DISQUS

Ah...feels so good to be involved in political activism.


FISA is on hold! But we still have work to do. Here is a list of Senator Office Phones numbers.



I plan to call at least 2.



Bayh (202) 224-5623

Carper (202) 224-2441

Obama (202) 224-2854

Inouye (202) 224-3934

Johnson (202) 224-5842

Landrieu (202)224-5824

McCaskill (202) 224-6154

Mikulski (202) 224-4654

Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274

Clinton (202) 224-4451

Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551

Pryor (202) 224-2353

Salazar (202) 224-5852

Specter (202) 224-4254

Feinstein (202) 224-3841

Webb (202) 224-4024

Warner (202) 224-2023

Snowe (202) 224-5344

Collins (202) 224-2523

Sununu (202) 224-2841

Stevens (202) 224-3004

Byrd (202) 224-3954

Lincoln (202)224-4843

Reid (202) 224-3542

Coleman (202) 224-5641

Durbin (202) 224-2152

Smith (202) 224-

Stabenow (202) 224-4822

Kohl (202) 224-5653

Leahy (202) 224-4242

Schumer (202) 224-6542

Greatest quoute ever in the Tuesday's NY Times from Obama. " Yeah. I don't do cowering." I think some of those folks in the CBC think he should humbly kiss the ring...and I think he probably said "I'm not kissing your a$$ get on the bus or get out the way...I'm tired of biting my toungue with y'all."


Yup, I think he cussed said y'all and wished he could have a Newport. I wonder if that would be 'black enough' for Nader? *snark*

My point was, only, that many MSM visuals work to portray black women as "angry." I did not say it was right, nor do I think it is. My comment was purely about the pictoral display. The soundbites, the pictures in the paper often seem to portray many strong sisters as scowling. While we may not see it that way, the purportment of the visual stereotype plays into the psyche of many "uncolored" folks.


I will say that the media has tried on a number of occasions to portray Donna Brazille as angry...the image is perpetuated often. And of course it is perpetuated to scare folks.

Well, to defend Mr. Thomas (Hold your rotten tomatos until I am finished please), I watched the thing and what I took from it was that he was saying there are no images via the media that do not show us angry black women. He is right about that. Other than Oprah, every time you see a black woman on the news, or in some political light, the image is of black woman "to fit to be tied".


Everytime they show Congresswoman Waters, she is waiving a piece of paper in one hand and powerfully making a point. Is she always angry? No. But the visuals always make it seem so.



He is right about that.

Here is the best commentary on Faux News foolishness with the babymama commentary.


ABB breaks it down.



http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2008/06/on-fox-baby-mama-fucktuptitude.html

@ Town;


Absolutely agreed. I, for one, am not interested in trying to convince a vocal minority of Hillary supporters who would like to throw their rights to the wind because Senator Clinton is not the nominee. They are so emotionally wrapped around her that they cannot see the forest for the trees.



I'm finished with them. I'll keep concerning my self with Independents and on the fence Republicans (like the two on my team at work who have always voted Rethug--and are all about the O man) I think that is where we should be concentrating. The rest of them can get on the bus or stay at the stop in the rain.

You jacked me up so bad, that I skipped right to the comments to see how bad it was first. Only if the comments weren't too bad, would I have gone back to watch it.

Rhondacoca,


Let me guess? Those dumb heifers are from Staten Island too? There is a special breed of idiocacy amongst those fools. I had the pleasure of living there for awile, and what I learned is if it aint in the post or on the cover of the Enquirer they don't get it. You saw Jungle Fever I'm sure...doesn't Annabella character remind you of most of those unedumacated ( yeah they went to a school but not to learn) NYc Italian American women?



They are just so ignorant that unless we are just drinking together or something, I avoid any and all subjects of substance. Intellectualism is not what alot of those women get exposed to. So sad...

I know I don't have to but...


