You can’t begin to heal until you admit you’ve been hurt.  

With that in mind, I confess that recent experiences on Blogstream made my heart sink below the knees.  In fact, it is still making me question whether my efforts on “Touchy Subjects” may be a complete waste of time. 

After spending several days researching, writing, polishing and refining “Hang Together, Baby!”, only Whit and Azron had responded within a week of it’s posting.  I later received an encourging note from ShareCher and enjoyed a substantive debate with Dustmac.  But metaphorically speaking, the overall response to my observations struck me as a tumbleweed rolling across a dry, lifeless desert. 

At first, I tried to assure myself that my fellow Blogstreamers were out enjoying the spring weather.  Then, I decided to check in to see what was posted on “Ice On The Windshield”.  

I discovered a well-circulated Pat Buchanan article that taps into subconscious Caucasian fears.  “A Brief For Whitey” gives far too much importance to the Jeremiah Wright affair as it elaborates on white oppression.  It also points the finger of blame on African-Americans as a race for what Buchanan calls “an epidemic of black assaults on whites.”  

While most of it came off like softcore Richard Butler/ Aryan Nations propoganda,  Buchanan still managed to make a few legitimate points.  Nevertheless, it struck me that complaining about a small group of unruly African-Americans at this time is like whining about rap music while sexual predators attack your daughter.

Indeed, whites are being oppressed.  But so are blacks – Hispanics – Native Americans – Jews – homosexuals – heterosexuals - and virtually every person who isn’t raking in at least a six-figure salary.  All low to middle-class Americans are getting screwed these days by greedy profiteers who would rather see us all starve than reduce their profit margins.     

Now, let me be clear.  It wasn’t Ice’s decision to reprint a Buchanan opinion piece that made me feel discouraged.  While I don’t share his views on all matters, I remain convinced Ice is a good man and a talented writer. 

It was the over 40 comments tagged onto “A Brief For Whitey” that made my heart drop.   Mmm…guess the Blogstreamers weren’t out throwing frisbees and planting tulips after all.

While Lalepop tried to insert his invaluable brand of diplomatic wisdom, I felt sickened by reading  ‘cheer’ after ‘cheer’ for Buchanan’s sentiments from many whom I consider Blogsteam’s Best.

I found myself shaking my head at how many good people were making narrow and critical judgments  I felt discouraged that there was so little empathy or understanding of the black urban culture.  I was disturbed by an unwillingness to at least try to identify with people who have lived an American experience different from their own. 

And yes…I noticed how many who cheered Buchanan’s racially-divisive politics have ignored “Touchy Subjects” with the excuse: “I’m sorry…I don’t comment on political posts.” 

Oh, yes…they do.  But only if the writer places them at the center of the universe.  Only if the words confirm their suspicions that they alone are the “real” victims  – and those who simply look or act different from themselves are the perpetrators.

All right, then.  If I have to make it all about ‘me’, I can play victim.  Here are Mokie Joe’s personal “Dirty Dozen” questions that I feel demand answers…

1)     Why are we wasting our time on ‘Bittergate’ and ‘God Damn America’ when 2008 gives us a limited window to blast the most corrupt administration in our nation’s history?  Yeah, I want revenge for how their insatiable greed has hurt my family.

2)     Why is it that people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld won’t ever be charged with war crimes?   If they were, it might convince my son that while military service is honorable, this particular war isn’t worth dying for.

3)     Why aren’t today’s reporters more like I was when I placed the public interest ahead of my advertisers?

4)     Why is it that, even though I established a four-digit college fund for my son seventeen years ago, military service may still be the only way he will be able to afford college and secure a future for himself? 

5)     Why do I have to pay three-times more for health insurance than I did in 2004 for one-third the coverage?

6)     How could I invest several thousand dollars into improving and expanding my home, only to discover my property is still worth the same as when I bought it seven years ago?

7)     How could I graduate at the top of my college department, make Dean’s List, maintain a solid work record and win several professional awards and honors -- but still lose jobs to inexperienced kids who don’t understand what they are reporting on?

8)     Why did Bush and the Republican Congress pass laws in 2002 and 2003 that made it impossible for me to challenge an unjustified dismissal from my job?

9)     How can I keep good neighbors who are forced to move because their mortgages are being foreclosed?

