Get used to it Democrats. Whether we run a woman or a black this year, the nastiness from right wing idiots will get pretty bad. Look to what the Republicans did in the Tennessee Senate race in 2006 and you'll get some idea what we are in for.

Georgia is leading the way. Seems a bar owner in Cobb Co. Georgia who thinks he's so clever made up T-shirts with a picture of Curious George (registered trademark of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) eating a banana with the caption "Obama '08." When confronted by some uppity civil rights groups the bar owner insisted he wasn't racist. From a Daily Kos article because the original newspaper article keeps crashing Firefox:

The T-shirts are being peddled by Marietta bar owner Mike Norman at his Mulligan's Bar and Grill in Cobb County. They show a picture of Curious Georgie peeling a banana, with the words "Obama '08" underneath.

...

Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey.

The Boss weighs in on this year's presidential election. You think his timing, right before the Pennsylvania primary, is deliberate? Could his endorsement swing some of those blue collar votes? I bet lots of those laid off Rust Belt workers blasted Born to Run in their day.

(picture from Classic Rock Legends)

You just don't get more American than Bruce Springsteen. America's working class icon and true blue American legend is endorsing Barack Obama. Bruce's letter says it all:

LIke most of you, I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.

Sean Hannity And Bill O’Reilly Disgrace The Profession Of Journalism; Their Anti-Obama Agenda Is Shameful.

The gatekeepers at Fox News network like to boast that their news is fair and balanced: that’s bullshit. I think it is fair for me to say that Fox News network has an obvious right-wing slant that they don’t even try to disguise. And that’s okay to a point, since it’s their business. But when it comes to electing the next president of the USA, human decency should dictate that some level of fairness be considered when the principals are being reported on; and relative to how they are scrutinized and treated. Fox News network has been trying to destroy Barack Obama’s candidacy for quite some time now and it is time to stop this obvious vendetta. The world is watching.

Take the latest media craze: Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright; the former pastor of the church Barack Obama has attended for the past twenty years or so. Sean Hannity has been pushing this story for months; he has had help from the likes of Bill O’Reilly and others in the Fox family. Fine. Both Hannity and O’Reilly work for the network and are part of this anachronistic and almost all-white news club, which is flaunted everyday by those who are totally insensitive to the demands for fairness, equality and social justice, from people who are non-white. This insensitivity is the disgrace of America’s political right. It exposes them for what many of them really are: people who feel that humans who aren’t white (Caucasian) are inferior.

No one can accuse me of condoning the divisive aspects of some of Rev. Wright’s statements; I find them rather unfortunate and in some instances divisive. His choice of words in expressing his outrage at US foreign policy and such, are in some aspects: reprehensible. His analysis of various events and happenings (like HIV/AIDS) is troubling. His mind-set seems one filled of anger and venom; somewhat surprising for a Christian pastor. But this former marine- who grew up in the time of Jim Crow laws- is entitled to his first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. This is the point to my column here: right wingers, white conservative types and those who carry water for them, are hypocritical when it comes to freedom of speech issues. They offer no sympathy, compassion or sensitivity for Wright- as a product of the racially oppressive days of Jim Crow- but give free passes to white ministers, televangelists, preachers, supremacists and demagogues, when it comes to freedom of speech issues and some of the similar things they say.

Per email, Senator Obama's speech as prepared for delivery.

[Update]: There's video.

"A More Perfect Union"
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Constitution Center
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

As Prepared for Delivery

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that 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.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

The biggest impediment to solving the problem of racism in the USA is the denial that comes from all sides of the divide. Only when this denial is confronted will we get anywhere closer to solving this seemingly intractable issue. Let’s take the latest Clinton campaign dust-up. Geraldine Ferraro- one of HRC’s big feminist supporters- made probably the most nonsensical statement of this campaign cycle so far, when she suggested that Barack Obama has gotten where he is (his success in this presidential race to date) because he is lucky to be black. This is the same woman, who in 1988 said that Jesse Jackson was only running in the presidential primary (and with some success too), because he too “was black”. Talk about double-speak/lol; or is it double-talk? This was not accidental or coincidental; this was deliberate on Ms. Ferraro’s part. This lady needs some sensitivity training; even at age 72 it can be useful.

When I said right here on the blogs, that “race” will be the “gorilla at the back of the room” in this presidential contest, I knew many felt that I was overreaching. Others felt that I was somehow exaggerating and being absurd somewhat. Go back to some of the comments made in the comment sections of some of my previous columns. I had to explain to many a person on the telephone, over e-mail inquiries, in various gatherings, and on the streets, that race is the unconscious factor in the lives of most Americans: no matter what color or genetic-nationality. I had to further explain some of the things that I have written about here -in many a column- that most Americans are in denial when it comes to racism; that there are many who walk around this country, unconscious to the fact that they have racist tendencies; seemingly oblivious to their programmed racist predispositions and /or built-in racial reflexes. This is where it starts: in the mirror that few care to look into. This is where it ends: in the introspection (and retrospection) that few care to indulge and/or confront.