I'm defending S in this instance. I think S is bringing up some interesting debate points--points based in rational fact based thinking, and I think some of us are getting just as "kool-aid drinky" about Obama as many of the Clintonistas.



It is a fact that Senator Obama said he would meet with Iran without precondition. S is right to express some concern over whether the statement that he would meet with Iranian leaders "if it is in the best interst" of the US is slightly to the left of what he originally said and could be seen as waffling if he is not careful. Personally, I disagree that it is all that different than what senator obama first said. One can meet someone "without precondition" and as long as its in one's interest.



Also, S's premises about how older women feel about Obama's meteoric rise is probably accurate. And it is in someways no different who are fiercely protective of attacks against Barack that are racist or are percieved as such.

Ms. Irish,


I respectfully disagree with you about your notion that Senator Obama has not demonstrated the ability to "roll up his sleeves" and get things done. First, if you ever done community organizing, rolling up you sleeve is an understatement. Second, it is widely known, that what your city councilman, your local community development agency, your mayoral adminstration do is much more directly related to your everyday life than anything that occurs on the hill. To that end, Senator Obama's work as a successful organizer at the local level has carried over to his ability to motivate folks on the national level. If the fact that millions of folks have been mobilized by this campaign and his message is not for you, then I feel like I can rightly assume that you prefer that your politicians do all the work not 'we' but them.



Second. Just because the media has only played catchy sound bites, doesn't mean that there is not more meat on the bone. I have watched all of the debates, and I don't see any candidate getting into the wonkish play-by-play necessaery when debating policy--it is TV after all. But if you go look at speeches to policy groups. You might find your answer. And as simple as you want it to be, most policy doc are pages and pages long.



Third. If you want to debate records on the hill--you can compare apples to apples. More bi-partisan authored bills with Senator Obama than Clinton. And at some point, if we are going to move forward as a nation, the partisanship that started going haywire with Nixon and went full steam with Regan has to end.



In the end, I respectfully disagree with you, simply because there are too many issues on the table to allow McCain to schmaltz his way into the White House. But, if 8 years of Bush didn't bother you, then I guess we can only expect that you will choose to pull the lever for McCain.



Though I know I hope and pray not.

Well, S. I apologize. You are right about your assertion. I think that for women who feel that way, it comes from a long time of "sweetie" on the street and "bitch" in the boardroom. But I don't necessarily think it is a correct assumption in this instance. But I understand my Mama's point of view now.


I think this time, it has been more about generational difference than anything. I think the fact that so many young people have become in some ways "post-racial" and "post gender" is different than what many older folks have lived with all their lives--and instead of seeing how far we have come (and for that matter how far we have to go), they still don't see that what they struggled for is in some ways on our doorstep.



What I think is most interesting is that the mis-trustfulness demonstrated by some of Dr. Wrights statements--just like Obama said--are too rooted in the race and gender issues that have long been prevelant, just like a number of Hillary supporters who feel Obama is stepping on Hillary as a "man" on the back of a more experienced woman.

Rikyah,


I know all of the foolishness--alot of what has happened to her campaign has to do with her allowing a bunch of type A men dictate the direction of her campaign. Ms. Solis Doyle and others on staff implored her to recognize that change was what should have been her core message--not all the negative foolishness her one polster, Mr. Penn was all about.



Mismanagment and misreading of the public. I broke it down against my mom on my blog.



But what I think has also happened is that many Hillary supporters became unwilling to listen to what Obama has to say. All the see is the images of the rallys, and all they feel is the pain that they have been waiting for her to run all this time and now it is gone. Rational objectivity for her most rabid supporters has gone out the door.



Just look at the arguments put forth by so many who say they "just don't trust him." Their arguments are mostly based on "I heard..." b.s like Bonita Batrell is knows everything. The independents are the most likely to be objective, look at the issues, and play close attention to what both sides say.



And in my opinion, us Obama supporters, have had some hand in pushing some Hillary supporters that were only minorly vitrolic into the fully raving lunatic column. At this point, even seasoned reasoning won't work with them.



