2008

10 years ago, I was still trying to finish up my political science degree at Morehouse. Also the Presidential race was going down to the wire with Sen. John McMain (R-AZ) and his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) running against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Now unlike 2016 this election almost seems like a forgone conclusion Sen. Obama was likely going to win and obviously did.

Just think about the crises going on back then. The public seemed very tired of the war raging in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also let's not forget about the financial crisis which took out some of America's prominent investment banks and also left many foreclosed homes in neighborhoods around the nation. I was on the verge of graduating in 2009, but there wasn't much or me to be optimistic about.

Lately I thought about this post that I had written the month Obama took office as President. I wanted to get more involved though unfortunately it was mostly a pipe dream. For the most part I continued to do what I knew to do which was blog about it.

Besides at that point in time I had just started The Sixth Ward blog, which is still somewhat going strong today. Regardless, I need to do better with getting involved especially as far as the grass roots. I'd like to think I have something to offer, just a matter of how I offer it.

"The Amateur"

[VIDEO - PART 1 & PART 2] Last night Sean Hannity had as a guest on his FOX News program author Ed Klein of the book The Amateur. It's book about Obama and what figures largely is whether or not an associate of Obama had attempted to bribe for Rev. Jeremiah Wright's silence in the 2008 campaign. Let's not forget this was a big issue a few years ago and there are those who want to bring Wright's name back to the public eye.

We was controversial when he was exposed to the general population of this nation for his fiery preachings when he had been pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Christian Church. For some of his statements in the past and during the campaign Obama had been forced to shun Wright who Obama had described as his spiritual father.

Could Wright's reputation figure in 2012, unlikely but I may be surprised. And also note that there are other subject's discussed in Hannity's interview such as whether or not Obama is fit to be President. And fit according to temperament. What do you think? Is he doing a great job as President or are you looking forward to someone else taking over the Oval Office?

Where's Obama's 'mandate'?

Another Obama item for today from the Pittsburg Tribune-Review:

Watching CNN's Wolf Blitzer add up the numbers on that night, you'd get the idea that a massive turnout of dramatically energized and newly liberal voters had produced an Obama landslide.

In fact, despite the pictures of four-hour lines at the polls, American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate reports that voter turnout in this year's election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago --- or at most had risen by less than 1 percent.

"Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004," reports Curtis Gans, the director of the university's center.

In both years, in short, some 40 percent of those eligible to vote didn't show up at the polls, with Republicans, in particular, taking a none-of-the-above stance this year and staying home.

"A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout," states the American University report. "Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent."

As far as Electoral Vote Obama certainly crush McCain but as happens since we have an Electoral College that formally elects the President the popular vote totals doesn't always match up. I suppose that's OK, but the fact is there isn't a great popular mandate for the President-elect. Perhaps that'll come when he runs for re-election four years from now.

Read this previous post about this subject here and then....

Have you forgotten about The Movie Cabinet. I posted a fun piece about Obama over there.

I found this column via RealClearPolitics.

ADDITION: This post from Mechanics says that Obama did indeed win a mandate. I suppose I can agree it has nothing to do with the popular votes but in some of those red states he had flipped to win such as Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.

Still I wonder if this victory is truly transformational...

The much more salient point is whether the 2008 election was politically transformative in the way that Franklin Roosevelt's election was in 1932. And what was transformative about FDR's election, you might ask? Well, it wasn't his margin of victory or even the innovative policies he implemented once in office. It was the way in which his election shifted the political allegiances of whole demographic groups across the country, ushering in nearly 40 years of Progressive policy-making and Democratic electoral dominance. The answer to this second question is more complicated but here are some very encouraging signs, at least from this Progressive's point of view.

There's a lot of information in this piece so do read on, there!

Myth: A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama's victory

An excerpt of a column by Washington Post's Chris Cillizza who also blogs at The Fix:

Afraid not. Heading into Election Day, cable news, newspapers and blogs were dominated by excited chatter about record levels of enthusiasm for Obama among two critical groups: African Americans and young voters (aged 18-29). It made sense: Black voters were energized to cast a historic vote for the first African American nominee of either major party; young people -- following a false start with former Vermont governor Howard Dean in 2004 -- had bought into Obama in a major way during the primary season, and they finally seemed on the cusp of realizing their much-promised potential as a powerhouse voting bloc.

