New York Post story nominated for "most ignored of 2008 award."

New York Post reporter Ginger Otis has been nominated for the prestigious Most Ignored Story of 2008 award, for her recent story, "Obama Robbed in New York." The story details how, in NYC, which happens to be Hillary Clinton's "home town," whoever counted the votes seemed not to notice that Mr. Obama had any.

From the article:

February 16, 2008 -- Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly under recorded in several congressional districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said today
Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the Board of Elections confirmed.
Truth is, in some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even close to defeating Hillary Clinton...

In a predominantly black Brooklyn district for which Clinton was given credit for a 118-0 victory on Primary Night, the Board of Elections' latest figures indicate that she may not even come out the winner - Obama currently has 116 votes to her 118.

Since stories about possible electoral fraud are routinely ignored by the rest of the Media -- forgotten as if they'd never existed in the first place -- observers believe Ms. Otis's story has a fair shot at winning the award. "However," noted Brad Friedman, four-time past winner of the award, "it's early yet. We haven't even gotten to the general election, anything can happen." Indeed, Ms. Otis looks to be facing several other strong contenders. The story of 50,000 Los Angeles votes not counting has already been largely forgotten, and given the historic Democratic primaries and the omnipresence of school shootings, Britney Spears, and cleaver-murders, nobody seems to be paying much attention to stories about anything the current Administration or Congress are doing. But for now, Ms. Otis's story is an early favorite.

When asked for comment, Ms. Otis added: "What story?"

"Yes We Can" vs. "Me Me Me"

Obama may be more proficient in the vocabulary of leadership, but Clinton's speech proved her campaign right when they said she represents a real change. Most leaders use the words "we," "us" and "our" to draw in their listeners, to make them feel as if they're part of the team -- to make them feel invested in the leader's success. Not Clinton. Compare Obama's old school approach vs. Clinton's radically different one. She doesn't pander to the togetherist lobby. She turns conventional wisdom on its head by choosing language that gives the impression it's all about her. "I listened to you... I found my voice." That line in particular was brilliant. We know it was brilliant. If it had been a pathetic admission that she's given to falling out of touch with the American people, the Media would've told us so. But they told us it was brilliant, which, to me, was a big relief.

Let's compare Old School Obama to New Jack Clinton. Here's Obama's South Carolina victory speech...



...vs. Clinton's New Hampshire victory speech.



I have to admit, she lapsed a bit toward the end. A few "we" and "us" buzzwords crept in. But what a rousing start.

The Clintons smoked identity politics, inhaled big-time

The more I see of the Clinton campaign, the more I understand the burning hatred the right wing has always felt toward them, even if I don't (yet) share it. How can you not hate people who laugh and smile while they distort their opponents words and records? How can you not hate people who brazenly drag their opponents' race into the campaign repeatedly, and then feign indignation when their opponent calls them on it? How can you not despise the Clintons when they speak derisively of Barack engaging in identity politics, while at the same time reminding everyone at every turn that Hillary has ovaries?

The Clintons' latest not-quite-subtle attempt to marginalize Obama based on race:

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question about Obama saying it "took two people to beat him." Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

Obama did win the vast majority of black South Carolinians' votes. But how does Bill Clinton explain Iowa? Did Jesse Jackson win Iowa and the history books forgot to record that?

Letter to Editor: Candorville's mockery of bigots offends me!

A reader was kind enough to send me a copy of his letter to the editor about today's Candorville:

Copy of Letter to the Editor-Austin American Statesman

Dear Editor:

As a white, Independent voter, I am appaled at the tastelessness of the “comic strip”, Candorville, that appeared in the Saturday Jan. 19, 2008 Austin Statesman.

This has a non-white male character talking to a non-white female character and I will quote the dialogue in it’s entirety for those who missed it.

He says, “I figured out what Obama needs to do if he wins the nomination. If he wins, you just know thousands of bigots are going bullet shopping. So he’s gotta pick a vice president that bigots’ll hate worse- Someone the bigots wouldn’t want to risk becoming president. Obviously, his running mate should be an illegal immigrant,”

To me this is patently offensive and the Statesman should not have run it. As I wrote earlier, “I’m a white, Independent voter and this appears to me to be race baiting of the worst kind.

I apologize to all my non-white friends for this bad taste on the part of the cartoonist, and the Statesman as well.

Rev. James A. Andrews D.D.

AKA Zpadre

Always nice to hear from a white person who takes it upon himself to be offended on behalf of minorities. I hear from such angels occasionally. Oddly enough, the minorities in question never seem to tell me themselves that those particular strips offend them. Thank God for the Reverend Andrews's of the world, otherwise I'd never know that I've done wrong.

My response:

I often hear from readers who tell me they're white, and that they're offended on behalf of minorities about something I said. When, in fact, I hear almost nothing but praise for those same comics by the supposedly-aggrieved minority readers themselves. I don't understand this phenomenon. I'm not sure I understand why you're apologizing on my behalf. Why would you, a white person, apologize to "all your non-white friends" for something another non-white person said? Why don't you ask THEM if they're offended? If THEY would like an apology, by all means, direct them my way so I can correct whatever misinterpretation they're laboring under. If you can find a single non-white friend of yours who hasn't already thought about the danger Obama faces, I'd be surprised.

I'm also unclear on why you feel it's race-baiting.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica online:

"Race baiting is the act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests."

Who exactly do you think today's cartoon was "DERISIVE" of? It wasn't derisive of black people. It wasn't derisive of illegal immigrants. If anyone, it was derisive of "bigots." Now, if you're saying today's Candorville was trying to anger or intimidate bigots, or trying to get them to behave in a way that's inimical to their personal or group interest (namely, trying to get them to stop being bigots), then you've got a point. I fail to see what's offensive about someone deriding bigots.