Now, I don't even bother to debate with them. I do engage folks who are interested in the issues and are only slightly leaning or on the fence.





S,



I think your assertion that he has not "asked for" Hillary supporters vote is based in not seeing him lately or in not noting the very big step he took after his speech in Saint Paul.



Perhaps, he was even being respectful by allowing your candidate to decide what she was going to do first. Perhaps, y'all would have cried foul if didn't wait for you guys to "go to [her] website, www.hillaryclinton.com," and tell [her] what you think she should do next.]

Ms. Irish


I understand your support for your candidate. But I think some of your reasons for not supporting Obama are based in lack of historical fact. Your assertion that he wants to "get rid of" the foriegn policy directives that "umpteen presidents" has employed is simply not accurate. Tough, reasoned diplomacy by certain presidents has long been regarded as some of the greatest moments in presidential politics. I can point to a few on both sides of the aisle. Harry Truman, FDR, Richard Nixon with China, Ronald Reagan with Russia.



It might be worth your while to go to Senator Obama's website so that you can fully understand his positions. And you can cross reference many of his stands with detailed analysis in the Economist or the Wall Street Journal--both pro and con.

Mom's and I kinda fell out over this Democratic primary a couple of months ago--and our conversations have been strained ever since.


Any one have suggestions on how to extend the olive branch to a Hillary supporter who happens to be your mother???

Personally? I'm trying to take a moment to savor the flavor of history made and in the making for five minutes."


I'll be ready to kick some tail in the name of change tomorrow.

While my own jury is still out on Mr. Ford. I do look at his run for Congress as an interesting case study in the "beating the street" that Obama will need to do going forward to win this thing.


Here is an op-ed in Newsweek discussing strategy for taking the states in the south.>

Unfortunately, I from Ohio. GM and Ford were how working class folks made it to the middle class.


Though I grew up in NY, I have been hearing for 20 years this story. Ohio was doing quite well from 87 to 2000. What a difference 8 years of GW makes. The events after 911 have had a significant impact to the near Midwest.



It would have been interesting to see this story talk about Ohio's (and Michigan and Indiana) push to develop Green Collar jobs--something that all of the candidates (not so sure about Republican candidates) have talked about.

I don't think they are traitors...I think just wilfully ignore the facts including my own mother.


See her comments here .



I love my mama, but she is real close to me not admitting we are related.



I also wrote a post in response to all the folks not of color (Clinton and Obama supporters alike) as to my choice to support him.

Is President Bill Clinton channeling former Alabama Governor George Wallace...


I have always wondered, but after reading this analysis, it's hard to doubt it.

Tubbs-Jones makes my stomach and the stomach of my family members turn...


She reps my parents district, she went to school with my uncles--and she has been a jerk all her life.

Straight from the NY Times--an op ed about how a President Obama would cause issues in negotiating peace in the Middle East because of his Muslim lineage.>


Its an interesting argument--but for some reason, I don't buy it in this case. Seems lots of folks lose all kinds of religious law when it is in their best interest.



Besides that, this all the politcal pundits on Faux News need to push the "Obama is a Muslim" bit again. Thank Goodness lots of folks who believe this don't do the Times

And if you still think, black folks should hold their nose and vote for her...
Try this on for size

B


Not only should his face be everywhere, he should do like Michelle did on CNN last night and if asked with questions about J. Wright--" I've said all I can about that, lets move forward." and let it be. Its done. Friendship done. Game over. Next!



Also, all us supporters should go to my.barackobama.com and use the phone calling tool to call as many people as we can stand in NC and Indiana this weekend. I have promised myself I will call at least 75 people in NC and In. combined.

I really enjoyed how she took Malveaux to task. That is what really needs to start happening.


Michelle reminds me so much of the women in my family who have become mentors to me in my moves up the professional ladder.



Such a dynamic women she is!

How 'bout a little laughter via 'Kos?