10)  Why has the ‘Survivor’ mentality of  “screw them before they screw me” eclipsed the Golden Rule as an accepted code of behavior?  I feel the morals and values my father taught me are as antiquated as a Conestoga Wagon on I-95.

11)  Why is food at my supermarket now more expensive than eating out? 

12)  Why does filling up my gas tank cost more than a family dinner at a four-star restaurant.

There are two things that I am sure of:

-         These weren’t really significant problems for me for the first twenty years of my adulthood.  It wasn’t until Bush and the Republicans took over on behalf of rich corporate interests that the proverbial shit hit the proverbial fan in my life.

-         Neither Reverend Wright’s sermons nor the African-American community are responsible for any of my twelve concerns.

Now, I am assured by all parties that my “Dirty Dozen” are shared by the vast majority of Americans. 

Really? 

Then, explain why all people talk about is Barack Obama’s pigmentation, an absence of a lapel pin, Hillary Clinton, obese children (while ignoring the growing number of hungry kids),  pampered teenagers (while ignoring the neglected ones), American Idol, Tomkat, Britney, who's dissing who on "The View", and Miley Cyrus’ barenaked back on the cover of Vanity Fair?  

What better time than this crucial election year to get serious about our problems?  What better time to elect a President who came from a family that knew financial stuggles, has a proven track record of helping the disadvantaged, and owes his allegiance to millions of individual donors -- not fat-cat corporate types?

Oh, well.  What did I expect?  Throughout his campaign, Barack Obama has paid a price for talking to Americans like adults. 

I know exactly how he feels.

From publishing icons and blue-ribbon newspapers to network pundits and pretty-faced anchors, the mainstream media is pressing the exact same message: If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will likely lose to John McCain in November.  

 

 

OK, if the facts support these claims, I’ll accept it.  But exactly what are they basing their conclusions on?  

 

In mid-April, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed Obama with a one-point advantage over John McCain, 46% to 45%. While that lead is statistically insignificant, it is the first time Obama had had any advantage over McCain in a month. 

I might suggest that, instead of making baseless conclusions that Obama might be unelectable, an objective news organization would naturally explore reasons whether McCain has started to fall behind in the polls again.  For example…

-         Does the 72-year-old Republican’s inability to understand fundamental differences between Sunnis and Shiites shake our confidence in him?

-         Is it a public concern that after 21 years in office, McCain admits he still cannot comprehend simple economic matters?  

-         Is it possible that McCain – who finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy –never had the smarts to be a competent President? 

After all, intelligence and a basic understanding of current events are not usually considered partisan issues.  However, I will admit that people are naturally more fascinated with other people than qualifications, so let’s look at ‘character issues’ for a moment. 

In 1992, three reporters witnessed Cindy McCain teasing her husband about his thinning hair. In response, John McCain’s face reddened before he retorted:

"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt."

OK…take a deep breath, ladies.  Let’s all slowly try to absorb this.  John McCain called his wife the 'c' word in public. And Hillary’s advice to her husband concerning the working class who didn’t support him was “screw em”.  

And we're talking about Obama’s preacher?!!!   

Meanwhile, I could not believe what I read in Time Magazine four days after the latest Presidential debate.  Karen Tumulty started off her three-page story “A Bitter Lesson” with the following:

“It’s hard to know which was worse about Barack Obama’s dismissal of small-town voters as narrow-minded, churchgoing gun nuts: the original arrogance of his remarks or his repeated attempts to explain them.”

I had to stop immediately and check the context in which Time was presenting this information.  No, it wasn’t declared ‘opinion’.  This was the first sentence of what they were providing readers as legitimate news. 

WHAT?

As a news director or managing editor for 25 years, I felt sickened by what Time was passing of as legitimate news for the following reasons:

1)     First of all, Obama never said any such thing (as Tumulty presented it). 

2)     His actual comments start with the words  “I understand why…” - the exact opposite of a ‘dismissal’. 

3)     Who is making the judgment of ‘arrogance’ here, other than the reporter?

4)     The controversy concerning Hillary’s 1995 “Screw em” comment would have provided a natural balance to Tumulty’s article.  But while it was all over the internet, Tumulty makes no mention of it at all. 

5)     Tumulty herself admits that attempts by both McCain and Clinton to “make hay” of this comment against Obama “did not go over very well.”  So if we don’t care or actually agree with it, why does Time think it’s such a big deal?