Or not. Exit polling suggests that there was no statistically significant increase in voting among either group. Black voters made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2004 and 13 percent in 2008, while young voters comprised 17 percent of all voters in 2004 and 18 percent four years later.

The surge in young and African American voters is not entirely the stuff of myth, however. Although their percentages as a portion of the electorate didn't increase measurably, Obama did seven points better among black voters than Sen. John F. Kerry did in 2004 and scored a 13-point improvement over Kerry's total among young voters.

The others myths covered here are the death of the Republican Party, the beginning of new Progressive era, A Republican could have won the Presidency, and finally McCain made a bad VP choice in Sarah Palin.

VIA Real Clear Politics!

Vote totals

They started handing out Maroon Tiger newspapers today. Obama certainly demolished McCain as far as the Electoral Vote, but the popular vote doesn't reflect the landslide Obama won. Of course what I want to do is verify the actual popular vote totals which are 63 million to 55 million in favor of Obama. These are probably estimates and I need to find some actual numbers on the popular votes.

I might be wrong but the popular vote doesn't indicate a popular mandate to me. The totals don't indicate a huge difference in popular votes between McCain and Obama. The different is only about 8 million perhaps I expected to see more maybe a difference of 15 or 20 million.

It doesn't matter tho since McCain didn't win those states that could have netted him this victory. The Electoral College counts more than the popular votes. Perhaps Obama was playing a good game of chess and essentially was able to garner that majority he needed in the Electoral Votes to win the Presidency.

In trying to assess the math of this election I'm looking at Real Clear Politics but all that tells me is the percentages no numbers that explain the percentages. So at this moment I'm still looking. If the popular vote totals are out there, they will be found!

ADDITION: Bloomberg says...

Obama won the highest proportion of the popular vote since Republican George H.W. Bush defeated Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. The 52.4 percent of the popular vote that Obama won -- 63.4 million ballots -- is the highest of any Democratic candidate since Johnson's 1964 victory.
...
Obama is the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote. Bill Clinton was twice elected president without getting half of the popular vote. Obama's opponent, Arizona Senator John McCain, got 56 million votes, or 46.3 percent of the total, according to the latest figures.
...
So far, the popular vote total is 121 million. The vote total would have to reach 135 million to exceed the 1964 turnout, when Johnson beat Barry Goldwater, another Republican senator from Arizona, Gans said.


It would take 140 million votes this year to reach the 67 percent turnout recorded in 1960 when Democrat John F. Kennedy defeated Republican Richard Nixon, he said.


The final totals may not be known for six weeks as states finish counting and verifying the results, Gans said. For example, in California, the most populous state, 5 percent of precincts still haven't reported complete results.

I'll keep looking!

No He Can't

This morning here's a commentary from LewRockwell.com about the election of Sen. Barack Obama as President of the United States:

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Well I'm trying not to predict the future as I didn't predict Obama's election. That's not to say I wasn't surprised that he would win this one. I just didn't anticipate that he'd lock up the nomination, although to be sure I'm glad it was him instead of Hillary Clinton. I really didn't think he'd give McCain a good beating in the Electoral College.

Like I've said this was a tough election for me because most of the candidates in this election weren't people I wanted to vote for. I should have done what this lady did and what a guy said he did in another class and voted for Ron Paul as a write-in. All the same the only thing that I did was observe the overwhelming emotions that befell Morehouse because of Obama's win.

In my mind I can't just vote a black man for President, but I would like to try to vote for a man who I believe will do the best job. Everybody's standards are different on that so if the most qualified man or woman to me actually gets elected then I suppose I've done my job. If not then hey this person has four years to earn my vote assuming no one else comes along.

From yes we can...to...yes we did...

I was out with some guys in my dorm. They effectively changed the slogan from yes we can to yes we did. Well that's new.

I pulled out my camcorder to capture as much of the festivities as possible. I cursed and yelled more than usual got more exciteable with the ladies. Even told a girl that as a sagittarius I liked cute sagittarius girls.

I might show it perhaps here or the grandkids we'll see. I don't feel like doing any editing. Windows Movie Maker is cheap and Sony Vegas is difficult to learn for me.

I'll be back in the morning. This is just a rare midnight post!

