MARVIN GAYE: SINGER, SONGWRITER, AND POLITICAL PROPHET, 1972-Present

All,

In the summer of 1972 the late, great Marvin Gaye (1939-1984) composed an extraordinary song entitled "You're the Man". Gaye released this powerful and prophetic song in public support of leftist Democratic Party candidate George McGovern against Richard Nixon in the presidential race of that year. In November Nixon won reelection in a landslide. Less than two years later Nixon was ousted from the Presidency when he “resigned” in disgrace facing certain impeachment as a result of the Watergate scandal.

I reprint the words of this amazing song below in unequivocal support of Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States in 2008 and as a direct, stinging rebuke and angry repudiation of every single thing the ruthless and thoroughly corrupt Billary, Inc. political machine and the insidiously criminal Republican Party (and their insipid standard bearer John McCain) represent and stand for. Brother Marvin, as always, told the whole unvarnished truth in 1972 and in his typically prescient, dynamic, and uncanny manner his words and legacy ring louder and more truthful than ever...But isn't that precisely what truly great artists always do?

Kofi


Talking, talking to the People
Trying to get ‘em to go your way
Telling us not to worry and we won’t be led astray
So blind from signifying
Your opponents always lying
Think about the mistakes you make
I believe that America’s at stake…

Do you have a plan with you?
If, if you have a plan
If you have a Master Plan
I got to vote for you (Hey! Hey!)
Got to vote for you ‘cause
You’re the Man

We don’t want to hear no more lies
about how you plan to economize
We want our dollar value increased and employment to rise
The nation’s taxation is causing all this inflation
Don’t give us no Peace signs
Turn around and rob the People blind
Economics is the issue
Do you have a plan with you?
‘Cause if you’ve got a Master Plan
I’ve got to vote for you
You’re the Man

(CHORUS—Multilayered voices singing and scatting various interlocking harmonies and rhythms are all sung via overdubbing by Marvin(!) with a hynoptically repetitive lyrical line weaving in and out of the complex musical and vocal tapestry. Amazing & Beautiful. An utterly innovative and seamless synthesis of Jazz, Blues, R & B, and classical forms also incredibly arranged by Gaye. His somber, ominous voice is foregrounded repeatedly intoning in a much slower incantatory tempo the following words):

Don’t you understand there’s misery in the land? [Repeat X 12]

People marching on Washington
Why not hear what they have to say
‘Cause the tables might just turn against you brother come
election day

Politics and Hypocrites are turning us all into Lunatics
Can you take the guns away from our sons?
Right all the wrongs this administration’s done?
Peace & Freedom is the issue
Do you have a plan with you?
‘Cause if you have a plan
If you have a Master Plan
I got to vote for you (‘cause)
You’re the Man…


--Marvin Gaye,
“You’re the Man”, 1972
Motown Records


NOTE: THIS SONG WAS EFFECTIVELY BANNED FROM THE NATIONAL RADIO AIRWAVES IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWING THE FIRST TWO DAYS OF ITS APPEARANCE ON RADIO PLAYLISTS. IT IS NOW CONSIDERED TO BE AN INTERNATIONAL ‘CULT CLASSIC’ AND THE SONG CONTINUES TO BE BOTH PLAYED AND SOLD THROUGHOUT THE GLOBE…


OBAMA OR NOTHING IN 2008!
"Dare To Struggle, Dare To Win"

The Politics of Racism, Obama, and the Latino American Voting Bloc

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff05292008.html

All,

Refreshing and honest truth-telling from political journalist and cultural historian Nikolas Kozloff about the real politics of 'race and class' among Latino voters in Puerto Rico and throughout the United States and its continuing major impact on American politics today. This article appeared today in one of the best and most consistently hardhitting political journals in the country, Counterpunch magazine...

Kofi


May 29, 2008
It's All About Vagueness

Puerto Rico, Obama, and the Politics of Race

By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

The longer the Democratic nominating process goes on, the more the issue of race exposes ugly fissures within the party. With his early wins in Iowa and Wisconsin, two states with a predominantly white electorate, Barack Obama hoped that he would be able to transcend racial divisions.

Then we got Jeremiah Wright and the unflattering media coverage which followed. The Illinois Senator started to lose primaries in white states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. In particular, race played a critical role in the latter state, with one in five admitting that the issue affected their decision once they got into the voting booth.

At the same time, Obama has been racking up the black primary vote in record numbers: in South Carolina he got 78%, and in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. he received nearly 90%.

The media has made much of this white- black split. But what about other racial divisions on the campaign trail?

Latinos: Obama’s Achilles Heel

In Texas Latinos made up nearly one third of the vote. According to CNN’s exit poll, they supported Clinton over Obama by a margin of two to one in the state’s primary. In the Nevada caucus, Clinton nailed the Latino vote two to one. In California, where Latino voters make up 30% of the Democratic electorate, Clinton had an even bigger blow-out: the New York Senator won 67 percent of the Latino vote to 29 percent for Obama.

Surely, Clinton benefited from high name recognition within the Latino community whereas Obama by contrast was little known. But given the lopsided numbers, it seems logical to wonder whether Latino voters, like the whites in Kentucky, may have voted at least in part on the basis of race.

These are very sensitive questions and, not surprisingly, we haven’t heard much discussion about such issues in the U.S. corporate media. While white pundits have occasionally mentioned white racism towards blacks they have ignored racial tensions between blacks and Latinos, perhaps because they feel awkward wading into the discussion. And yet, as we near the Puerto Rico primary on June 1st, Latino-black race relations could play a vital role in the nominating process.

Puerto Rico: Determined to Make an Impact

Puerto Ricans are used to feeling disenfranchised in the electoral process. Island residents are U.S. citizens but they cannot vote in the general presidential election. They have no voting representation in Washington, D.C. though the island sends a symbolic, nonvoting delegate to Congress. Because Puerto Rico is a semi-autonomous commonwealth and not a state, only Puerto Ricans living on the U.S. mainland may cast ballots for president in November.

Determined to make an impact upon the nominating process this year, Puerto Rico, an island of about 4 million people, has made some important electoral changes. The island has scrapped its traditional caucus in favor of a primary in which 55 delegates will be at stake. In addition, Puerto Rico has moved its primary up to June 1st, which means that Montana and South Dakota will vote last on June 3rd.

Puerto Rico Democratic Chairman Roberto Prats said that caucuses were fine in previous years, when the party nominee was settled by the time Puerto Rico voted and the only task was to choose delegates to the national convention. "Now it's different," he told the Democratic National Committee's rules panel in a conference call. "This is the first time in decades that Puerto Rico will be participating in an event of this magnitude."


Obama and Clinton: It’s all About the Vagueness

Puerto Rican politics largely revolves around the long-standing question about what the island’s future relationship to the U.S. mainland should be. To this day, Puerto Rico is divided between one major party advocating statehood and the other favoring a continuation of the current arrangement, known as a “free associated state.”