6)     Tumulty’s erroneous paraphrase comes less than a month after Time columnist Joe Klein misquoted Michelle Obama.  She actually said: “For the first time in my life, I am really proud of my country”.  Klein took out the word “really” to make Mrs. Obama seem un-American.  As Time reader Martin Carcieri points out, “the word ‘really’ makes a huge difference and renders her statement perfectly defensible.” 

I was also puzzled that the editors of Time didn’t bother to cover the notorious “Gotcha” debate, which aired on ABC four days prior to the issue’s release.  Nor did they discuss the revelation that the Pentagon is using retired officers as pawns to spout the administration's talking points of the day to the media, and allegedly denied briefings and information to non-conformists.

However, Time made the room in this issue to blame Congressional Democrats for blocking what they feel are meaningful Bush initiatives, proclaim that McCain wants the election to be about real issues (too bad the editors don’t feel the same way), and even devoted an entire page to various knick-knacks you’ll find on McCain staff member Rick Davis’ desk.

What is wrong with this magazine?

I realize my critics may dismiss or ignore my claims of right-wing media bias as the ramblings of a disgruntled former small-town journalist.  And hey…I’m the first to admit that argument may not be without merit. 

But if it’s just a disgruntled Mokie Joe objecting, why is a 25-year political reporter for the Washington Post echoing my views?  A distinguished educator who now serves as the Joseph Pulitzer Professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism writes: 

“In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message that Obama is a likely loser in the general election.  The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.  For Hillary, the shift is a potential lifesaver as she struggles to keep her head above water; without it, she would, metaphorically, drown.” -- Thomas B. Edsall

The inevitable drowning of the Clinton campaign is exactly what the media wants to prevent.  That’s the only reason why fanatical conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Richard Mellon Scaife are supporting Hillary.

Is anyone so naïve to believe that Limbaugh, Coulter or Scaife had lofty goals such as ‘redemption’ or ‘death-bed conversion’ as Hillary has publicly claimed?  Of course not!  They know eight years of GOP incompetence has rendered their own voices ineffective.  But Rush, Ann and Dick aren’t even trying to hide their zeal that Clinton is doing far more damage to her party than the GOP could dream of accomplishing.  And they openly acknowledge that the longer Clinton's “scorched-earth” campaign continues, the more voters will flock to John McCain in November.

I’m delighted to report it’s not going as well as Rush, Ann and Dick might wish.

-         Political experts predicted that Hillary might win Pennsylvania by over 20-points. Instead, Obama kept her edge at slightly over 9%. 

-         Exit polling and independent political analysts offer strong evidence that Obama could do just as well as Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind.

-         While polls commissioned by the media show a dead heat in the Hoosier State, non-partisan studies confirm that Barack Obama will likely win both Indiana and North Carolina on May Sixth.  

So that brings me back to my  original question. What non-partisan data are newspapers, reporters and pundits using to now proclaim Obama as unelectable, as incapable of connecting with working class voters, or as someone who might be uncomfortable with patriotism? 

Misquotes?  Hillary’s lies?  Lapel pins? 

I believe the answer may be connected with the reasons why Newsweek recently hired Karl Rove – the New York Times is now featuring Bill Kristol - and CNN brought Tony Snow on board on board.   Few people believed this trio of ultra-conservative nutcases will help the mainstream media regain lost integrity.

Is Big Media not even trying to pretend they are acting in our interests anymore?

Personal experience tells me 'no'.   I recall that my own bosses repeatedly placed pressure on my newsroom to let powerful wrongdoers “off the hook” or change the focus of a negative story – if requested by their valued advertisers.  Whether it’s an individual TV/radio station or a large network, profit will always be significantly more important to both big-city media executives and small-town station managers than journalistic integrity. 

It’s important to understand that Barack Obama is a terrifying threat to the corporate advertisers that control our media.   Since he isn’t relying on their PAC money or lobbyist contributions, they will have substantially less power during his presidency. Both financially and morally, Obama owes his allegiance solely to the welfare of the people. 

In addition, Bush and Cheney are just two more in a seemingly endless line of greedy white guys.  But the pressure Obama will feel as the nation’s first black president will almost assuredly keep him on the right course. For the Illinois Senator strays from the path, he may irrevocably damage the magnificent advances made in civil rights over the last 50 years.  Now, that is what I call ‘incentive’.  