I've been out all day

I got material for maybe two or three posts for later. I took some mobile pics of my day over at The Beta. Interesting day and probably as interesting as the one day I was an elections judge at a neighborhood precinct in Chicago. Stay tuned for those posts. I'll just have to get to it before I forget everything.

SALUT!

Blacks' dreams will come true. Then what?

This morning's Laura Washington column from the Sun-Times.

'This is a time that even folks of my generation have never seen before," says Timuel Black.
Black has seen many a lifetime from his lifelong perch on Chicago's South Side. The revered scholar, historian, political activist and grass-roots intellectual turns 90 on Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day. He was born and raised in Bronzeville, the historic and iconic heart of black Chicago.

He is my most reliable barometer of what thoughtful African Americans are saying. I caught up with by phone last week. He had just returned home after voting early for You Know Who.

So what will black folks be thinking as Sen. Barack Obama seals the deal -- to become America's first black president?

Black -- and every African American he knows -- desperately wants Obama to win. "Barack is the best that America has to offer," he says.

He notes that the senator's saga -- born and bred in Hawaii and Indonesia, schooled in the Ivy League, a life of relative privilege -- is not shared by the preponderance of American blacks. "He has a different experience."

Indeed. Blacks must tamp down their sky-high expectations. Obama is running to become president of the world. We must learn to share.

By necessity, he has run a post-racial campaign. "To be a good president, you first have to be president," said Black, professor emeritus of social sciences at the City Colleges of Chicago. "I am not being derogatory, but explanatory."

Check out the conclusion:

African Americans -- and a lot of other people -- better hunker down for some disappointment. Their hero is already getting fitted for the economic and political straitjacket he'll wear for the next four years. The Middle East wars will rage on and that shiny piggy bank known as the U.S. Treasury will be busted. As black folks always say, when they let us take over, you know things are pretty dire.

One thing Obama has going for him: He will look stupendous compared with the current occupant of the White House. Incompetent predecessors present propitious opportunities.

So how will he govern? Turn on the tube and watch the conservative pundits sniff: It goes something like "America is a center-right nation, but Obama will surely govern from the left." He will inevitably overreach and fail, they cackle. They are gleefully awaiting the fall.

I've always said this. I haven't always rooted for him but I think he might have made it easier for any future Black candidate for President of the United States to ascend to not only a major party nomination, but also to the Presidency itself. I'm still not sold on if he is the one, but that's one way I try to look at it.

And I wonder what these sky-high expectations are? Over a year ago a friend of mine and I said that perhaps it's not good politics to stick it to "whitey". That's what some Blacks are oriented towards have this overwhelming since of righteousness while at the same time expecting them to bow down is unreasonable.

Also it might be unreasonable for Obama to govern as if he's the President of Black America. The Presidency of the United States has a much more broader constituency. Always has I doubt that all citizens in the history of this nation was only White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

I'm sure the sky-high expectations will draw many different ideas. What might you think?

CNN Shocked Black Men Not Voting Obama

Three black men were interviewed on CNN. Apparently these men won't be voting for Barack Obama. They must not want to vote for a man because he's black. I suppose that is their perogative and it's mine as well.

I've had difficulty with this election. I wasn't sure who I'd vote for. Obama has some postive things going for him in this election. Especially a sunny disposition and charisma that draws people to him.

For me that's not enough. There just has to be more to the man than the fact that he looks good and he sounds good. Of course there's a lot more to Obama than the fact that he's a man of color.

I prefer calling him that because personally and he admits this he isn't defined by the Black community. He may have been of the community that is he's active in the community especially as a community organizer. Still his ancestry will not connect him to most Blacks. He's more African than any black person you might see in the streets wearing African clothes and probably wouldn't know the difference between Ghana and Nigeria on a map. Or even the difference between Ethiopia and South Africa. Just compare different nations on the continent and you'd get the idea.

Any case I will not vote for Obama because I want to see a black President. I wanted to vote for the best man for the job. I don't think Obama is the best man but honestly neither is John McCain. I base this somewhat on my worldview. Yeah I can be described as somewhat conservative on some issues, especially taxes and I would like a more limited government. In fact, in that vein, I prefer to call myself a "classical liberal".