If Puerto Rico were to become a state, then the island would receive voting rights and equality under U.S. law. However, it would also mean that Puerto Ricans would be subject to federal income tax, a fate which statehood opponents are determined to avoid. The island has voted on and rejected statehood four times.

At a recent campaign rally on the island, Clinton said, “I believe you should have a vote in picking the president,” even before the issue of the island’s status is resolved. Taking questions in the city of Bayamón, Obama heard an array of concerns from residents who said they felt like second-class citizens. “What it comes down to is respect,” he said.

For the most part however, both Clinton and Obama have tried to remain neutral on the overall issue of Puerto Rico’s future political status.

“I believe all people are entitled to a representative form of government at all levels of government, and that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine by majority vote the status you choose from among all the options,” Clinton said while campaigning. “I have no preference. My only commitment is to work with those from all factions and with the congress to give you the right to make that decision. I want that done within my first term as president.”


Advantage: Clinton

Will Clinton continue to rout Obama amongst Latino voters once Puerto Rico votes in its primary? No opinion polling has been conducted on the island so it is difficult to predict the electoral result. As the junior Senator from New York however, Clinton probably has the advantage in Puerto Rico. About four million Puerto Ricans reside in the U.S., with the largest concentration in the three-state New York City metropolitan area. While campaigning on the island, Clinton refers to herself jokingly as "the senator from Puerto Rico."

Clinton is familiar to most Puerto Ricans as a result of her stint as first lady. Under husband Bill, she got involved in disaster relief after Hurricane Georges and met with protesters seeking an end to the U.S. Navy’s use of the island of Vieques for bombing practice. In an effort to make her mark in the last stages of the campaign, Clinton has dispatched not only Bill but also daughter Chelsea to Puerto Rico.

Obama by contrast is less well known. Until his arrival this past weekend, Obama had visited just once, for a fund-raiser last year. To level the playing field, he has sent wife Michelle as well as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to Puerto Rico to campaign on his behalf. In seeking to appeal to Puerto Ricans, Obama emphasizes the fact that he was also born and raised on an island far from the U.S. mainland.

Meanwhile the island’s political establishment seems pretty split between Obama and Clinton. Puerto Rico’s Governor Aníbal Acevedo-Vila has endorsed Obama. However, other members of Acevedo-Vila's Popular Democratic Party, as well as politicians from the opposition New Progressive Party, are reportedly leaning towards Clinton.


Hardly a “Racial Democracy”

With no clear ideological differences between the two candidates, race may enter into the political equation. In an interesting article in the New York Times, the paper remarked that “Obama’s biracial identity is perceived as working to his advantage” in Puerto Rico. The article goes on to quote Juan Manuel García Passalacqua, a political commentator: “On the mainland, Obama is black, but not in Puerto Rico. Here he is a mulatto, and this is a mulatto society. People here are perfectly prepared to vote for someone who looks like them for president of the United States.”

On the surface at least, the New York Times would seem to be talking some sense. African slaves were imported into Puerto Rico to run the island’s sugar plantations during the colonial period and mixed with the native population. To say however that Puerto Ricans identify as blacks or mulattoes is overly simplistic and ignores the fact that racism has long characterized social life on the island.

Many scholars agree that Puerto Rico is stratified along color lines, ranging along a color continuum from white to brown to black. Puerto Ricans of darker skin color have faced racial discrimination in private schools, the University of Puerto Rico, private enterprises, voluntary associations and residential areas. Loiza, the town with the largest proportion of black people, is one of Puerto Rico's poorest and has been plagued by complaints of police brutality.

According to Jorge Duany, a leading Puerto Rican sociologist, “Although the empirical evidence on racial politics in contemporary Puerto Rico is still scanty, several studies have documented that blacks are a stigmatized minority on the Island; that they suffer from persistent prejudice and discrimination,” and that they concentrate in the lower classes.

Puerto Rico Primary and Racial Identity

Duany writes that Puerto Ricans have developed an elaborate racist vocabulary to refer to racially stereotyped characteristics. Kinky hair, for example, is referred to as “bad” (“pelo malo”). Meanwhile racial prejudice is apparent in folk humor, beauty contests, media portrayals, and political leadership. “In all these areas,” Duany says, “whites are usually depicted as more intelligent, attractive, refined, and capable than are blacks.”

All of which is not to say that racism in Puerto Rico works in the same way as the United States. However, the island is hardly a “racial democracy” as some of the island’s boosters have claimed. Indeed, many Puerto Ricans deny their cultural heritage and physical characteristics and buy into an ideology of “whitening” through intermarriage with light skinned groups. Interestingly, a whopping 81% of Puerto Ricans called themselves “white” on the 2000 U.S. census.

What does all this racial politics portend for the territory’s upcoming primary? Obama has swept U.S. states with sizable African American populations like South Carolina. Puerto Rico however could be another story however as it is by no means clear that island residents self identify as black. On June 1st, we may see Latinos continue to vote en masse for a white candidate over a black one.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan)

LONG LIVE MILES DAVIS: May 26, 1926-September 28, 1991

All,

In recognition of the glorious and extraordinary art of one of the greatest and most important artists of the 20th century this magazine celebrates the 82th birthday of the musical legend known as Miles Dewey Davis III. For an extended critical and celebratory examination of his life and work please consult the following links below, including this essay by myself that was originally posted on this site on February 23, 2008. The following links contain many film clips and various articles, reviews, and essays about Miles Davis as well as an extended excerpt of Miles talking about his storied life and career in his own words and voice from his acclaimed autobiography published in 1989 and co-authored by poet, critic, and cultural historian Quincy Troupe. There is also a section of some famous (and infamous quotes) by Davis, who was as well known in many circles for his erudite and insightful commentary, wicked barbs, and often caustic and witty aphorisms as he was for his visionary and highly innovative musicianship on the trumpet. HAPPY BIRTHDAY MILES!