The potential loss of control over the Executive Branch has real and substantial ramifications for media conglomerates.  Here’s but one example:

On the morning of April 24^th, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a "resolution of disapproval" against the FCC's new rules that gut media ownership limits. This vote came as the founder of Fox News and News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch announced plans to buy his third New York newspaper - Newsday.   

Democrats consider this resolution a first step in reigning in deregulation that created the unholy alliances between the media and Republicans in the first place.  Further efforts are assured if Obama wins the presidency, and likely to pass if we keep the Democrats in control of Congress.  

Broadcasters and publishers have taken off the gloves for one reason: they view Obama’s defeat in November as nothing less than a matter of survival.

So they fight back by feeding us a constant diet of ‘you go, girl’  Hillary features - Jeremiah Wright follow-up stories - and a non-existent stream of Obama elitism. These media magic tricks utilize one hand to keep the national focus on inconsequential garbage while the other hand hides the real issues from our consideration.

Think about it… why has there been a massive 80 percent reduction in the amount of coverage devoted to the war since last fall?  When was the last time commercial broadcasters discussed curbing the influence of big money in Washington?  When was the last time they provided substantive perspectives on high prices that contradicted their advertisers?  When did they ever bring up the issue (God forbid!) of re-regulating the media? 

Instead of giving us real answers to real concerns, they are slowly removing the ability of Americans to generate our own agenda. 

“This whole game is like someone stealing a person's car by slowly getting them to forget how to drive.” – Political activist and writer Adam McKay

Since the media considers Obama’s defeat as life or death, why won’t the middle classes consider his success the same way: as a matter of our own survival? 

Exaggeration?  If you simply recall how these corporations and Republicans have conspired to take us to war, raise our gas prices, lower our wages and benefits, escalate our food costs, keep health care unaffordable and ‘dumb down’ our intellect, you’ll understand that our ‘survival’ as middle class Americans is absolutely at stake. 

Now, there’s no doubt that the U.S. will eventually elect a female President.  My money is on Missouri’s Claire McGaskill in 2016 (she’ll only be 63 at that time).  But there is too much at stake to let Hillary continue to divide us. Too much at risk to waste more symbolic and ineffective votes on Ralph Nader.  With only six months to go before the general election, it’s time to come together and keep it real.   

Obama’s successes to-date prove that ordinary Americans have the power to fight back against the corporate forces that find our oppression so profitable. For the first time in modern history, the momentum is on our side – not theirs. As citizens, we have plenty of tools at our disposal to fight back with our blogs, our ‘letters to the editors’ (even if they don’t publish them), our conversations and our activism.

If I have failed to convince, I’m apologize.  But as you debate your own individual wishes and desires against the common good, I ask you to remember the words a beloved founding father gave the Second Continental Congress as they faced substantially worse odds than we are facing today:

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately” – Benjamin Franklin, July 4, 1776.

Why do working-class whites vote 'against' their economic self interests? 

Why do they votexRepublican?

The 42nd President of the United States gave a partial answer to that puzzling and elusive question for a group of campaign strategists in 1995. After the participants debated behind closed doors whether overtures should be made to working-class whites who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton revealed his thoughts on the matter:  

“I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it… every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Until we find a way to include these boys in our programs- until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others - we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.”

Those were the non-public observations of a wise and compassionate man who understood that he was President for ALL Americans – not just those who supported him. 

But in sharp contrast, Hillary Clinton’s private advice for her husband on this issue contradicts the hard-drinking, quick-shooting, blue-collar-loving persona that she’s trying to project this month in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and my home state of Indiana. 

Here's exactly what Hillary suggested to her husband and his political strategists about working-class voters who didn't support his candidacy...

"Screw 'em! You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The 1995 quotes from both Bill and Hillary were first made public by political theorist and Clinton supporter Dr. Benjamin Barber, who heard them first-hand and included them in "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House".  This book was published in 2001, so Barber's quotes can’t be dismissed as campaign rhetoric. 