Obama isn't going to offer that. His tax plan is too good to be true. In fact I saw an article today about how that threshold for who he's tax and not tax it seems to change. In addition it's something that's been said for years. Plenty of politicians on the left especially want to get those rich people to pay their fair share although there might not be much agreement on what that fair share should be.

This election might be an illustration of the same tired rhetoric that we've heard for who knows how long. Obama might be a new face on the scene, but he's not saying anything much different than anybody else. Honestly neither is McCain.

It's great to know about tax cuts and that he'll be tough on America's enemies (especially terrorist) but he's not offering anything incredibly radical. Some might allege that Obama will offer full-blown socialism while McCain might choose baby steps towards socialism. Whatever is said neither candidate has honestly floated my boat.

There are some issues that need fixing in this great nation. Does anyone have faith that the current crop will be able to fix them? I'm not sure I do, but they must be fixed. Of course there isn't a right or wrong way to solve problems, but I know what I'd like to see.

That being said I wonder if I should either dread or look forward to this election. The future is here! Can't be scared because the events will proceed anyway. We didn't know what would happen with Bush in 2000 or after 9/11, but we survived.

America can survive an Obama presidency as easily as we'll survive a McCain's. All the same I'm not too thrilled at the prospects of either, yeah I voted but I wasn't excited. I was more excited about a constitutional convention in Illinois.

I can only hope that during the next four years a new generation of leadership will come into American politics at whatever level they are able with the idea that they can break from the past and then bring in new and fresh ideas. Right now it is needed more than ever. What has worked during the 20th century or even this first decade of the 21st isn't entirely ideal.

Perhaps Obama will spawn some new leaders. Perhaps McCain will do the same. I want to look right at those people who supported Ron Paul the truly breakout candidate of the 2008 election. Although Ron Paul didn't make it in this campaign to even be close to contention he had a decent following and I sincerely hope someone out there will be willing to take his place. Besides he's no spring chicken unfortunately.

My last words on this subject is bring on this undiscovered country. Perhaps something good will come out of this afterall!

What If It Had Been More Than an Infomercial?

Pajama's Media on this informercial Obama aired earlier this week. Unfortunately I didn't get to watch but I hope I can find out there on the world-wide-web.

Americans know that they themselves can do better, that they can be better citizens. I hear it as I talk to people throughout the nation. Most would grade themselves a “B” in terms of citizenship, if that. They’re waiting for an invitation to step up, and many observers see Obama’s candidacy as just such an opportunity.

But he played it safe, sticking to the well-worn talking points and really, it seems, just hoping to make his points through repetition. I guess it is hard to fault someone in Sen. Obama’s position for steering a course that minimizes mistakes. After all, he’s trying to close the deal, and that’s a job not yet done.

But imagine if Sen. Obama’s campaign had instead seen these thirty minutes as an opportunity — not for his own campaign, but for the American people. He might have taken a different tack.
...
Or, maybe, he might have spent the time weighing the relative merits of his and his opponent’s world views. He might have asked a co-host to present opposing views not in a demonic way, but with their best feet forward. After all, Sen. McCain is a serious person and his proposals are worth taking seriously. Why not examine them at their best, and explain why notwithstanding their good points, Obama would go in another direction? And why not point out the downsides of Obama’s own proposals — for everyone knows that there are upsides and downsides. This would just be leveling with the American people and telling them what they already know in their gut: there is no silver bullet and no one answer is undeniably the right one. This could have been a moment when the American electorate were finally being treated as the grown-ups they are.

Instead, Sen. Obama’s campaign chose to sell us a grill and a set of knives. It probably did his campaign good and it’s unlikely that it hurt.

But it could have been so much more.

I have to see the informercial before I can truly judge. Read the whole thing!

Here's the informercial itself...

TNA wrestlers talk politics

Heh, it seems most of them believe income redistribution could help their bottom lines. I hate that logic and I would question if there will be more money in the pockets of those lower to middle class people whom Obama wants to give a leg up.

Redistribution doesn't necessarily mean more money for the people. It could just as easily mean more money for the government for these wonderful programs that it might be determined that the American people want or need.

Anyway this should be entertaining and it last almost an hour.

Check out Russ Stewart's presidentail election analysis...

