I apololgize… and won’t be too long winded on this one.

BIKO

I’ll make my point a little shorter so you can understand it:

Your commentary is small, simple-minded and what makes this otherwise AMAZING country so frustrating to deal with at times.

Clear example. Someone presents some articulated points and you can’t hang with them because apparently they go way beyond your diminished attention span. So, you write some little comment with nothing of consequence as a counter? Maybe I made FOUR LONG POINTS because they required more than glib sarcasm.

Your comment — and so many other commentators like you doing drive-bys on the world wide web — say nothing, mean nothing, and add no value to any conversation. I may need an editor, but you desperately need an actual point of view – because without one, why do you bother writing anything in the first place.

(And don’t ever call me dude!)

mk, the photo was priceless and the sexist was vanquished. ;-)

Olbermann et al who’ve gone into the tank based on their own wishes – worthless in their reporting / analyzing roles.

Temple.

What I was stating was that Olbermann was “outraged” (although perhaps a little too condescendingly – I will give you that) at Hillary for acting, in his eyes (although I can’t really speak FOR him) more like a Republican than he would like her to be acting (if that makes any sense?). I see what you’re saying about Olbermann – in most instances, he can be unbearable! But I think the problem is: if you reduce him to just being a sexist male pig, then you miss an opportunity to see his larger point which is: he probably – as an initial Hillary Clinton supporter – (and I am making an assumption that, before this race began, he had nothing but glowing praise for Sen. Clinton… although I’m not sure about this because I only started watching his program AFTER his Katrina rant a few years back, and not very consistently until just recently) – that he is less and less enamored with her as the process goes along.

He could very well, most definitely be a hypocrite – that I will concede. I do think Hillary is a real Democrat and I think Barack is a real Democrat as well. But I do think Olbermann is saying (and again, I can’t really speak FOR him) that Clinton is acting the way a Republican would act when attacking Barack Obama.

It is not my intention to slam Hillary Clinton personally. I am deeply troubled by the remarks of Rev. Wright – much more so than the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, for sure (I feel her remarks aren’t even in the same ball park). It is not my intention to be a shill for Keith Olbermann nor for Barack Obama for that matter nor is it my intention to be disrespectful towards an accomplished and intelligent woman like Sen. Hillary Clinton in any way.

But I find it curious why you would ask the frontrunner to step aside and take the V.P. spot? It kind of defies logic. I am – (and please keep in mind – I was not a Dodd or Biden or Guliani or Romney supporter either. My annoyance with Hillary Clinton is the same annoyance I feel towards these other politicians, who just so happen to be white males. I view her as a “classic”, nothing-new-to-offer politician REGARDLESS of her gender) – supporting Barack because I think he’s not business as usual. I actually feel somewhat passionately about SOME of Ron Paul’s views (though not the racist views expressed by someone via his newsletter) and Nader’s views (as I voted for Nader twice already… yeah, I’m the one!) and even Huckabees views (although certainly not his religious ones, for sure) because I think their approach to politics is totally different than the pack. As an Independent: I lump Sen. Clinton in with Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd and Gov. Romney (although I do have a tremendous amount of respect for Sen. Biden, Sen., Dodd and Sen. Clinton… and none at all for Gov. Romney who to me is a complete buffoon, like our current president Bush… perhaps nice guys, but DREADFUL politicians).

So here in lies the rub: I think you – as a Democrat – should consider VERY carefully what I’m about to express: I do not want to vote for a Democrat OR a Republican. But I am voting for Barack Obama, who happens to be a Democrat, and would consider even John McCain, who happens to be a Republican (and more and more every day, it appears, much to my dismay) because they aren’t the same old same old AND they can EFFECTIVELY reach across party lines (and what I like most about Barack is that he can do more than just reach across party line inside the Belt Way, but can also be a unifier for the larger population OUTSIDE of Washington – regardless of the rhetoric expressed by his ridiculous pastor; something I think Sen. McCain is actually lacking because, let’s face it, he’s really not that nice of a guy!).

I don’t care about unifying the Democratic party nor do I think it rational to ask the candidate in the lead to step down to the candidate who is trailing and then take the secondary role. That’s patently absurd. You – as a Democrat – need Independents like me to win in ’08 and there are MANY of us out here who feel exactly the way I do – specifically about Sen. Clinton (and it has nothing to do with her being a woman). She may be a woman (and that’s definitely a plus in my book) – but to us, she’s the same old same old and not all that much different than the other “guys” she was running against. Barack is, at least in our eyes (and again, I really can’t speak for “other” Independents, so perhaps I should take that off the table and just say – I BELIEVE THAT Sen. Obama is:) different in so many ways and therefore much more appealing and that is why he has my support in ’08.

So please take that for what it’s worth… and I’ll take that hug now ;-).