 

Instead, Hillary spokesperson Jay Carson is trying to claim Barber took Hillary’s comments “out of context.”  However, two other people who attended that Camp David retreat have confirmed that’s exactly what the former First Lady said and meant.  The best 'Team Hillary' has been able to do is produce a couple of other attendees who are unable to recall Hillary's statement...or the retreat itself. 

In other words, no retraction should be expected.

For those who still see the junior New York Senator as their champion, let’s examine this remark carefully:

1)       Hillary Clinton feels that if you don’t support her overwhelming ambition to become President, screw you!  She won’t have to do anything for you. By her logic, she only owes the people who support her.

Hmmm…like lobbyists, corporations and billionaires?  Sounds a lot like Bush, doesn’t it?

2)       Hillary Clinton knows it’s impossible to beat Barack Obama conventionally in the remaining primaries.  But she has repeatedly demonstrated her willingness to tear apart the Democratic Party and hand the Republicans the White House this November before she’ll concede defeat.

Sounds even more like Bush, doesn’t it?

3)       The Director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship believes Hillary Clinton’s comment demonstates a ‘good guy versus bad guy’ mentality. Harry Boyte believes there’s little difference between ‘if you don’t support me, screw you’  and ‘you are either for me…or against me.

More black and white Presidential ultimatums to take us into the next decade?  Oh, goody-goody!!   Jeez, how much more like Bush can this woman get?  

Stay with me and you'll find out.

Bill and Hill in 1974 (before they stopped inhaling)

In his book “A Woman In Charge”, legendary journalist Carl Bernstein wrote that Hillary Rodham repeatedly avoided Bill Clinton’s marriage proposals in 1974.  Bernstein explained that Hillary has always harbored doubts throughout her adult life about marriage, concerned that her separate identity would be lost and her accomplishments would be viewed in the light of someone else.

It was only after Hillary failed the District of Columbia bar exam and could no longer practice law on Capitol Hill that she finally agreed to marry Bill and move to Arkansas.  In Hillary’s mind, her husband was her second-place consolation. 

Jeez, you become the leader of the free world - but your wife still views you as a Booby prize?   I don’t know what you think, but Babe-Bangin Bill’s Big Limbido is actually starting to make sense to me now.

Both the administration of George W. Bush and the ‘scorched earth’ campaign tactics of Hillary Clinton illustrate two frustrated individuals who have lived their lives in the shadows of others.  While both have been willing to use their family connections to advance themselves, Hillary and Dubya are also prone to abandoning common sense in order to prove to the world they are their own person - no matter the consequences.

By all rights, this quote should put the nails into the coffin of Clinton’s presidential aspirations. Don't forget that the 37-year-old Marie Antoinette lost her head for the far more eloquent "let them eat cake" remark in 1793.    

Personally speaking, I could come up with a favorable spin to Marie's line much easier than I could with ‘screw the working class'.   

But in any event, Hillary's remark certainly eclipses Barack Obama’s truthful (whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not) observations about the bitterness caused by economic depression. 

However, I guarantee you the media won’t let that happen.  And In order to understand why, you must first ask yourself one simple question: 

Why did it take SEVEN YEARS after the publication of Barber’s book for the media to finally pick up on this 'screw em' comment?

Give up? 

Well, here's the simple answer:  It simply didn’t fit their masters' agendas.

When coupled with Fox News, the dominance of conservatives on talk radio and the series of ‘pro-Hillary’ sketches on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live”, the embarassing April 16th 'Gotcha Debate' on Disney-owned ABC should remove all lingering doubts that big media conglomerates want another Republican in the White House. 

"A stinker, an absolute car crash—thanks to the host network ABC...[It] ran the gamut from banal to inane. At the end of the debate members of the crowd appeared to be booing moderator Charlie Gibson." - The Guardian's Richard Adams

“Moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about—verbal gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channeling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously.” – “Editor/Publisher” Journal’s Greg Mitchell.  

"For the first 52 minutes...Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with."- Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales.

"We've revisited bitter. We've gone back to Bosnia. We've dragged Rev. Wright back up onto the podium. We've mis-spent this debate by allowing Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to ask questions that skirt what in my mind is what we need to know now." - Philadelphia Inquirer's Daniel Rubin

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly on this blog over the past three years, GOP deregulation has made the networks billions by allowing them to swallow their competition.  It’s all about profit.