He uses the example of a race from long ago in North Carolina. A Senate race between the late Jesse Helms sitting incumbent and black Moderate Democrat Harvey Gantt back in the year 1990:

North Carolina is a microcosm of America, with liberal urban areas such as Raleigh, Durham and Charlotte, conservative suburbs and rural areas, and a black population of 21 percent. Like Obama, Gantt was a moderate Democrat who eschewed the "victimization" attitude of blacks such as Jesse Jackson. Unlike McCain, Helms was a hard-right conservative who vociferously opposed abortion, gun control, gay rights, foreign aid and affirmative action. He was detested by many but loved by just a few more.

In 1990, after trailing Gantt narrowly in the polls, Helms won by 106,758 votes, getting 53 percent of the votes cast. Likewise, in 1996, after running even with Gantt in the polls, Helms won by 171,958 votes, again getting 53 percent of the votes. The politically correct explanation is that North Carolina is filled with white racists who won't vote for a black candidate and that Gantt was the only Democrat who could have lost to Helms. Yet, in 1984, Helms beat the popular white Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, by 86,280 votes, with 52 percent of the vote.

The Helms-Gantt contests prove only that some white voters feel guilty about not voting for a black candidate and that they will not be honest with pollsters. As applied to 2008, when every poll has a margin of error of 4 to 5 percent, an additional "Harvey Gantt Factor" 5 percent must be factored into the equation. That means McCain, despite dismal poll numbers, could still triumph in key states, but he will not win the election.

Bush lost to Al Gore in 2000 by 539,940 votes, but he carried 29 states with 271 electoral votes, one more than a majority. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004 by 3,011,951 votes, and he carried 30 states with 286 electoral votes.

Obama is ahead by 10 percent or more in 18 states and the District of Columbia, with 238 electoral votes. He is ahead by roughly 5 percent in six more states (Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Florida and Virginia), with 75 electoral votes, within the margin of error, or essentially tied, in five states (Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia and North Carolina), with 56 electoral votes, and trailing slightly in three states (Indiana, Georgia and North Dakota), with 29 electoral votes.

To win, Obama need only carry his solid blue states, 18 of which were won by Kerry in 2004, plus Iowa (which is won by Bush), plus a few more states with 32 electoral votes (such as Florida, with 27); he need not win any toss-up states.

Read the whole thing.

Stewart even brought up the fact that if Hillary was the Democratic nominee this election probably would be at hand. Of course I would wonder if Americans who be just as hesitant to elect a woman President and they would a man of color. We'll find out on election day, but this one is going to be exciting.

To be sure this is almost like the 2000 Presidential race. Not only was no one totally sure who'd win the race on election day, but we weren't sure who was going to win the race after election day. I hope that won't the case this time around although voting for either McCain and Obama is probably a tough choice for a lot of people.

Who do you think should be President? Include anybody you'd like.

Intensity may help the Republican

Well McCain has largely been behind in polling. Actually I don't take much stock in polls because polls can not only be wrong, but also easily manipulated. Right now though it might be for most of us to believe that Obama is likely to win this election.

Still check out this article from Boston.com via Newsalert about McCain's performance last night:

John McCain last night put Barack Obama through a red-hot grilling, barely hiding his disdain for the Illinois senator and his outrage over Obama's policies.

Obama responded with cool, collected answers - sometimes too cool, answering McCain's teeth-gritting attacks with a grin that seemed more amused than offended.

The difference in the senators' temperatures - a combination of long-evident personality differences and McCain's increasing sense of urgency about Obama's growing lead in the polls - probably struck different voters in different ways.

But McCain's very intensity may have at least prompted some voters to take a second look at Obama and his policies.

"McCain came out swinging," said Wayne Lesperance, political scientist at New England College in Henniker, N.H. "Barack Obama was very cognizant of his lead and very cautious. It was reminiscent of the last round of a fight where a boxer is just trying not to be hit. If you score it on points, McCain won, but not by nearly enough to overcome Obama's lead."

McCain sought to sow doubts about Obama in many ways, some of which seemed likelier to stick than others. They included Obama's truthfulness - "There's the eloquence," he chimed at one point, claiming Obama's support for restrictions on late-term abortions had a hidden loophole in providing exceptions for "the health of the mother." (It's a loophole, but one that's been crucial to past Supreme Court decisions and hardly hidden.)

