DISQUS

THANK YOU :mrgreen:

THANK YOU :mrgreen:

s,


Yes one issue. Good thing that's not all there is right? Because we know there have been other things, such as getting cops to videotape interrogations.



Why not the US Senate where he's introduced and passed as much legislation as more senior senators?



How about:



-Energy Security Bill -

-Relief for Katrina and stopping FEMA no-bid contracts

-1st public database of federal spending and contracts

-attempting against the senate to raise CAFE standards in a meaningful way

-making voter intimidation illegal



On the wonkier side he has done things like move to regulate genetic testing (because there is little control over it), or being the first to talk about the Avian flu and other international health issues (with bills dedicated to these topics). Also there is the nonproliferation bill, and he even teamed up with Hillary a year ago to stop medical malpractice the way doctors have suggested, by doing it before the courts ever get involved.



Obama knew he was limited in power so approached unsexy problems with real solutions. We can make lists all day but the truth is he passed as many bills last year as someone like Hillary Clinton. He gets work done, and like most politicians not every solution works.



For all of these things just search the Senate records...but then that would take an open mind.



I'm no McCain basher, I just know who has policies most inline with my own and make no apologies. I don't try to tear down McCain just talk about where I disagree with him (Oil for example).

s,


Your argument about Obama refusing to answer questions relied on Obama not answering about Rezko. But as we know he spent hours with the Tribune. So, where is that argument left?



Frankly I don't care. They both deflect questions they don't want to answer. I don't care. Obama doesn't woo the press, which in a way makes me more confident in those who cover him...but regardless.



If you want to know about Obama there are plenty of places to do it. I don't think J&J; is the best place. Why don't you try the many articles written by the Chicago tribune? They've been writing about him for years.



How about you check out his work in the Senate. I have, and what he did (taking on un-sexy problems and looking for good solutions) was impressive to me (though I'm a policy wonk).



Also, Jill has often been concerned about misogyny and this election cycle has provided a lot of food for thought. In a time when McCain and Obama are seeking female votes I think talking about how they treat and think about issue as well as how they talk about women is important. So I find your portrayal of this post as a McCain beat up post problematic.



I find it distasteful for you to claim Obama has "played" the "Race card" against the republicans. I recall him playing it cool when a Republican congressman called him boy before the nation. Please, the truth is that portions of the right seek to race bait, and guess what (southern strategy) they have a record.



I can't stand when people take a critique by an object of racism to label that object racist themselves or "race baiting." It is dishonest and frankly troubling.



Many of us know how it works. The hidden comment, the just beneath the surface call to racial stigmas. Even republican Huckabee has been vocal about traditional Republican strategies, cautioning elements on the right about running the type of negative campaigns we've seen with regards to race.

I'm sorry but domestic abuse isn't something we should take lightly. I know the old use of the phrase and that doesn't change that it is steeped in misogyny and distaste. No "history" of the phrase changes that. I know what he was trying to do, but that doesn't make those words right. If he meant the question was unfair then that is what you say. I for one will not defend a comment that makes light of the plight that man wives have and are facing.


On the flip side, who actually expects decent reporting these days? Today's press can barely mentally formulate a good question, not to mention stating one correctly.

d,


We already drill off our coast. There are already leases in the gulf that are unexplored. My initial point was that we don't need more areas open to drilling when current leases are not being developed.



Second, I think off shore oil drilling is environmentally problematic. But we do it.



Also, to be exact China is not drilling in American waters. And we're doing it. I just don't think there is a viable solution in us drilling more when we consume so much. The problem is supply but our demand is just to high and our ability to add to supply too limited. The idea that we can really change global supply and demand is laughable, our own department of energy's projections display this.



If Republicans could introduce an idea that wasn't so weak and obviously a land grab by special interest I'd listen, but the facts aren't there. Because if I'm wrong about the supply side the one thing that is true is that energy companies are not drilling or exploring the millions of acres currently open to them so I don't buy this sudden "need" to open up even more land to them.

S,


Sorry, but the Republican "drilling" bills are little more than a land grab. Of the millions of acres already leased to energy companies around 3/4 are not being exploited. Why give them more land to drill when they aren't drilling?



Our own energy department projects that drilling will have nominal affect on the price of oil and at best not for years to come. A country with 2-3% of the world's oil that consumes about a quarter of the supply really can't expect drilling will help.



The only thing that would make sense is opening up more natural gas fields. But guess what. Current leases out west and in other areas are perfectly viable. Just last month I visited a new field opening up in central Utah. This whole "increase" explorable lands is a farce.

Nader is hot air. This isn't about any past elections, just the opportunism. He said this to get some attention.


I think Obama sized him up well earlier this year, “[M]y sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work.” This in the NYT Feb 24, 2008.