On the street corners of many a black congressional district, you would often hear soul-folks saying: “no big thing but a chicken wing”. This can be heard whenever there is a fuss about something or the other that soul-people think is being overblown. On corners of white congressional districts (and by white and black, I am only alluding to where the majority of the residents are of that color; that’s all), you may hear the same sentiments expressed this way: “much ado about nothing”. Well that’s how I feel about all this super-delegate noise, coming out from many tense corners of hot and heavy political competition; like the kind taking place between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- as they compete for the Democrat’s presidential nomination.

Look people, rules are rules. That’s it; period. Once you agree to play by the rules, then ethics dictate you are bound to abide by said rules. So here we have both camps talking all kinds of “stupid shit” about the super-delegates, in attempts at chicanery; they ought to be ashamed of themselves. And this goes for both campaigns. Both campaigns need to chill.

For sometime now the Billary Clinton’s campaign has been complaining that mainstream media has been unfair to Hillary Clinton. But is this true? Lots of supporters from both the Clinton and Obama camps, have (at various points of this marathon) attacked the media treatment of their candidate; the Clintonistas in particular have gone to great lengths in trying to drive this point across. Comedians and comedy shows have lampooned their very complaints. And yet all mainstream media is doing is nothing short of pursuing their unaltruistic everyday agenda of: sensationalism and controversy-creation. It is not only about providing information for public dissemination and action; it is also about profits.

Mainstream media likes to stir up the pot; they like to create controversy even where there wasn’t, or even when there isn’t. This sells computers, newspapers, books, magazines, et al. This brings high ratings relative to viewership and listenership. It’s unfortunate but it is true. A political brouhaha is a gatekeeper’s orgasm. If they can’t find one, well, they fabricate it. That’s what they are doing right now with this so-called contest between Obama and the Clintons. They bend the truth to keep it alive. They twist the facts to perpetuate this media-farce. It is one big charade. It is slowly becoming a joke; eventually we will all laugh. Hopefully the joke won’t be on the obvious democratic nominee: Barack Obama. This unnecessary continuum isn’t funny; the ammo being provided for Republicans to use after Labor Day, could blow up in the faces of optimistic party-loyalists. Are they getting this?

Mainstream media should be informing and educating the general public. It should be as honest and truthful as humanly possible; but is it? It should be an edification tool, not a vehicle used only for high ratings and big profits. It should be more civic-minded and less self-absorbed. Media’s status as the fourth estate didn’t come about accidentally. Political scholars have written countless dissertations about the importance of media in reifying our democratic ideals. Unfortunately, for political-idealists like myself, mainstream media often times leaves a lot to be desired; it is why I believe the political blogs have become so popular. With all the warts attached, political blogs have gotten real close to the true pulse of the polity; even more so than the framers of the constitution envisaged.

I wanted to wait until after next Tuesday’s primary to write this, but since I am taking for granted that Barack Obama will win the Mississippi primary that day, I will go ahead with this column now. I expect Barack Obama to win the Wyoming caucus later today, if only because his campaign staff has an impressive record of bringing out caucus goers loyal to their cause; and also because I have heard from on the ground (where the boots are) that Obama has out-organized Clinton in this state; in a big way. His campaign has been on the ground here for quite some time now. But even if he loses the Wyoming caucus, that outcome has little bearing on what I want to say here; only 12 delegates are up for grabs; he will get his share no matter what.

We are all progressive bloggers on this site and as such that makes us savvy and intelligent followers of our political process. That is why we need not stretch our brains too thin to get them wrapped around hidden agenda the core intent of Republican Florida Gov. Crist interference into the Democratic Presidential Nominating process. What is disturbing is the lack of savvy and intelligent understanding of Democratic Michigan Governor Granholm's participation in Crist's scheme. On the surface their jointly declared call for a do-over primary sounds only fair. The shoe drops however when Crist clarifies that his state will not pay for the new primary!
politics64 :: A cost effective do-over fix for Michigan and Florida: But they must act fast!

It begs the question of, Well Governor, if not you than who should pay? The Democrats of course! But is that not very costly? About eighteen million for Florida and twelve million for Michigan!