Biko,
Whew – I think this is a first. I don’t think anyone has ever posted a comment reply longer than my original post. That said, I appreciate getting such a thoughtful and considered reply. But, you might not be surprised to learn that I disagree. I have a much simpler view of Olbermann’s asymmetric attack – He, like you, wants Obama to win. So he, like you, then arbitrarily decides that Obama is the “real” democrat and Clinton is a republican – which is as ad hominem as you can get in the Democratic party. He, like you, then feels free to trash Clinton, because, after all, she’s not a real Democrat. Like I said, I disagree. But I’ll concede one point, maybe he is not a sexist, maybe he is just a hypocrite.

Ok, we can hug and make up. Lets work together to get Obama to do the right thing, step aside and take the VP slot, so we can get the Democratic Party unified again. I am sure I can count on you.

But, in fact, before Barack and Michelle became well-to-do African-Americans, they didn’t have all that much money. The earned their money, but they didn’t “come from” money. So compared to Michelle and Barack, yeah Hillary does come from the privileged white establishment. That’s a fact. It’s not her fault that she does because she was born into it. But compared to the majority of underclass black people in society (essentially, that which excludes those born into wealthy black families), she was born into a better position. So, much of what Rev. Wright was expressing was frustration and many blacks and minorities feel this frustration every day, very strongly. And at times, many whites have been known to utter that they hate what our government has done in our name. We may love our country – our music, our geography, or constitution, our ability to grow and evolve, our multicultural societies, our theater and films and artists, our cities, our unique culture and sense of humor – but we may hate the fact that our government has: gotten cozy in the past with despicable characters (such as Saddam Hussein) and then turned around and called them our enemy, interned Japanese Americans during World War II, condoned slavery and the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, waged stupid wars in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, etc. So, yeah, sometimes white Americans can, out of frustration, say we “hate” America too… but we probably mean what our government is doing in our name and not what we love about America – specifically our constitution, our freedom, the civil rights movement, and our general original philosophy, etc.

HOWEVER, wrong place, wrong time and way too hateful… and I’m talking directly to you, Rev. Wright! You need to pay closer attention to Jesus’ teachings, or get some anger management courses. What you said, Rev Wright, and the way you said it, and the location you chose to utter your hateful rhetoric makes your entire career truly deplorable – even though SOME OF your observations on the American government’s past “sins” (especially the treatment of black people) are SOMEWHAT on point. But Rev. Wright, you are not a political organizer or member of the Black Panther Party. You are a preacher in a “Christian” church. So your rhetoric is both alarming, hateful, racist and inexcusable – from a Christian perspective because of the time and place in which you uttered your multitude of ghastly rants. AND YOU DID YOUR BUDDY BARACK SUCH AN ASTOUNDING DISERVICE THAT COULD END UP COSTING HIM THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION – YOU OLD MORON!!!

All that being said… the difference between the Rev. Wright situation and Geraldine Ferraro’s commentary in relationship to Keith Olberman are as follows:

1) Ferraro knew exactly what she was doing – since she is a politician – when she made those statements. She was uttering a sentiment that the Clinton camp wants to place in voter’s minds but couldn’t utter for fear of looking, well, racist. Ferraro is removed just enough from Ground Zero in the Clinton Camp and is a historical figure since she’s the first woman to even come close to winning the White House. Therefore, she was the perfect “fighter” and counter-point to Obama to raise the question of his legitimacy to be the front runner in this race. Her words were strategic and deliberate to raise doubts about Obama, therefore diminishing him and making him look like nothing more than a “quota” candidate – while also referencing herself as the original “quota” candidate; thus doing herself a great disservice in the process (some of us believe she was actually the one most qualified person for the job of V.P. at the time regardless of the fact that she was a woman. Thanks for blowing that assessment for us, Ms. Ferraro!).

2) Olberman was reacting after what he perceived to be Senator Clinton’s slow response to Congresswoman Ferraro’s comments. The difference between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama’s response was that Sen. Obama made the rounds and all the 24 hour channels (including FOX, for the love of God!) to show his face and publically distance himself to a man that he called a spiritual mentor. This was probably something very difficult and embarrassing for Sen. Obama to do. But he felt it was the right thing to do, and of course the most politically imperative. Sen. Clinton decided to not go on any shows nor to publically denounce Geraldine’s Ferraro comments until the heat got way, way too hot to handle for her camp. The reason I personally feel she didn’t jump to this course of action is because she agrees with Ms. Ferraro’s assessment and offered her up to make the statement. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say she didn’t offer her up to make the statement, she certainly didn’t discourage it because it worked in her favor. Nothing Rev. Wright said or the way he said it played into Barack Obama’s favor. His overall approach to public speaking is completely opposite of everything Barack Obama stands for. He went on Olberman’s show to state how against Rev. Wright’s comments he is and express that he wanted to distance himself from the man and his rhetoric. Had Sen. Clinton done the same, I think Mr. Olberman would have welcomed her on his show and given her the platform to repudiate Geraldine Ferraro’s comments.