That is how I've always seen him. Why target Obama who has policies specifically for fighting poverty and dealing with issues that are important to blacks when McCain is no where near that? Why attack the candidate who is so close to your own stance? Because he wants the attention. This has little to do with the issues and everything to do with Nader's self important gamesmanship.

d.,


I agree. totally. I'm tired of this guilt by association. Part of the reason I'm glad Obama and crew didn't ask for Black's head after the terrorist attack comment.



As to the supreme court case. If I'm correct only 9 states allowed for the death of child rapists. Given the courts movement in limiting capital punishment in recent years this outcome makes sense.



The offense in question is beyond horrible and whenever children are involved I think we're more apt to raw vengeance. I will say that one thing my catholic up-bringing left me was a distrust of vengeance and belief that life should never be discarded, despite human ills.

As a young black male queer feminist I understand this post and have wondered about mainstream feminist silence.


However, I know that this feminism is bereft with problems and many minorities and non-hetero peoples are left out. Luckily I'm sheltered in academia where these blank spots in feminism are exposed for what they are.



Quite simply, the failure of feminism as a mainstream movement isn't new (see: "Ain't I a woman" by Bell Hooks or my favorite "Women race & Class" by Angela Davis). These intersections or race, gender, class, and sexuality are hard enough to discuss in the academy so I've had little faith that they'd be part of mainstream feminism at all.



However, perhaps the silence of this overwhelmingly older, white feminist overclass will open up the eyes of younger people and peoples of color to the damaging privilege and racism in the movement. Or at least one can hope.

bigassbelle,


You're right, I jumped the gun. Funny I've read Naomi and that article didn't sound like her at first.



Apologies all around.



-Cheers

Karmicommunist,


1: I think all the readers of JJ know about the slime that Hillary introduced. In fact we know where she got it (read: Rep. southern strategy).



2: Please don't waste our time. As a son of the south I know firsthand how Republicans have and most likely will continue to use fear of the "other" to get votes. The target may change from year to year but the strategy is the same. Always based in xenophobia, racism, or even sexism (look at Ann Richards TX).



Do you honestly think a party with such a recent and long election history can lecture anyone? Hey, guess what, the Rep copycat didn't win. Apparently Dems could see a little more clearly that the Republicans on this issue.



3: Lastly, while I find identiy politics limiting, to equate them with the likes of the Republican southern strategy is logically dishonest. ID Politics speak to peoples issues, the Republican strategies have spoken to their irrational fears.



We all know the playbook, but hey maybe Obama will be wrong and maybe the Fox News and other conservative spin masters will stop short of the inevitable. But as long as folks are peddling in anti-Muslim Manchurian candidate slurs and angry black woman hysteria I think he has a point.

If Obama wins, that system is dead. John McCain may look a lot more palatable now.


Bull, that is what this is. The problem with this system, and I've been saying it for a long time, is that just because you didn't write a check to the candidate doesn't mean they didn't get your money.



Read: As long as the DNC and RNC (and 527's if you want) can take money from anyone, as much as they want this "public" financing system is a sham. As long as candidates can take PAC and lobbyist dollars the system is bunk.



Yes papers will and rightly so opine about Obama's decision. But if you want to make it about public financing then lets talk about which candidate has actually tried to do what the laws are there for: get special interests out.



Honestly those editorial boards are the few (besides dorks like I) who care about public financing. Hell only 10% of Americans check off that box on their tax returns. These papers may try to keep this alive, but they may not be able to.



s,



Fawning newspapers? Please the NY Times and many papers were so bent on having Hillary as the nominee that they hammered Obama, daily asking if he had the chops, etc. The Chicago Tribune (which endorsed Obama) has been the most critical of him. I don't and haven't bought this narrative of the media is too easy on him.



How many stories about Ayers did you read? I read ten too many. Point? The print media did their part in hammering Obama on stupid issues and that is indicative of the immature political reporting in our country, something I don't expect to change.

bigassbelle,


I knew this day would come. Obama has an interview with the Wall Street Journal that also highlights that he isn't an enemy of markets. Even in Penn, and OH (though the news didn't care to talk about it) he held up some free trade agreements that he thought were fine.



However, I have a problem with assuming that particular advisers presuppose particular policy. Obama has been profiled before as a person who seeks diverse and often contrary opinions. Furhter, Klien is not the person I'd go to to discuss who is "too friendly with markets." He writes a good book, but isn't a reporter of any note.

d,


Raised in conservative states and among conservative intellectuals I have to wonder why people aren't talking about reforming the Rep. party? What does it mean to be conservative in 2008?



I feel like conservatism, and maybe this is reading too much Andrew Sullivan, has lost its compass. It seems like conservative just want to chase the liberal ghost in academia (I'm an academic in training), pretend like the overwhelming opening of my generation is leftist indoctrination, or fight two social issues while selling their other principals to the highest bidder.



Maybe it is time to assess what conservatism is given the failures of the recent past.



But that's just my $0.02

I don't know if this has been posted, but: Latina teacher fired for what?