Kofi






























http://www.milesdavis.com/bio.asp

http://www.milesdavis.com/music_discography.asp

http://www.milesdavis.com/music_various.asp

http://www.milesdavis.com/music_options.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davi

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/2822/miles_davis.html

http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/miles-davis

http://www.pbs.org/jazz/biography/artist_id_davis_miles.htm

http://www.plosin.com/milesAhead/mdBibliography.html

http://www.jazzitude.com/miles_jackjohnsoncomplete01.htm




"Sometimes you have to play a long time to be able to play like yourself."
--Miles Davis

"Don't play what's there, play what's not there."
--Miles Davis

"For me, music and life are all about style."
--Miles Davis

"I know what I've done for music, but don't call me a legend. Just call me Miles Davis."
--Miles Davis

"I'll play it and tell you what it is later."
--Miles Davis

"I'm always thinking about creating. My future starts when I wake up every morning... Every day I find something creative to do with my life."
--Miles Davis

"If you understood everything I say, you'd be me!"
--Miles Davis

"It's always been a gift with me, hearing music the way I do. I don't know where it comes from, it's just there and I don't question it."
--Miles Davis

"The thing to judge in any jazz artist is, does the man project and does he have ideas."
--Miles Davis

"It took me twenty years to be able to play that note and you want to understand everything I do in five minutes?"
--MIles Davis

"I have to change. It's like a curse"
--Miles Davis



Miles Ahead: Bibliography

Chris Albertson, "The Unmasking of Miles Davis," Saturday Review, November 27, 1971, pp. 67-87 (with interruptions).
Frank Alkyer, "The Miles Files," Down Beat, December 1991, pp. 22-24.
------ (ed.), The Miles Davis Reader. New York: Hal Leonard, 2007.
Amiri Baraka, "Miles Davis: One of the Great Mother Fuckers," in Amiri and Amina Baraka (edd.), The Music: Reflections on Jazz and Blues. New York: William Morrow, 1987, pp. 290-301.
Bob Belden and John Ephland, "Miles... What was that note?" Down Beat, December 1995, pp. 17-22.
Ian Carr, Miles Davis: A Biography. New York: Morrow, 1982.
Franck Bergerot, Miles Davis: introduction a l'ecoute du jazz moderne, editions du Seuil, Paris, 1996.
Luca Bragalini, "Miles Davis e la Disgregazione dello Standard, parts 1-2" Musica Jazz, 53/9 (Agosto-Settembre 1997) and 53/10 (Ottobre 1997). An English translation is available on this website.
Howard Brofsky, "Miles Davis and My Funny Valentine: The Evolution of a Solo," Black Music Research Journal 3, Winter 1983, pp. 23-34.
Gary Carner, The Miles Davis Companion: Four Decades of Commentary. New York: Schirmer Books, 1996.
Ian Carr, Miles Davis: A Critical Biography. New York: Morrow, 1982; London: Quartet Books, 1982.
Jack Chambers, Milestones: The Music and Times of Miles Davis. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998. Previously published by Quill/Morrow, 1989. Originally published in two volumes, 1983 and 1985.
Bill Cole, Miles Davis: The Early Years. New York: Da Capo Press, 1994.
George Cole, The Last Miles: The Music of Miles Davis, 1980-1991. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Todd Coolman, The Miles Davis Quintet of the Mid-1960s: Synthesis of Improvisational and Compositional Elements. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1997.
Julie Coryell and Laura Friedman, Jazz-Rock Fusion: The People, The Music. New York: Delta Books, 1978.
Laurent Cugny, Electrique Miles Davis 1968-1975. Marseille: André Dimanche Éditeur, 1993.
Michael Cuscuna and Michel Ruppli, The Blue Note Label: A Discography. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Miles Davis with Quincy Troupe, Miles: The Autobiography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
Miles Davis with Scott Gutterman, The Art of Miles Davis. New York: Prentice Hall Editions, 1991.
Scott DeVeaux, The Birth of Bebop: A Social and Musical History. Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 1997.
Chris DeVito, Yasuhiro Fujioka, Wolf Schmaler, David Wild, edited by Lewis Porter, The John Coltrane Reference. New York and London: Taylor and Francis, 2008.
Gerald Early (ed.), Miles Davis and American Culture. St. Louis: Missouri Historical Society Press, 2001.
Leonard Feather, "Miles and the Fifties" (Classic Interview), Down Beat, March 1995, pp. 36-39. (Interview originally appeared in Down Beat July 2, 1964.)
Leonard Feather and Miles Davis, "Blindfold Test." Davis did five Blindfold Tests with Feather in Down Beat magazine: September 21, 1955 (pp. 33-34); August 7, 1958 (p. 29); June 18, 1964 (p. 21); June 13, 1968 (p. 34); and June 27, 1968 (p. 33).
Larry Fisher, Miles Davis and Dave Liebman: Jazz Connections. Stroudsberg: CARIS Music Services, 1999.
Yasuhiro Fujioka, Lewis Porter, and Yoh-Ichi Hamada, John Coltrane: A Discography and Musical Biography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1995. Rutgers University Institute of Jazz Studies, Studies in Jazz, Volume 20.
Ralph J. Gleason, "Miles Davis," Rolling Stone, December 13, 1969.
Frederic Goaty, Miles Davis, Editions Vade Retro, Paris, 1995.
Gregg Hall, "Miles Davis: Today's Most Influential Contemporary Musician," Down Beat, July 18, 1974, pp. 16-20.
Alex Haley, "The Miles Davis Interview," Playboy, September 1962.
Max Harrison, "Sheer Alchemy, for a While: Miles Davis and Gil Evans," Jazz Monthly, December 1958 and Febraury 1960.
Don Heckman, "Miles Davis Times Three: The Evolution of a Jazz Artist," Down Beat, August 30, 1962, pp. 16-19.
Michael James, Miles Davis. London: Faber and Cassell, 1961.
Ashley Kahn, Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece. New York: Da Capo Press, 2000.
Barry Kernfield, Adderley, Coltrane, and Davis at the Twilight of Bop: The Search for Melodic Coherence (1958-1959). Ann Arbor: University Microfilems, 1981.
Bill Kirchner (ed.), A Miles Davis Reader (Smithsonian Readers in American Music). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997.
Jan Lohmann, The Sound of Miles Davis: The Discography 1945-1991. Copenhagen: JazzMedia ApS, 1991.
Daryl Long, Miles Davis For Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers, 1994.
Jeffrey Magee, "Kinds of Blue: Miles Davis, Afro-Modernism, and the Blues," Jazz Perspectives vol. 1, no. 1 (May 2007): 5-27.
Howard Mandel, "Sketches of Miles," Down Beat, December 1991, pp. 16-20.
Barry McRae, Miles Davis. London: Apollo Books, 1988.
Dan Morgenstern, "Miles in Motion," Down Beat, September 3, 1970, pp. 16-17.
Yasuki Nakayama, Miles Davis Complete Discography. Tokyo: Futabasha, 2000.
------, Listen to Miles, Version 6. Tokyo: Futabasha, 2004.
------, Miles Davis: We Love Music, We Love the Earth. Tokyo: Tokyo FM, 2002.
Eric Nisenson, 'Round About Midnight: A Portrait of Miles Davis. New York: Da Capo Press, 1996.
Tore Mortensen, Miles Davis: Den Ny Jazz. Aarhus: n/a, 1976.
Chris Murphy, Miles to Go: The Later Years. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2002.
Takao Ogawa a.o., Jazz Hero's Data Bank. Tokyo: JICC, 1991.
Toyoki Okajima (ed.), The Complete Blue Note Book: Tribute to Alfred Lion. Jazz Critique Special Edition, No. 3 (1987). Tokyo: Jazz Hihyo, 1987.
------, The Prestige Book: Discography of All Series. Jazz Critique Special Edition No. 3 (1996). Tokyo: Jazz Hihyo, 1996.
Harvey Pekar, "Miles Davis: 1964-69 Recordings," Coda, May 1976, pp. 8-14.
Bret Primack, "Remembering Miles," Jazz Times, February 1992, pp. 17-88 (with interruptions).
Michel Ruppli and Bob Porter, The Prestige Label: A Discography. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1980.
Michel Ruppli and Bob Porter, The Savoy Label: A Discography. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1980.
Jimmy Saunders, "An Interview with Miles Davis," Playboy, April 1975.
R.B. Shaw, "Miles Above," Jazz Journal, November 1960, pp. 15-16.
Chris Smith, "A Sense of the Possible: Miles Davis and the Semiotics of Improvised Performance", in In the Course of Performance: Studies in the World of Musical Improvisation (edd. Bruno Nett and Melinda Russell), University of Chicago Press, 1998.
John Szwed, So What: The Life of Miles Davis. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002.
Greg Tate, "The Electric Miles: Parts 1 and 2," Down Beat, July and August 1983.
Paul Tingen, Miles Beyond: Electric Explorations of Miles Davis, 1967-1991. New York: Billboard Books, 2001.
Gary Tomlinson, "Miles Davis: Musical Dialogician," Black Music Research Journal 11/2, Fall 1991, pp. 249-64.
Ken Vail, Miles' Diary: The Life of Miles Davis, 1947-1961. London: Sanctuary Publishing, 1996.
Robert Walser, "Out of Notes: Signification, Interpretation, and the Problem of Miles Davis," Musical Quarterly, Summer 1993, pp. 343-65.
Peter Weissmüller, Miles Davis: Sein Leben, Musik, Schallplatten. Berlin: OREOS, 1988.
Richard Williams, The Man in The Green Shirt. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1993.