I don’t think that Olberman is sexist. I think Mr. Olberman is opposed to the kind of politics that pits one Democrat against another in such a divisive way. Olberman is, after all, a Democrat. He wants a Democrat to defeat a Republican in the general election. If he’s being accused of being against Hillary Clinton because she is a woman and Barack Obama is a man, then what that does is take the pressure off of Sen. Clinton from using the fear tactics she’s been employing and playing the kind of dirty politics that the Republicans will use to try and discredit Sen. Obama. It appeared to me that is what Olberman was reacting to – not that Hillary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama is a man, and therefore he will go soft on Barack Obama. Rev. Wright did enough damage to Barack Obama to torpedo his bid for the presidency. Olberman didn’t really need to jump on the bandwagon.

Let me repeat this factoid for the original blogger who is slamming Olberman: HE’S A DEMOCRAT! Olberman is going to defend the Democrat who is acting least like a Republican – AND, the one who isn’t trying to destroy the other Democrat while at the same time taking down the entire party with her! AND, Rev Wright’s comments will hurt Barack unintentionally and that’s not Barack’s fault! Meanwhile, Ferraro’s comments will hurt Barack intentionally and Clinton would not condemn her until forced to – THAT’S WHY OLBERMAN WAS WAGGING HIS FINGER AT HER!!!

You can’t see that, original blogger? You think that Olberman is being sexist because he gave Barack a chance to come on and distance himself from statements a man made that would basically hurt him? How much of a death wish do you think Barack has? Barack actually wants to win this thing! That’s why he went on Olberman to say – I DON’T AGREE WITH THIS CRAZY OLD BASTARD!!! Basically, Barack was saying: “Uncle Wright, I’m kinda done with you! You can retire now and give it a rest!” And then he booted him out of his campaign! Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, didn’t ask Geraldine to go anywhere because she knows Geraldine helped her out a great deal. That’s why Geraldine removed herself, ‘cause Hillary wasn’t gonna do it.

So is it unfair for Olberman to point this out because Hillary is a woman? Is he, a diehard Democrat, wrong in going after the Democrat who is being the most unfair to the other Democrat? Why is it unfair of Olberman to change his tone with Barack when Barack is the one who has the most to lose in both instances and is the one who had the decency and integrity to go on his show? Hillary has the most to gain from both Ferraro’s comments and Rev. Wright’s insane ramblings. Olberman is right to be angry at both Ferraro and Wright. He may be going a little over board on wagging the finger at Clinton. But I think he’d probably wag his finger at former President Bill Clinton just as aggressively, and last time I checked, Bill is very much a male.

So, in conclusion original blogger… YOU’RE WRONG! Olberman may be a smug, pompous, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, one-sided, biased, unbalanced, unapologetically Democratic, liberal elitist ass at times. But he’s not necessarily a sexist one. He just doesn’t like Republicans… and at this point, he thinks Hillary Clinton is acting like one. If Hillary Clinton were a man, he’d probably slam him/her just as hard. Got it!

Now, can’t we all just hug and make up?

Okay, then you claim that KO is sexist. There is a high probability, but I would be careful about using this as an ad hominem attack. Just because he is sexist, doesn’t itself mean that he is wrong. But it might mean that he is unfair. So KO might believe HRC is too stupid to speak for herself, etc… but wasn’t the problem that Ferraro made comments as part of the campaign, and HRC was not immediately clear about whether those comments represented the views of her campaign? Plus, he clearly asks her to take back the reigns of the campaign, so he indicates that he might believe she can do this. Next, KO might believe that because HRC is a woman, she cannot manage her own campaign without her male staff. I don’t see any indication that he assumes the staff are all male. There are many females as well. And finally, KO might be afraid of confronting Hillary Clinton directly. Well, again, he criticizes her for not taking back the reins, and the issue began with the surrogate (Ferraro), and then later with her lack of response to it, in his view. He spreads the criticism around.

I know from personal experience as a minority (not black) how unfair people can be to you, and judge you on things you have no control over. However, it’s all too easy for us to go and blame them when we ourselves are actually at fault. Yes, if there is sexism, HRC has to deal with it, now and later if she wins. It isn’t fair. But do you go about it by guilt tripping people into giving you a chance, or do you work as hard as you can and try to prove them wrong. From my experience, the former never works, and even when you get them to, you always pay for it later. Nevertheless, given that they both have gotten this far, despite all the racism/sexism, there’s hope for the later.