I guess teaching critical thinking and inclusive history are out in America. Imperialist: 1 and Truth: 0.

d,


My main point wasn't the 527's. (Though lower level 527's will be attacking and are attacking Dems down ticket).



My point was that politically this move was expected and reasonable. As I said, if people cared about campaign financing McCain wouldn't have already broken rules in the primary run up to no fanfare. The truth? This is about Obama's promise to pursue negotiations.



What has been very apparent is that neither side wanted these to happen. So, I call it a wash seeing as most Americans won't care in a week and Obama will have a huge money advantage. Maybe enough to blunt the bloated RNC which always has more than the DNC, we'll see.



But I'll concede that 537's probably won't be as much of a problem for Obama himself. I think were people aren't focused is down ticket, where if he plays his cards right Obama can bring people along.

d,


Yes we all know the 527's are coming. McCain insistence early this month that he can't (read:won't) control Rep 527's that will (and have - look at ads run in SC and other southern states attacking other Dems through demonizing Obama)be set up.



Is Obama being calculating and cold? Yes. Did he change his mind on an issue? Yes. Is he wrong? Not really. Anyone who's even been near a campaign will tell you this is the right move. Why? Because if Americans really cared about public financing McCain would have won last time.



Added to this the Rep. and McCain have shown themselves to be far from honest. He's borrowed money against public money (the case is still pending) and he's flipped in an out of private and public financing during these months of Dem primary battle.



My point? I'm glad Obama didn't hand away his huge money advantage which allow him to outspend and bury McCain. Calling this move petty or unimportant displays an ignorance of presidential politics. Anyone who can't see the intelligence in this move is a failing to be objective. Short term bad press in return he gets a tidal-wave of money.



Along with this, the transparency of the O-mans fundraising operation and claim to the largest group of donors ever (and an average contribution near $100) allows for even more deflection. That's Chicago style.

Caged Lion,


bigot?



Is this the same obama who has publicly decried the anti-Muslim sentiment in today's American on multiple occasions? I think it would take quite the revisionist and myopic reading to now assume he himself is an anti-Muslim bigot.



Let's not through around such notions in a country that has more than its fair share of actual bigots, race mongers, and general filth.



I've yet to fully consider these two cases of discrimination. However, I'm slightly bothered by the a priori assumption that a personal apology is needed. I say this with the full idea that one may be the right thing.

My adviser sent me this national geographic article. I'll say that he gives this black PhD student faith.

Rhonda,


No, like most non-scandalicous politicians in the top tier of national politics he's seen as a role model because most people don't make it to such a level of prominence.



All,



Regardless I understand all the sides to the wonderful debate over the father's day issue. Unfortunately I'm outta time.



Peace.

-Chaz

Rhonda,


He did address where the government can help in this process of strengthening families. But once again I'll say, being a politician isn't just about making laws. We should expect more from elected officials not less.



Like it or not they become role models and it has long been a tradition for those in positions of authority to speak to issues beyond pure policy.

ms. martin,


I never assumed anything. I apologize if you felt put upon. I merely took your comment as a springboard to make a broader comment. It was premature and the result of ending up in the same place during discussions of a similar trajectory. Again, I didn't intend to insult.



I'm going to reserve judgment on whether Obama is "using" black people. I haven't seen enough to convince me.



Regardless I think the charge of unequivocal pandering is a reach. Given his history of statements it does seem consistent.



Unlike some I think he has a responsibility as a black man and politician to speak to the community. Why? Because we're in a special moment, we could elect the first AA president and with that comes a powerful moment for that candidate to change the minds of young and old.



For me the process isn't just about pandering for votes. True mature politics is give and take. Not just politicians doing and saying what I want and not saying what won't offend. Is BO perfect, not by far. No, and I've criticized his shortcomings. But this speech doesn't muster for me.

Ms. Martin,
"If not, I won't be voting for him."



Regardless, I hope that isn't a McCain vote. Given your high standards I also hope you didn't vote for Clinton the second time (Some would include the first I don't but Welfare, Lani Guinier or "quota queen",crime bill?, mandatory min laws?), because he sure as hell threw us under the bus. And these were policy and laws that actually hurt black people.



I have no problem with people having more qualms than me, I do hate hypocrisy though.



-Chaz

What you're missing though is that he was running in a heavy Republican state - again pandering though I didn't know this - I only knew of his popeye and someother bullshit speech in Texas which also pissed me off, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.


Agreed. But then I have no problem admitting he was pandering. However, the truth and personal reflection in his words (read: Dreams of My Father) make this one not so offensive to me.



I'm not sure what some of those angry over this were expecting. I suppose I'm so jaded that I didn't buy the "new politics" angle and focused my support on policy.



However, unlike some Dems I don't think he's going to sell out blacks and others like some (Bill Clinton) when the rubber hits the road of governing.