While the reporters have been shamed, the network executives must be ecstatic that Clinton’s 'scorched earth' campaign has erased Obama’s lead over McCain in recent polls.  Especially since she wasn't able to gain ground herself against the Grand Old Republican from Arizona for her trouble. 

And as long as Hillary stays in the race, McCain will continue to garner support without suffering any real public scrutiny himself, spending any money or getting his own hands dirty. 

 What more could any GOP candidate ask for?

Despite her campaign rhetoric, Hillary Clinton has made it crystal clear that her candidacy is all about her dreams and aspirations – not ours.  She’s following the exact same path of lies, distortions and character assasination that George W. Bush used to win the White House.  A path that led to division and disasterous consequences for our country.

I hope the people of Pennsylvania are smart enough to realize that Hillary simply ain’t on their side.  She's only on HER side.  As for the rest of the country, when will her supporters finally grasp the fact that Hillary ain’t Bill?  She wants to separate herself from the 90s – not revive it – simply to prove that she is her own person.  

America has already suffered too long from giving 'The Shrub' excessive power to exorcise his personal demons concerning a more well-known family member.  What makes you think it'll be any different with Hillary?

Let's face it:  George Bush and Hillary Clinton are two power-hungry shadow dwellers with serious paternal or spousal issues.

For Mercy's sake, we should provide those poor souls therapy – not the Presidency.

During my quarter-century as a journalist, I have never heard a speech like it. 

 

When Barack Obama spoke this week in Philadelphia on race in America, there was no talk of “family values” – no coy slams to his opponents – no partisan definitions of “patriotism” – no clever puns – no quick soundbites – absolutely none of the party-tested, sacharine-sweet rhetoric that we’re spoon-fed in every election.

 

Instead, the junior senator from Illinois delivered a straight-forward, but optimistic address that I pray will become an historical inspiration  – regardless of whether he wins in November.

 

A great deal of it’s significance stems from the man himself.   Obama is a living embodiment of the cultural and ethnic melting pot that is America.   But even more important was his willingness to address the thoughts and emotions that we prefer to keep to ourselves. 

 

It was a long-overdue acknowledgement that we have all earned the right to be called a ‘victim’ - something we must all address and respect for this country to move forward. 

---

ON THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN EXPERIENCE:  “A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

ON THE CAUCASIAN-AMERICAN EXPERIENCE:  “Most working and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away. In an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.”

ON POLITICAL MEDIA COVERAGE:  “We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.  We can do that.  But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.”

ON RECOGNIZING THE REAL ENEMY:  “Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.”

ON ACCEPTANCE OF CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT:  “It means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.”

 

ON DENOUNCING ANTI-AMERICAN RHETORIC FROM HIS FORMER PASTOR, JEREMIAH WRIGHT:  “He spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

 

However, if I was forced to pick one part of Obama’s speech that was the most meaningful to me, it will be this:

ON CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO AND FOCUSING ON OUR DIFFERENCES:

 “In this election, we can come together and say:"Not this time."

This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children.

This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.   We cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.”

---

For the first time this decade, this cynical old news hound is feeling quite proud to be an American.  

Wow!  Will wonders never cease?!

Excuse me, but…uh….isn’t there still a war going on?  

It appears those with the power to set the national agenda made a big declaration in late 2007 that the surge in Iraq is working – and then decided we should all forget the war in 2008. 

 "My, how convenient – for the Republicans."

It’s not just me, folks.  Media studies show that over the last seven months, there has been a massive 80 percent reduction in the amount of coverage devoted to the war. As a result, public awareness of U.S. deaths in Iraq has plummeted since August 2007, when 54 percent of the public was able to say how many American soldiers had been killed in the war. Now, just one out of every four Americans is aware that it is about to reach 4,000. 

 "My, how convenient – for the GOP."

As the Democrats destroy themselves over whether melanin or estrogen should be in political fashion this fall, John McCain and the White House PR machine are promoting the myth of success in Iraq without much pushback.  The Pew Research Center now finds that nearly half of Americans -- 48 percent -- believe that the military effort in Iraq is "going well" as the result of the surge. This is an 18 percent jump from one year ago. 

 "My, how convenient – for John McCain."

During those rare times when Team Bush or Team McCain are actually asked to prove their claim of ‘surge success’, both inevitably point to the Al-Anbar province. They tell us it’s undeniable that the surge has helped turn Sunni tribes in Anbar against al Qaeda. 