The Pernicious and Delusional Politics of Billary, Inc.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/clinton-calls-vp-chatter-completely-untrue/index.html?nl=pol&emc=pola1

All,

Since she can't possibly win the Democratic Party nomination at this point Billary, Inc. is clearly out to completely sabotage Obama's chances of winning against McCain in the general election in November. Race-baiting, lies, innuendo, gossip, fear mongering--they'll use ANYTHING to help the right wing destroy him. Venom, spite, and an intolerable/overweening sense of entitlement is, as always, Billary's major stock in trade. After Mike Huckabee's vicious racist "joke" a couple days ago the statement made by Billary today marks the second direct public reference this week by a white politician to the possibility of Obama's assassination. What does that tell you?

What an insufferable, monumental asshole! This woman is off the charts insane. She and everything she embodies and "represents" needs to be stopped NOW...

MSNBC's brilliant political journalist and news anchor Keith Olbermann's critical and incisive commentary on this heinous episode (and his on air interview with political historian and Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley), as well as the following two articles from the New York Times tells us in great detail all we need to know about just how insidious and contemptible Billary's ongoing political stunts really are...

Kofi

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24798166#24798166






May 23, 2008
Clinton, Defending Nomination Battle, Cites R.F.K. Assassination
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
New York Times

SIOUX FALLS, S.D.– Senator Hillary Clinton referred to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as a reason she should continue her battle with Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks came during meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board. She was responding to a question about calls for her to drop out of the race. The editorial board meeting, in advance of South Dakota’s primary on June 3, was carried live on the Argus Leader’s Web site.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” Mrs. Clinton said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.

Mr. Obama learned of the remark when he was traveling to a rally in South Florida. He was not expected to publicly discuss it, aides said. Instead, the campaign issued a one-line statement.

“Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.

But an aide to Mrs. Clinton said that she was simply using the Kennedy assassination as a benchmark to underscore that nomination fights can go a long time and that she was in no way implying anything else.

“She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer,” said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign. “Any reading into it beyond that is outrageous.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22florida.html?nl=pol&emc=pola1&pagewanted=print

May 22, 2008

Clinton Signals She May Carry Fight to Convention
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JEFF ZELENY
New York Times


CORAL GABLES, Fla. — A day after Senator Barack Obama gathered a majority of pledged delegates in the Democratic presidential nominating contest, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defiantly sent out new signals Wednesday that she might take her fight for the nomination all the way to the party’s convention in August.

Mrs. Clinton stumped across South Florida, scene of the 2000 election debacle, pressing her case for including delegates from Florida and Michigan in the final delegate tally. On the trail and in interviews, she raised a new battle cry of determination, likening her struggle for these delegates to the nation’s historic struggles to free the slaves and grant women the right to vote.

But behind the scenes, the campaigns were working with the Democratic National Committee to resolve the dispute over the delegates before May 31, when the party’s rules committee is to decide the matter. Mrs. Clinton has said she wants all delegates counted and apportioned based on the popular vote of the two candidates in both states, although Mr. Obama did not appear on the ballot in Michigan.

Mr. Obama has said he wants the delegates seated but has not said how or in what proportion. David Axelrod, his chief strategist, said in an interview Wednesday that the campaign was willing to go beyond halfway in the apportionment.

“If that means we have to make some sacrifices,” Mr. Axelrod said, “we are open to do so, within reason. Our sense is the folks in Florida and Michigan want to resolve this. They’re not looking to prolong this.”

The outcome on the Florida and Michigan delegates may be only symbolic anyway. Winning extra delegates, even under her rosiest scenario, would not help Mrs. Clinton catch Mr. Obama’s lead on that score.

Both need superdelegates to get over the finish line. But winning additional delegates from Florida and Michigan might be Mrs. Clinton’s last glimmer of hope in bolstering her case to superdelegates that she would be the stronger candidate in November. In her victory speech Tuesday in Kentucky, she noted that the primary race was one of the closest in history.

Florida and Michigan have emerged as central to Mrs. Clinton’s effort to keep her candidacy alive.

Both states jumped ahead in the primary calendar in January in violation of party rules. As punishment, the party stripped them of their delegates, leaving them excluded from a primary process that has galvanized the rest of the country.

Mrs. Clinton told The Associated Press on Wednesday that she would support those states if they had to carry their fight to the convention.

“Yes, I will,” she said. “I will, because I feel very strongly about this.”

And Geoff Garin, her pollster, told MSNBC that she could campaign beyond the primaries because “there are enough uncommitted delegates left for either candidate to earn a majority.”

Mr. Obama crossed the threshold of amassing a majority of pledged delegates on Tuesday with his victory in Oregon.

Mr. Garin added that at some point, one of the candidates would have enough total delegates to win the nomination, “but we have not reached that point yet; we probably won’t reach that point on June 3.” Mrs. Clinton has signaled that she intends to stay in the race at least through the final primaries on June 3.

Mr. Obama ignored Mrs. Clinton’s arguments about the delegates in an effort, his aides said, not to legitimize her point of view.

“I know there are some people worried about the Democratic Party being divided,” Mr. Obama said. “We will be united.”