Also part of the definition of "race-baiting":

"This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists."

Are you honestly - with a straight face - going to tell me there aren't bigots in this country who'd sooner see a black man dead than in the White House? Are you going to tell me there was no reason for Barack Obama to ask for and receive an uncommonly large contingent of secret service agents as protection? Are you going to tell me - an African American cartoonist who receives occasional death threats simply for publishing a cartoon with black characters in newspapers - that a black man running for PRESIDENT has nothing to fear?

Why Bush should be Impeached

I still have no idea why Barack Obama believes the current administration's violations of our Constitutional rights do not constitute "grave breaches." I'm sure his desire to not be impeached himself, should he win, has nothing to do with it. Watch this recent Bill Moyers special (in 5 parts) for a less self-interested assessment:

Obama's odd reason for opposing impeachment

Barack Obama on the incompetence and secrecy of the Bush administration, and on why impeaching them is unacceptable:

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."
-USA Today

Well, no. Our system was actually designed so that we can remove criminal officials through impeachment.

He goes on:

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

Illegally spying on millions of Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, holding American citizens without providing access to counsel for years, torturing captives, evidence of felonious vote caging (aimed at denying Blacks their right to vote), etc., don't constitute "grave breeches"? Exactly what would constitute a "grave breech" in Obama's mind? And what does he mean "intentional breeches"? Does he think Bush spied on Americans by accident?

Image Over Substance

Perusing the conservative blogosphere this morning, this caught my eye. To an extent, all candidates are chosen based on their image. It's why Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani may someday be President, and Dennis Kucinich never will. What I found interesting is that these people at one of the leading Conservative blogs apparently see nothing wrong with that, and are in fact downright giddy about it:

In a sense, then, [Fred] Thompson looks like the perfect blend of the Allen/Frist/Romney/Gingrich and McCain/Giuliani "factions." He seems to combine the conservatism of the former cluster with at least some of the popularity and stature of the latter pairing. This is not to suggest that Thompson is a national hero like McCain and Giuliani. But in addition to a long and distinguished record of public service, he has the good fortune to play a distinguished public servant on television. Millions of Americans see Thompson exercise sound judgment every week as the district attorney on "Law and Order." I'm reliably informed that the show's creator, Dick Wolf, developed the persona of this fictional D.A. specifically for Thompson, and that the actor/politician protects his image by pushing back when he thinks his lines don't portray him in the proper light. But the point isn't whether we're seeing the real Fred Thompson on the show; the point is that, if Thompson runs, millions of America will see the character when they see the candidate, and to that extent will like what they see.

Clinton spins the war vote

Oh, please...

From The Hill:

Former President Bill Clinton yesterday complained that “it’s just not fair” the way his wife, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is being depicted for her controversial Iraq war vote.

Speaking to hundreds of supporters on conference call, the former president said, “I don’t have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this,” but “to characterize Hillary and Obama’s positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.

“This dichotomy that’s been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate.”

The ex-president’s aggressive defense of his wife’s position revealed frustration in the Clinton camp over how the issue is playing into the already-overheated presidential campaign.

On a conference call with Hillraisers, Sen. Clinton’s biggest donors, which The Hill listened to after being provided the call-in information, the former president said there was a stark difference between those who voted for the Iraq resolution and those who wanted to go to war.

In response to a question from one of the supporters on the phone about explaining Hillary Clinton’s Iraq vote to undecided voters, the former president jumped in front of former Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, saying, “Let me answer this.”

He said he had re-read the Iraq resolution last week, and that his wife had voted only for “coercive inspections.” Clinton justified his wife’s refusal to apologize for her vote by explaining that she was acting out of concern that future presidents might need similar language authorizing “coercive inspections to avoid conflict.”

“It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war,” Clinton said.

Does he think anyone's going to buy that? Technically, he's right. Congress voted to authorize "coercive inspections," and for the President to return to the UN Security Council for approval before launching his invasion, and the President did neither. He pulled the inspectors out (and then claimed Hussein expelled them) and did not return to the UN until after he'd invaded to demand the UN retroactively give him authorization. Nobody would've expected the President to do that, right? Nobody except the millions of Americans who were sure he was going to war no matter the evidence or excuse. If the Democrats in Congress who voted for that resolution were among the segment of our population who didn't accurately assess Bush's intentions (which couldn't have been more obvious), that casts serious doubt on their judgement.

Either Bill Clinton is wrong and Senator Clinton did suspect this was a vote for war, or he's right and she was too naive to realize it was a vote for war. There's no way to put a good spin on this, so please, Mr. Clinton, stop trying.

Fox News: Oh no, Obama (gasp) SMOKES!

A few questions to keep in mind while watching the latest salvo in the Faux News bombardment of Senator Obama:

1. So we haven't seen Obama smoke. Since when have we seen any politician smoke? Do they expect the Senator to fire up a Marlboro while he's on camera with Wolf Blitzer?

2. Why does the commentator who's apparently on this show because they want a Black man to comment on Obama make the argument that America only cares about the Senator because he's Black? Is this guy Fox's resident Irony Expert?

3. Where does the Media get off calling him "Barack?" Where do we all get off calling Senator Clinton "Hillary?" Do we routinely refer to White male Senators as "Trent," or "Edward," or do we give them the respect of using their title or at least their last names?

4. Since when does not smoking in public make someone duplicitous?

5. "Mammy?"