“Enough said," advises kindly Uncle John.  "Now, don’t worry your pretty little heads about the war anymore.  The surge success will take care of it for you.”

Well, Uncle John…there’s only one problem with your claim of 'surge success’ in Al-Anbar: 

It’s ALL-FUBAR! 

Now, it IS true that the Sunni tribes in Al-Anbar (above) are turning against al Qaeda.  But they made that decision on their own before the surge of 2007, and not as a reaction to any American military plan.

What was their motivation?  The turnabout began in September, 2006, when a federation of tribes in the Ramadi area came together as the Anbar Salvation Council to seek financial and military support from the Iraqi and American governments.  And they got it!   In return, the sheiks publicly opposed the fundamentalist militants, volunteered hundreds of tribesmen for duty as police officers and agreed to allow the construction of joint American-Iraqi police and military outposts throughout their tribal territories – for now.

Let me put this in simple terms:  We are paying them to postpone killing Americans in Anbar, so Dubya stands a better chance of passing the torch on to Sweet Uncle John.

Just in case your answer is ‘yes’, let me point out that it really wasn’t difficult to establish order in Anbar. The region is almost entirely Sunni and not riven by the same sectarian feuds as other violent places, like Baghdad and the Diyala Province.  These are the places where security forces are largely Shiite and are perceived by many Sunnis as part of the problem.

Nevertheless, all Iraqis still hate the idea that we are occupying their country – just as you would hate it if some foreign power that bears no resemblance to our culture were occupying your homeland.  It just so happens that the Sunnis in Anbar also hate the Islamic militants.  We’re only paying them to postpone the inevitable.  All we are doing is arming and training Sunni forces who are almost certain to turn against both us and the Shiite central government after getting rid of the al Qaeda threat. 

Is this anyone’s idea of sound foreign policy?   No!  However, it's a fantastic deal to the GOP if it improves their chances of retaining the White House in January, 2009.

How many times do we have to keep making these ‘deals with the Devil’ before we see them for what they are? 

• Remember that the Soviets were our ‘allies’ just as long as we were both united against stopping Nazi Germany in World War II.  
• Remember the U.S. also helped Bin Laden and the Afghans drive the Russians out of Afghanistan in the early 80s. 

But just as soon as those joint missions were successfully completed, we seemed surprised when the ‘enemy of a ‘former enemy’ was no longer a friend – and turned savagely against us.

The fact remains: the surge is not working.  Indeed, it is an abject failure on many fronts.

It has failed in its primary mission of creating an atmosphere of political reconciliation. Even when the fractured Iraqi government is able to set aside its differences -- as it did last month, agreeing on a budget, setting dates for provincial elections, and approving amnesty for thousands of jailed Sunnis -- there is grave doubt about whether these agreements will ever be implemented.

While hailing the passage of the provisional powers legislation as "a landmark law,"  both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker warned there could be poison pills hidden in the fine print. But even counting these measures -- passed because most of the contentious details were tabled for a later date -- only four of the 18 benchmarks set by the White House have been fully met, with another five only partially accomplished.

Yes, the number of attacks has decreased since the troop increase.  That was inevitable with the arrival of more boots on the ground. But even our own government admits the improved security has not created an environment conducive to ordinary business and social activity -- and has not brought any real stability to the country.

And while lower than it was at its worst, the level of violence remains very high, with around 60 attacks a day on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. This is roughly the same as was occurring in the Spring of 2005. So, in the long run, things have gotten no better over the last three years.

"The notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low, it's buried in the sand at this point.   We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes of horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. And now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. And in the meantime, we have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives."  - Barack Obama

There is one area, however, where the surge has been a resounding success: it has succeeded in seriously damaging the capabilities of the U.S. military...

• Extended tours
• Abbreviated stints back home between deployments
• Stop-loss orders
• Lowered recruitment standards
• Declining sign-ups
• 158,000 troops in Iraq
• Another 28,000 in Afghanistan
• Depleted equipment
• Vets' families coming apart at the seams...

...and even 121 returning soldiers being arrested for murder. It's a recipe for a military meltdown.

"The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future." – Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, February, 2008.

"We are consuming readiness now, as quickly as we're building it." – Army Secretary  Pete Guren, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, February, 2008.