If you look up the word “mulligan” in the dictionary, you would find that it is a re-taken golf shot; or better still: a shot that- against the rules- a golfer allows an opponent to take again. Bill Clinton is known to take many mulligans when playing friendly games of golf; his wife (Hillary Rodham Clinton) seems to have learned this bad habit quite well. It is all about changing the rules in mid game, especially when things aren’t going their way. It’s about refining techniques that give them an unfair advantage in any competitive event. It is cheap, low and crass.

If Billary were to go to any toy store to purchase a device for their pleasure, what they would find is that in near all devices sold: “batteries are not included”. So after Tuesday’s primaries (Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont), all rational Democrats need to emphatically make the case- to both Bill and Hillary Clinton- that mulligans (just like batteries) are not included in the rules of this year’s primary elections.

I must admit that I have been having big fun during this election cycle. I have been amused when watching the many “Clintonistas”, running around the talk shows, spinning deluded tales of audacious hopes for best case scenarios, while seemingly oblivious to the harsher reality: Billary’s candidacy is dead; long live the dead.

It was probably inevitable that a major Presidential candidate with an Arabic name would, sooner or later, be confronted with questions about the relationship between the United States and its closest Middle Eastern ally. Equally inevitably, after five years of war in an Arab country and seven after a terrorist attack carried out on this country by an Islamist terror network, that discussion will touch on America's fractured relationship with the Islamic world in general and our posture towards the Jewish state in particular.

A look back is in order. In 1820, New York State's Grand Island was proposed as the location of a new Jewish homeland, understood as a gathering place for Jews before aliyah to Zion became possible. Emma Lazarus, author of The New Colossus, was an agitator for proto-Zionist and proto-feminist ideas in New York's 19th Century Gilded Age. The connection between New York and the idea of Zionism is long and deep.

The United States was one of the first countries to recognize Israel itself, somewhat to the chagrin of the British Empire; and before Washington endorsed the fact of Israel's independence, there had been a bipartisan consensus of sympathy to the Zionist experiment.

President Wilson expressed his support for the Balfour Declaration when he stated on March 3, 1919:

The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.

After Wilson left office, his successors expressed similar support for the Zionist enterprise. "It is impossible for one who has studied at all the services of the Hebrew people to avoid the faith that they will one day be restored to their historic national home and there enter on a new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity," said President Warren Harding.

Calvin Coolidge expressed his "sympathy with the deep and intense longing which finds such fine expression in the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine."

"Palestine which, desolate for centuries, is now renewing its youth and vitality through enthusiasm, hard work, and self-sacrifice of the Jewish pioneers who toil there in a spirit of peace and social justice," observed Herbert Hoover.

Of course, Hoover's observation rested on one glaring error: that the Cis-Jordanian Imperial mandate of Palestine was terra nullius, an empty land awaiting settlement. The land was not empty, and the question of how to reconcile the legitimate claims of competing (and, one could argue, complementary) nationalisms has been contentious and unresolved ever since.

Following independence, the relationship between the United States and the new nation of Israel quickly cooled, responding to the patterns of alignment set in the developing Cold War. A major portion of the weaponry that secured the new state's independence came from Czechoslovakia prior to that country's complete absorption into the Soviet orbit. In 1956, President Eisenhower forced an Anglo-French-Israeli expedition force to retreat from the Suez Canal, recently seized by Egypt's Arab nationalist President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Further frost was added to the bilateral relationship by the conservative Eisenhower administration's distrust of Israel's nascent structure as a socialist economy characterized by strong labor unions, led by the labor coalition Histadrut, and a parallel internal economy of collectivist enterprises in the Kibbutzim. A rapprochement of sorts between the Labour government of Levi Eshkol and the Kennedy/Johnson administration was capped in the 1967 Six Day War, another Cold War proxy battle, when American arms shipments to Israel obviated comparable shipments to Arab combatant states by the Soviet Union and resulted in a stunning Israeli victory.

As a result of that victory, Israel became an occupying power over territories previously belonging, de facto or de iure, to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It is the fate of these territories that ultimately will decide a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In 2004, the Democratic Party platform embraced the concept of a two-state solution for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, following in the footsteps of the Clinton administration's developing Middle Eastern policy. The current republican administration embraced the idea of two states for two peoples some time into its first term as well. Despite the overall fraying of the post-war foreign policy consensus along partisan lines, therefore, it can be considered settled American policy that the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, to live in peace, security, within recognized borders as fully sovereign members of the international community, are an objective of the American national interest. Firmly embedded within that consensus is the assumption that America, due to the kinship between our domestic institutions and Weltanschauung with those of Israel as a Western democracy, will continue to support Israel's security and aid that country's defense.

Barack Obama stands equally firmly within this consensus. So why the controversy?