That strategists are working behind the scenes on the matter raised the possibility that Mrs. Clinton’s newfound fervor was an effort to make sure her apportioning method prevails.

It also raised the possibility that her campaign was split over how to handle the end game of what some have admitted privately is a lost cause. Some Clinton aides said that she was well aware of her uphill climb and that she was making a symbolic point. They said she was hesitant about declaring that she could overcome Mr. Obama’s lead, but at the same time did not want to be seen as surrendering.

Her swing across South Florida on Wednesday seemed essentially to be a campaign-within-a-campaign, one that is about process and is directed chiefly at the party’s rules committee.

“I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country.”

She also sought to whip up populist sentiment, telling voters in Boca Raton, where the 2000 election played out vividly, “You didn’t break a single rule, and you should not be punished for matters beyond your control.”

She argued with fervor that the nomination should be determined by popular vote. She has claimed to have the lead in the popular vote by including Florida and Michigan in her tally.

“The outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people, nothing more, nothing less,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will.”

“The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear,” she said. “If any votes aren’t counted, the will of the people isn’t realized and our democracy is diminished.”

She generally avoided mentioning Mr. Obama all day, but concluded a rally in Coral Gables on Wednesday by declaring: “Look at the states I’ve won. Look at the states I’m leading in. Look at the electoral map. It is clear I’m the stronger candidate.”

As her voice was drowned out with cheers, she added: “Stay with me. Let’s make history together.”

Katharine Q. Seelye reported from Coral Gables, and Jeff Zeleny from Tampa, Fla.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Why Obama Needs a White Female Vice President (AND I DON'T MEAN HILLARY)...

All,

Following are some extended remarks I made to a friend and colleague today regarding the upcoming important decision of who--in my opinion--Barack Obama should choose as a vice presidential running mate against John McCain in the national election and why...

Kofi

Obama Needs a Winning National Coalition--Picking a white female running mate would definitely help him with that

M,

John Edwards took a very long time to make a decision and he finally made the right one even though the timing of his choice suggests a certain kind of political opportunism on his part that is not entirely flattering. I still have a great deal of respect for Edwards's politics and I think within the admittedly limited context of the Democratic Party he is a genuine and dedicated progressive (especially on issues of class, labor, and the economy generally). He will be a real and necessary asset for Obama in the general election although I think that Obama's running mate should be a woman (definitely NOT Billary of course) and she should be from a swing state like say Kansas or Missouri. I'm very impressed with both Gov. Kathleen Sebelius from Kansas and Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri. I think they both would make outstanding Vice Presidents and also be of great help to Obama in capturing the national white female vote and female independents generally.

While Edwards is an equally outstanding liberal politician I really don't think that ANYONE could really help Obama get even a small majority of the white male working and lower middle class vote. The fact that the Democratic Party has only received the majority of white male voters ONCE in the last 40 years/ten elections (!)--and then by a very slim margin-- tells me that there is an even far greater chance of Obama not having a snowball's chance in Hades of capturing even a small percentage of the national white male rural and white male suburban vote. On the other hand I think Obama would have a far greater chance of pulling in both former Billary female supporters and the liberal/progressive white female working, middle, and upper middle class vote generally.

Since white females make up the largest voting demographic in the entire country it's clear that if Obama can pull together a loyal national coalition of black, independent, young, and female voters (as well as a solid majority of the Latino vote who also supported Billary in large numbers during the primaries) Obama can easily win the national election against McCain WITHOUT CAPTURING A MAJORITY OF WHITE MALE VOTERS. In fact if Obama can bring off the coalition I mentioned above (and I see absolutely no reason why he couldn't if he made a white female his running mate) then he thankfully WOULDN'T NEED BUT A VERY SMALL MINORITY (25-30%) of the white male vote to win going away.


Part II

M,

All I'm saying is that OBAMA CAN'T WIN WITHOUT A SOLID MAJORITY OF WHITE FEMALE VOTERS IN HIS COALITION PRECISELY BECAUSE WHITE MEN AIN'T GONNA VOTE FOR HIM NO MATTER WHO THE VEEP IS. I have no trouble at all with John Edwards as his running mate but I doubt very seriously if even he can steer enough white male voters Obama's way in this election. It's important to note that white male voters in general and crossing every class line have voted solidly Republican 9 out the last 10 presidential elections going back to 1968! That glaring ideological and demographic fact (along with the highly disturbing reality that 65% of ALL WHITE MALE VOTERS VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2004) means that with the added volatile factor of racism thrown into the mix it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Obama can change this trend (even with Edwards as his VP). This is significant because white male voters make up 40% of the national electorate--a gigantic segment of the national voting population which clearly has to be offset by a much broader coalition of voters.

This is why I insisted (and still do) that it is absolutely imperative that Obama capture a substantial majority of the national white female vote since they make up over 42% of the national electorate and are thus an even stronger and larger force than white males in any national election. Given the fact that even if 85-90% of blacks, independents, Latinos, and youth all voted for Obama HE STILL CAN'T WIN WITHOUT AT LEAST 60% OF THE WHITE FEMALE VOTE . This explains why I lean very much toward a white female Veep who Billary's supporters can trust and feel secure in voting for even if her name isn't "Hillary." Women in general have a huge stake in this election and neither they nor we can afford a McCain presidency to say the least. i think at the end of the day that most women will realize that and will rationally accept a qualified and progressive woman on Obama's ticket who is NOT married to Bill Clinton. If they want a real change in Washington I'm confident they'll realize that a Clinton doesn't have to be on the DP ticket for that change to happen and that any other woman would then not be looked at as a weak surrogate for Hillary but as a strong, independent force on her own who would only enhance Obama's ability to win in November.

I agree that Obama is going to have to be very decisive with his VP pick and that he can't allow himself to worry AT ALL about who he picks no matter what anyone else in his Party says. I think picking a woman would be a wise political move on Obama's part because he needs to think long and hard about just who he CAN and CANNOT depend on to vote for him against McCain. HE CLEARLY CAN'T DEPEND ON WHITE MEN BUT HE MUST DEPEND ON WHITE WOMEN (along with African Americans, Latinos, independents, and youth of course) IF HE WANTS TO WIN. Again, it's called arithmetic...

And finally one last statement by myself to another friend yesterday about this same topic:

R,

So if Obama is to win he's going to have to capture the national white female and Latino voting blocs (both of whom have voted very heavily for Billary during this year's DP primaries) and get them to cast their ballots for him in the fight against McCain 'cause he ain't gonna get the white male vote above say 35%. A national coalition of African Americans, white women, Latinos, independents of all nationalities, and the youth vote in general (i.e. 21-30) can easily defeat and even trounce McCain IF it sticks together. If it doesn't and a substantial minority of these voting blocs defect to McCain not only Obama but you, me, this entire country, and the entire world is TOAST (and I mean completely BURNT!).