To LP and AngryDemocrat,
Let me be clear about my position. I have no problem with Obama. I think he would make a fine President and a better vice-president. I do think Clinton would make a better President right now, and part of the reason is that Clinton is a package deal with a guy who actually was Commander In Chief for eight years. That is a simple fact, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not. I happen to think it is great thing, that when that call comes in at 3 AM, and if Hillary is so inclined, she can find Bill wandering around in his bathrobe looking for cigars or something and get a second opinion. I sure wish Bush43 had used his family connection to a previous Commander In Chief, and got a second opinion from Bush41 before he decided to invest a trillion dollars of our treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives and limbs in Iraq. But I digress.

This post is not about Obama, Clinton, Ferraro, or Wright. It is a hypocrisy test for for Obama and Clinton supporters. The Ferraro and Wright situation is so similar, that if you insist on treating them differently, you are either a hypocrite or sexist. As it turns out Olbermann is both.

Is it the estrogen, or the lack of testosterone that compels you to make such a puerile, misogynistic statement?

“Another worthless feminist blogger trying to stump for Hillary with a pathetic attack. The very fact that you can’t see the diminutive nature of Ferraro’s comment implies you are blinded by your own prejudices.”

I believe the gist of the article was about Olbermann’s hypocrisy and blatant bias. That point must have eluded you as you cowered behind your monitor.

“This article is a complete and utter failure.”

By your lack of ability to articulate your points in a mature manner, there’s no doubt you can empathize with failure.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. was supposed to speak at Obama’s Feb. 10 presidential announcement. After tapes of the preacher’s anti-America sermons were widely disseminated, Obama changed his mind.

And, AFTER the story broke, Obama made numerous statements distancing himself from Wright’s offensive political commentary (Wright is not a big fan of America, especially white America). Requests for an interviews with Wright were referred to the Obama campaign. WHAT THE HECK???? How are you distancing yourself from this nut, when your campaign is acting as his freakin’ publicist?

An Obama spokesman referred to Wright as “media shy.” Now that one big fat lie. The guy was doing live webcasts of his “anti-white ‘god damn America’ and quit complaining about 9/11 you deserved it” rants. You could not watch one sermon and say with a straight face that Wright is shy about anything.

I will leave it to another post to tell about how Obama had a conversation with Wild Man Wright back in the FALL where they both agreed that Obama would have to distance himself from Rev. Wright if he was competitive in the primaries. Just politics as usual. Obama X for President?

I always had a feeling Obama’s holier than art thou “I am a new breed of Honest Politician”(reminds me of the pedestal that Eliot built) was an act, now I am sure about it. Beware of the Politician who tells you he is different.

Let’s see whether the media gives Obama a free pass because they are afraid to broach the topic of a black man’s possible racism. If Hillary attended a Church for decades and had a close personal relationship with a preacher who made similar racist comments, the media would tie her to a spit, light the fire, hold hands and sing camp songs as she roasted live on network TV.

Posted by One Angry Democrat at 8:56 PM 0 comments
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Obama, I call B.S.

Obama, in response to being called out on his close, personal friend Rev. Wright’s race baiting, said, “the forces of division” over race are intruding into the Democratic presidential nomination contest. Yo, Barack, what are you saying??? It is your close personal friend, pastor and member of your campaign staff who is “the force of division.” Are you playing the “race card” to divert attention from yourself?

“We have to come together,” Obama said. OMG. Hypocrite. Disingenuous. LOL. If you wanted to “come together” maybe you should have disavowed Rev. Wright years ago, as opposed to now when it suspiciously appears you are only doing it (“insincere” is the word that comes to mind) to get yourself elected President. And quit pretending you did not know this guys hateful rhetoric. You had a conversation months ago with Wright himself about “distancing” because you knew this would become an issue. YOU KNEW. YOU KNEW. Stop pretending like this is news to you.

“If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked,” Obama said. I guess we just take your word on it that Wright is a lover, not a race baiter. I look forward to the evidence I know will come of you sitting front and center for Rev. Wright spewing a little hate from the pulpit. You picked this guy to work for your campaign and that speaks volumes about you Obama X.

Obama: “The forces of division have begun to raise their ugly head again,” Obama said. Are you actually putting the blame somewhere other than where it belongs, ON YOU and your race baiting buddy?

Obama: “It reminds me: We’ve got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country. A lot of pent-up anger and mistrust and bitterness. This country wants to move beyond these kinds of things.” B.S. Barack Obama. I call B.S. If you truly believed what you said, you wouldn’t have anything to do with Rev. McHate.

What do you think a white American should think when watching their potential U.S. President’s closet spiritual adviser directing hate and anger at white America? You are just a closet divider who lacks the guts to tell us what you really think.

Posted by One Angry Democrat at 6:05 PM

Hillary, if elected, should begin a campaign to move 2 people out of their lofty chairs: Olbermann and Ted (Leave All Women Behind) Kennedy.

BAC