah, there's that whole first black nominee for president thing. But more significant, is the fact that the greeting which has been 
Posts
!