McCain also questioned Obama's judgment ("You don't tell other countries you're going to unilaterally renegotiate," he declared about Obama's vow to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement) and personal associations, sounding like a prosecutor demanding all the facts about any links between Obama's campaign and the liberal activist group ACORN, which has been accused of voter registration fraud. (There are no links, Obama said.)

While McCain often undermined his points with overstatements - claiming, for example, that ACORN's alleged offense was "destroying the fabric of democracy" - his clear-eyed anger at Obama was striking enough to make Obama's coolness seem overly lax.

Obama almost never answered a McCain jab with one of his own, preferring to try to defang the attacks with a mild explanation of his own policy.

I was at a party last night so I largely didn't watch the debate, however, I'm glad that C-Span posted the dabates over at YouTube. If you haven't watched the debates last night you can watch the whole thing right here. Perhaps you can come back and evaluate McCain's and Obama's performance last night.

I look forward to it!

The Bradley Effect in Illinois

Rich Miller points out that Illinois politics history indicates that there are no signs of a "Bradley Effect". The Bradley Effect is basically an attempt to explain discrepancies between polls and election results when a white politician runs against a non-white politicians. It was named for Tom Bradley, the late former Mayor of Los Angeles, who ran twice for Governor of California only to lose both times.

Miller goes back to 1983, when Harold Washington ran for Mayor of Chicago and won. It can't be said there was a Bradley effect because for the most part ethnic whites in ethnic wards were hostile to him anyway. There shouldn't be any surprise that they weren't going to vote for him.

Miller's post talks about the Bradley effect in relation to undecideds in Obama's campaign for the White House. He especially notes that not all undecideds are racist and thus won't affect the outcome as current polls stand.

In Illinois Republicans are hoping for an effect to help them and this time it won't be based upon race. It will be based upon the state of politics in Illinois. They're pointing to exactly the Governor and to Cook County Board President Todd Stroger, both of their terms in office has largely been seen as disastrous.

Still Illinois Republicans have to consider how Barack Obama looms large in state politics as he is seeking the Presidency. In fact since neither Blagojevich and Stroger is on the ballot this year who knows if they might have an impact on the state as we move closer to Election Day. It should be noted that they're also concerned about the negative ads that McCain has put out against Obama with the belief that it's not going to help them as the GOP is seeking to maintain their seats in the General Assembly.

Hmmm, is it inappropriate to mention a Con-Con in this post. Maybe it's a little late for that now, but perhaps the GOP should campaign not against two officer holders who currently aren't up for re-election. Instead to change the system that in some respects enables the stand-still of state government. Just a thought!

Liberal Outrage: A Pro-McCain March In Manhattan

How exactly this behavior is supposed to help Sen. Barack Obama is eluding me at this moment. This is what I call very hostile opposition. It's almost as if Republicans or conservatives did something to them once upon a time. This would just as easily bother me if it was the other way around Republicans flippin' off and acting indignant towards marching Democrats with Obama signs. Surely that would get more press than this has.

Oh, BTW, Evan Coyne Maloney at Brain-Terminal discusses the latest meme that Republicans are getting more and more unhinged. Well this video that I showed was shot last month you might want to consider who is more unhigned and then wonder why that is.

Vid via Newsalert!

Check out this "pledge line"

Almost evokes images of some of the crossings I've seen since I've been to school in the AUC. I almost thought they were Omegas because of the gold boots they were wearing.

I wonder what's up with having a "pledge" line of boys between the ages of 12 to 17 to announce their praises of Obama. Would this be appropriate to indoctrinate these young people in such a way? Should they credit Obama for their big dreams?

Think about it, I thought about entrepreneurship way before Obama. Yeah I'm much older now, but surely these young men had someone to talk about these things with them. Entrepreneur, doctor, lawyer, engineer, automotive technician, doesn't matter.

I've seen this vid a lot this morning. Check out this video's YouTube page this vid caused some drama because this was at a school. It's not exactly clear to me if it's a public school or a charter school. All the same this is scene as a form of propaganda using impressionable young people.

Check out Instapundit, Newsalert, and Atlas Shrugs. They're looking at this as a form of propaganda. To be sure it is propaganda. Heh, Newsalert actually titled his post appropriately using the term fraterning in its title although it still emphasizes the paramilitary aspect of this display. One of the links on Instapundit to Confederate Yankee breaks it down further mentioning the performance known as "stepping".