So it's up to all of us to see that Obama is elected. He ain't perfect or even the absolute optimum candidate by any stretch of the imagination BUT HE IS ALL WE'VE GOT and we all need to put aside whatever "infantile leftist" neuroses, anxieties, indecisiveness, or misgivings any of us "radicals" and "progressives" may have and strongly and unequivocally support Obama for the Presidency. If we waver now and let the unthinkable happen--four to eight more years of rightwing Republican tyranny--we will deserve our doomed collective fate. I know that sounds like exaggerated hyperbole but it's the TRUTH and if we don't heed the glaring lessons of History in this election year we will all live to regret it

Kofi


Governor Kathleen Sebelius Biography

Pledging independent leadership to move Kansas forward, in 2003 Kathleen Sebelius
became the 44th Governor of the State of Kansas. Governor Sebelius was reelected to
a second term in 2006.

At the heart of Governor Sebelius' administration is a commitment to growing the Kansas
economy and creating jobs; ensuring every Kansas child receives a quality education;
protecting Kansas families and communities; improving access to quality, affordable health care; and taking advantage of the state's renewable energy assets.

Through a commitment to making the state's business climate more attractive - and by
balancing the state budget without raising taxes - the Kansas economy has rebounded
resulting in low unemployment and the creation of thousands of new jobs.

Because good schools equal good jobs and a growing economy, Governor Sebelius has
made improving public education a priority. During her first term the state made a historic
commitment to Kansas' schoolchildren, and in her second term, Sebelius has strengthened
that commitment, proposing significant funding increases for early childhood learning and
pre-kindergarten programs.

Another responsibility is to keep Kansas communities safe. Governor Sebelius works closely
with Kansas first responders and law enforcement to prepare for natural disasters and other
emergencies. In order to enhance the safety and security of Kansas citizens, the Governor
proposed the creation of five regional training centers for first responders and Kansas
National Guard personnel.

Since the rising cost of health care is a threat to families and businesses, the Governor is
working to ensure Kansans have access to quality and affordable health care. She's also
proposed providing health insurance to every uninsured Kansas child from birth to age five
in order to give these children a healthy start on life.

Sebelius believes Kansas must take advantage of its enormous potential for renewable
energy production. She's working with business and community leaders, utilities, and local
governments to promote wind energy and biofuels production in Kansas, as well as expanded
energy efficiency and conservation efforts.

Governor Sebelius serves on the National Governors Association's Executive Committee
and is co-chair of the National Governors Association's initiative, Securing a Clean Energy
Future. Sebelius chairs the Education Commission of the States and as past chair of the
Democratic Governors Association, she currently serves on the DGA Executive Committee.
Married to husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge, for 33 years, they have two sons:
Ned and John. Both Sebelius boys are products of the Topeka public school system,
pre-kindergarten through high school. Ned is a law student, and John is a graduate of the
Rhode Island School of Design.

Sebelius is the first daughter of a Governor (John Gilligan, Ohio, 1971-1975) in U.S. history to be elected to that same position.

Barack Obama at the Threshold of the Democratic Party Nomination and What it Means

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/us/politics/07elect.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

All,

Barack Obama's resounding and comprehensive defeat of Billary, Inc.. in North Carolina last night, coupled with his nearly 50/50 split of the vote in Indiana means one thing and one thing only: The race for the Democratic Party nomination is over and Obama will be the nominee. Any other course taken by the Democratic Party elite (i.e. the 'superdelegates') would mean absolute political suicide for the DP and the obliteration of any hopes of winning the national election in November. The fundamental fact that Obama now commands a mathematically insurmountable lead in every single category that matters: Overall delegate count (by nearly 200), popular vote totals (by over 600,000 votes), and total number of primaries won (by a 2-1 margin) means that if the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the superdelegates who have yet to cast their ballot choices even think about trying to circumvent, undermine, or sabotage the democratic process by unfairly giving the nomination to Billary at this point there would be such a justifiably massive backlash and protest among the base of the Democratic Party who have consistently voted in overwhelming numbers for Obama thus far (i.e. African Americans, independents of all nationalities, and young voters in general) that the Democratic Party would be utterly destroyed and McCain would waltz into the White House by default.

Thankfully, I doubt very seriously that even this Party elite would be anywhere near that stupid at this late date. No sane person in the DP wants to self destruct at this point (despite the ongoing asinine antics of the Clintons and their arrogant and now thoroughly defeated machine). So it's definitely Obama's ballgame from here until November. I just hope that the majority of the major supporters of Billary during this campaign season (e.g. white female voters, Latinos in general, and white male working and lower middle class voters) have the simple common sense and basic human decency to put aside whatever bitter and/or racist feelings and attitudes many of them have to not only cast their votes for Obama in the general election but also, and most importantly, simultaneously vote AGAINST racism and FOR their own political and economic self interest.

Because if this race for the Presidency means anything this year it means that challenging and defeating racism in the general electorate AND voting for a liberal reform candidate (Obama) against a reactionary conservative candidate (McCain) mean the exact same thing.

So what it all comes down to from June 1 on is that if over 50% of the voting public can mature enough to realize what the real stakes are in this election and not succumb to or passively accept the backward, ignorant, and destructive politics that have far too often ruled this country then we all have a genuine chance to do far more than merely elect Barack Obama. We have a real opportunity to begin the long and absolutely necessary process of actually changing the country in a truly progressive direction. So let's not allow cynicism, despair, smugness, or indifference to push us off course. In other words: LET'S NOT BLOW IT...

Kofi

OBAMA OR NOTHING IN 2008!



May 7, 2008
Obama Wins North Carolina Decisively; Clinton Takes Indiana by Slim Margin
By JEFF ZELENY
New York Times


Senator Barack Obama won a commanding victory in the North Carolina primary on Tuesday and lost narrowly to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Indiana, an outcome that injected a boost of momentum to Mr. Obama’s candidacy as the Democratic nominating contest entered its final month.

The results from the two primaries, the largest remaining Democratic ones, assured that Mr. Obama would widen his lead in pledged delegates over Mrs. Clinton, providing him with new ammunition as he seeks to persuade Democratic leaders to coalesce around his campaign. He also increased his lead in the popular vote in winning North Carolina by more than 200,000 votes.

“Don’t ever forget that we have a choice in this country,” Mr. Obama said in an address in Raleigh, N.C., that carried the unity themes of a convention speech. “We can choose not to be divided; that we can choose not to be afraid; that we can still choose this moment to finally come together and solve the problems we’ve talked about all those other years in all those other elections.”

In winning North Carolina by 14 percentage points, Mr. Obama — whose campaign had been embattled by controversy over the incendiary remarks of his former pastor — recorded his first primary victory in nearly two months. His campaign was preparing to open a new front in his battle with Mrs. Clinton, intensifying the argument to uncommitted Democratic superdelegates that he weathered a storm and that the time was dawning for the party to concentrate on the general election.

But as Mrs. Clinton addressed her supporters at a rally in Indianapolis on Tuesday evening, it was clear the fight was not over. In the first three minutes of her address, she asked supporters to contribute money, saying, “Tonight, I need your help to continue this journey.”

Clinton advisers acknowledged that the results of the primaries were far less than they had hoped, and said they were likely to face new pleas even from some of their own supporters for her to quit the race. They said they expected fund-raising to become even harder; one adviser said the campaign was essentially broke, and several others refused to say whether Mrs. Clinton had lent the campaign money from her personal account to keep it afloat.

The advisers said they were dispirited over the loss in North Carolina, after her campaign — now working off a shoestring budget as spending outpaces fund-raising — decided to allocate millions of dollars and full days of the candidate and her husband in the state. Even with her investment, Mr. Obama outspent Mrs. Clinton in both states.

For several hours, incomplete results from Lake County in Indiana — home to the city of Gary, just across the state line from Chicago — left the statewide tally in doubt. The delay meant that Mrs. Clinton did not appear on television until well after Mr. Obama, allowing him to put his stamp of victory on the evening.

With six primaries remaining on the Democratic calendar, the fight between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton now turns to Washington. The Obama campaign was poised to present a new cache of superdelegates — the party officials who may have to settle the nominating fight — as early as Wednesday to press its case that the results from Tuesday are reason enough to back his candidacy and end the torturous nominating fight.

In his speech earlier in the evening, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, congratulated Mrs. Clinton “for what appears to be her victory in the great state of Indiana.” Then, he used his televised forum to deliver a speech highlighting how he was likely to come under attack. In doing so, he made an argument for his viability in a general election, which his rivals believe has been damaged because of his association with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr..

“Yes, we know what’s coming; I’m not naïve,” Mr. Obama said, adding, “The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences, to turn us against each other for political gain, to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states; blue-collar and white-collar; white, black, brown; young, old; rich, poor.”

“This is the race we expect” regardless of who is the Democratic nominee, he went on. “The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they will run; it’s what kind of campaign we will run.”

Democrats said they expect to see more superdelegates flow to Mr. Obama in the next few days, including perhaps some now aligned with Mrs. Clinton.

Senator Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter from Missouri, called the results “a big, big night” for Mr. Obama given the Wright episode. “This shows he can take major blows and kind of rise above it,” Ms. McCaskill said. “I think there was a sense that she has some momentum, and I think it has just ground to a screeching halt tonight.”

Despite Mrs. Clinton’s performance, she pledged to take her campaign to West Virginia, Kentucky and the other states remaining on the primary calendar. And the campaign has been pushing the cause of seating disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan, states that were penalized for holding primaries before party rules allowed.

“You know it seems, it would be a little strange to have a nominee chosen by 48 states,” she told her supporters in Indianapolis. “We’ve got a long road ahead, but were going to keep fighting on that path because America is worth fighting for.”

The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee will convene on May 31 to settle the issue of whether to seat the delegates from those two states.

Going forward, both candidates intend to spend time in Washington, courting superdelegates and party officials.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, said the candidate accomplished what he needed to by outperforming expectations in both states and showing that Mr. Wright was not driving off voters en masse. “The next question will be what happens with the undecided superdelegates,” Mr. Nelson said. “Will they begin to come his way? I don’t see anything to suggest they should start going her way.”

In North Carolina, Mr. Obama’s performance was bolstered by a strong black vote. He captured more than 90 percent of those voters in that state, where blacks accounted for one in three voters. But over all, Mrs. Clinton continued to draw strong support among whites, particularly older women.

The voting in Indiana and North Carolina came at the conclusion of an acrimonious two-week campaign that found Mr. Obama on the defensive over incendiary remarks by Mr. Wright. Yet there was little evidence either argument caused significant shifts in electoral patterns of previous states, with most Clinton voters saying the Wright episode affected their vote and Obama backers saying it had not.

Once again, Mrs. Clinton drew most of her support from women and older voters. Mr. Obama held onto his mainstays of support — blacks, young voters and liberals — and made small gains in Indiana with lower-income white voters who have eluded him in the past.

In both states, the candidates’ final arguments centered on a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax, which Mrs. Clinton proposed as an economic lift for voters and Mr. Obama derided as a political gimmick.

At this stage in the nominating fight, most voters seemed to have settled on their preferences before the battle intensified. Only a quarter of voters in Indiana decided whom to support in the last week, and a majority backed Mrs. Clinton, while one in five voters in North Carolina also decided late, and most of them backed Mr. Obama.

The country’s economic condition was listed as the chief concern of the Democratic primary voters. About 9 in 10 voters in Indiana and 8 in 10 voters in North Carolina said the economic slowdown had affected their family at least somewhat.

At least three in five voters in both states said the economy was the most important problem facing the country, according to surveys of voters leaving polling places that were conducted in both states by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press.

In Indiana, about 8 in 10 voters were white and about 15 percent were black. Six in 10 of the whites voted for Mrs. Clinton; about 9 in 10 blacks favored Mr. Obama.

Reporting was contributed by Patrick Healy, Carl Hulse, Dalia Sussman and Megan Thee.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Truth & Consequences in American Politics Today: Two Journalists Speak

All,

The following two excellent articles, one by the distinguished political journalist and former Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson from 1964-1968, Bill Moyers (from his award-winning program of political and cultural commentary Bill Moyers Journal on PBS), and the other an incisive and well written analysis of the media's central and often divisive role in the presidential race (and especially the primary war between Democratic Party opponents Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) by an independent black political news journalist (Andre Stephens) are also two of the very few national news articles about Obama and Wright throughout the country that actually tells the real truth about what's not being said and desperately needs to be in this entire incident.

Kofi


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html

BILL MOYERS:
Bill Moyers Journal on PBS
May 2, 2008

Welcome to the Journal.

I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam, "Who's telling the truth over there?" "Everyone, he said. "Everyone sees what's happening through the lens of their own experience." That's how people see Jeremiah Wright. In my conversation with him on this broadcast a week ago and in his dramatic public appearances since, he revealed himself to be far more complex than the sound bites that propelled him onto the public stage. Over 2000 of you have written me about him, and your opinions vary widely. Some sting: "Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a race-hustling, American hating radical," one viewer wrote. A "nut case," said another. Others were far more were sympathetic to him.

Many of you have asked for some rational explanation for Wright's transition from reasonable conversation to shocking anger at the National Press Club. A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist. Many black preachers I've known — scholarly, smart, and gentle in person — uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course I've known many white preachers like that, too.
But where I grew up in the south, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else; a safe place for the fierce thunder of dignity denied, justice delayed. I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched. Or if my great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a constitution that proclaimed, "We the people." Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor, and Jesse Helms. Even so, the anger of black preachers I've known and heard about and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic.