Anyway does anyone have any thoughts? Do you think this is heaping praise or worship on a politician who many see as con-men?

Barack Obama, John McCain and the Language of Race

Some of the themes here seemed to have been similar to what has been discussed in the Illinois Channel Links I showed you last week with regards to the 1908 Springfield race riots. Of course let's stay in the modern day here. We are talking about a NY Times editorial about the current presidential race.

It was not that long ago that black people in the Deep South could be beaten or killed for seeking the right to vote, talking back to the wrong white man or failing to give way on the sidewalk. People of color who violated these and other proscriptions could be designated “uppity niggers” and subjected to acts of violence and intimidation that were meant to dissuade others from following their examples.

The term “uppity” was applied to affluent black people, who sometimes paid a horrific price for owning nicer homes, cars or more successful businesses than whites. Race-based wealth envy was a common trigger for burnings, lynchings and cataclysmic episodes of violence like the Tulsa race riot of 1921, in which a white mob nearly eradicated the prosperous black community of Greenwood.

Forms of eloquence and assertiveness that were viewed as laudable among whites were seen as positively mutinous when practiced by people of color. As such, black men and women who looked white people squarely in the eye — and argued with them about things that mattered — were declared a threat to the racial order and persecuted whenever possible.

This obsession with black subservience was based in nostalgia for slavery. No sane person would openly express such a sentiment today. But the discomfort with certain forms of black assertiveness is too deeply rooted in the national psyche — and the national language — to just disappear. It has been a persistent theme in the public discourse since Barack Obama became a plausible candidate for the presidency.

Consider me strange but sometimes I wonder if we see race in everything now that the Senator is the first black man to represent a major party running for President. Reminds me of this video I found a week or so ago. IF you choose not to vote for Barack Obama for President or you choose not to vote for Sarah Palin for Vice President, you're either a sexist or a racist.

Anyway perhaps as we go forward in this election we might want to consider leaving the racial angle behind. Perhaps every white politician isn't denegrating Obama for his race. And Obama's race shouldn't be a reason we vote for him. I just thought this was an interesting editorial.

Via MyUrbanReport!

.

Don't confuse voting blocs and bigotry

I spring boarded off of this column from Russ Stewart when I wrote it last night. You'll see the finished product over at the Sixth Ward today. Just my thoughts on the main thesis of his column that black politicos in Illinois think that they have a claim to the office of state Senate President.

I have another good item for you to read.

Dawn Turner Trice from the Chicago Tribune talks about voting blocs. Especially as to how blacks might consider voting for Barack Obama as President. I found this interesting:

I've written a few times that the black vote is the least nuanced ofthe voting blocs. Each time I've written that blacks won't vote forObama solely because he's black, Lordy, I've received a firestorm ofe-mail asking how I explain the huge percentages of black support Obamareceived in the primaries.

I explain it this way: MaybeAfrican-American voters thought he was the best candidate. I've neversuggested that his race wasn't a factor for blacks (as it is for somewhites). But it's one of many factors. Maybe blacks feel strongly abouthis policies. I don't understand why people think that blacks don'tvote their interests.

An excellent example of this comes from Chicago's 2007 mayoral election. Mayor Richard Daley(who is white) received a huge heap of the black vote against CookCounty Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown (who is black) and William"Dock" Walls (also black).

"Identity appeal" always is crucial in politics. With race, it's hard to tease out how much race factors into the equation.

It was also mentioned that there was an AP-Yahoo poll that said that one-third of whites have negative views of blacks. It may not bode well for Obama's candidacy for President, that being said Trice still says that people will in the long run vote their interests. Whatever those interests may be.

Races won't vote, individuals vote. Perhaps there won't be a big Bradley effect. The voters might decide the day they finally go to the voting booth. That's how it's going to be for me because I haven't decided who I'll vote for.

Anyway the only point here is that everyone has their own story. You go near the end of this column Trice mentions the stockbroker who lost their job, a blue-collar worker who's home is in foreclosure, or a mother who wants equal pay for equal work. Race or ethnicity in this election matters little looking at those crucial issues.

What do you think?

A group of black men heckle Obama in Florida

Read some background on this here. Then contrast that with an earlier demonstration here.