That's not how Jeremiah Wright came across in those sound bites or in his defiant performances this week. What white America is hearing in his most inflammatory words is an attack on the America they cherish and that many of their sons have died for in battle ? forgetting that black Americans have fought and bled beside them, and that Wright himself has a record of honored service in the Navy. Hardly anyone took the "chickens come home to roost" remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences. My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being. But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated, while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test. Does this excuse Wright's anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You'll have to decide or yourself. At least it helps me to understand the why of them.

But in this multimedia age the pulpit isn't only available on Sunday mornings. There's round the clock media — the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content. So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help — people who for their own reasons set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn't running for president with the man in the pew who was.

Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee's delusions, or thinks AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11 Jerry Falwell said the attack was God's judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.

Jon Stewart recently played a tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the oval office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America. This is crazy; this is wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't.

Which means it is all about race, isn't it? Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school. What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettle some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship. We are often exposed us to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I've never seen anything like this ? this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner before our very eyes. Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race. It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said "beware the terrible simplifiers".


http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=4502

Reverend Wright Not Obama's Problem; Media Is
by Andre Stephens
Black Star News
May 3, 2008

[Elections 2008: Our National Hypocrisy]

When Barack Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright appeared on Bill Moyers Journal last week, it was a chance for him to respond to charges of preaching racist and anti-American sermons.

I can only imagine that as Reverend Wright looked for a venue to speak out against the perceptions being advanced by the main stream media about him, he chose Bill Moyers Journal not only because of what Mr. Moyers is, but because of what he isn’t. Mr. Moyers is an ordained minister and a former press secretary in Lyndon Johnson’s administration.

What he is not, is part of mainstream media.

In fact, back in 2005 Moyers old show, Now With Bill Moyers, was the focus of an attack by the right-wing for what they described as “left wing bias.” Moyers was one of the few journalists that bothered to challenge the Bush administration’s assertions of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction in the build up to the invasion of Iraq. In short, Bill Moyers is a reasonable journalist that tries to examine all sides of an issue. He is not prone to sensationalism or “gotcha” tactics.

By now, everyone has seen the video of Reverend Wright’s sermon in which he exclaims “God damn America”. Predictably, the media used the occasion of Wright’s interview with Moyers to replay the video that had already been played and analyzed ad nauseam.

One of the biggest flaws with today’s television media is that they have decided to divest in true investigative reporting and invest in opinion and debate. The airwaves are full of pundits that all have agendas. Finding the facts related to any given issue becomes a huge challenge for the audience.

With regards to Reverend Wright’s sermons, all of the pundits started the conversation from the same flawed premise----that Reverend Wright’s comments were despicable.

Guest pundits whose agenda was to insulate Senator Barack Obama from Wright’s comments bashed the reverend. Hillary Clinton’s people saw Wright’s comments as an opportunity to attack Obama and bash Wright. The Republicans, well, they were being Republicans.

Once the media declares that you are a villain, there’s not much one can say to change their opinion. Reverend Wright had been universally labeled an extremist. Today’s media doesn’t see putting stories in their proper perspective and context as part of their responsibility. News broadcasts all seem to omit the same facts and include the same rhetoric, regardless of which channel. Pundits seek to increase their stardom by competing to see who can appear to be the most obnoxious.

With regard to the Reverend Wright story, the networks found pundits of all shapes, sizes and colors to express outrage at Wright. The networks love nothing more than finding Black pundits to confirm their perceptions when other Blacks are involved. This allows them to easily dismiss opposing views. What they’re really saying is, “The Black guy even says he’s offended by Wright’s comments.” (Without elaborating that “This is our Black guy.”)

That explains why the media’s review of Reverend Wright’s appearance on Moyers’ show featured a single clip of Wright responding to Moyers’ question about his reaction to some of the things Barack Obama said about him during Obama’s speech in Philadelphia.

Reverend Wright’s response was, “He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds.”

Even without the benefit of seeing the entire interview at the time, my reaction to the clip was that it seemed like a reasonable response to me. However, most of the mainstream media used Wright’s comments as some sort of slight directed at Barack Obama. I can personally witness that The Today Show, CNN and MSNBC had some form of “Reverend Wright Continues to be a Problem for Barack Obama” as their top story.

When I finally saw Bill Moyers’ interview of Reverend Wright in its entirety, my reaction was that anyone who saw this interview and still regarded Reverend Wright as un-American or racist was never going to be a Barack Obama supporter one way or the other.

Wright was insightful, intelligent and inspiring. It must have taken a tremendous effort on the part of whoever decides what the next day’s news will be to pick an excerpt out of that interview to use against Wright and Obama.

Much to my surprise, Reverend Wright even provided a reasonable explanation for his now infamous, “God damn America” statement. Bill Moyers showed the entire clip, not just the part repeated on television. In short, Wright was preaching about the downfalls of great civilizations throughout history, due to their moral collapse. His point was that God will not bless a government or country that commits atrocities against its own people and, or, other countries. He was saying that if we continue on the path we are on, God will not bless America, it will instead, damn America.

So what’s really behind all of the coverage of Reverend Wright? What better way to minimize Barack Obama’s appeal than to link him to a scary, radical Black man?

Last year I wrote an article in which I stated that I didn’t think a Black man named Barack Hussein Obama had a chance to be President of the United States. It wasn’t because of Obama. It was because of my belief that there are too many whites that would never support a Black president. Our country is still in denial of its racist past and present. To be fair, I don’t think Hilary Clinton has a “snowballs chance in hell” of becoming president either.

Even though Blacks are only 12% of the total U.S. population, fear of a Black reprisal has impacted policy in this country since the slaves were freed. That’s why it’s perfectly legitimate in the minds of some whites to compare the Nation of Islam with the KKK. While I don’t agree with all of their practices, I defy anyone to name a White person that was killed at the hands of the Nation of Islam. By contrast, countless Blacks were lynched, burned and beaten at the hands of Klansmen. All Blacks have to do is talk scary to be compared to Whites that murder.

Obama detractors understand this. All they have to do is create the appearance of Obama having relationships with perceived Black radicals to put an end to his candidacy. I believe that’s referred to as “playing the race card.”

Lastly, Id like to see Obama stand up to this whole Reverend Wright situation by asking Hillary Clinton what she thinks of the 8,000-members that attend Wright’s church? Does she believe they are ignorant, misinformed sheep? Did she not notice their acknowledgement of Reverend Wright’s words? Does she understand that there are millions of Black, former Clinton supporters across the country that agree with everything Wright said in his sermon?

If Obama really is interested in inclusion, perhaps he should stop acting embarrassed by Reverend Wright’s comments and challenge Hilary and the rest of the country not to reject Wright and his comments, but help bridge the gap between the folks that agree with Wright and folks that are scared of him.

Reverend Wright is not Obama’s problem. The media’s insistence on creating controversy to further their own individual and corporate agendas is what Obama is up against.

Black Star News columnist Stephens can be reached at
andre.w.stephens@hotmail.com