Changes We HOPE We Will Be Able To Believe In

As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue in a fight-to-the-finish, the debate over the value of the Electoral College system gathers steam-- again.

Currently, Democratic delegates are won based on voter percentages not ballots cast. More distressing, “super delegates” are free to vote as they please.

Democrats are about to select either the first woman or the first black presidential nominee. Followers of both candidates are deeply committed. Women who remember a lifetime of sexism in lost opportunities and exclusion support Clinton. So does the mainstream mainly white Democratic establishment and Latinos who love the Clintons and dislike blacks they feel too often overshadow them.

Obama, conversely, has tremendous support among African-Americans, archliberals, and young voters, all of whom work tirelessly for his cause. Such a passionate following sparks more energy than Clinton’s traditional gang.

Obama— always mesmerizing—often uses language of entitlement. With every step closer to a convention fight, he invokes a vague “we” whose “time has come.” On Super Tuesday, he finally said, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

“We,” who?

The race card long avoided is now subtly played daily by both sides, though older female and Latino support of Clinton pales before the fired-up black legions for Obama. Such support is in line with America’s political habit of ethnics lining up behind “one of their own.” Though few are willing to articulate this, blacks for Obama are no different than Irish for Kennedy, Italians for Cuomo, or Jews for Lieberman.

When Obama speaks of so many small contributions like the $3 money order mailed in by a Southern elder, he is not talking about masses voting from conviction on national or international issues, he is talking about a black person voting for another black person because, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

In the end, voters will have “chosen” a bunch of political regulars who, between visits to “hospitality suites,” will select the nominee. “Super” delegates who hold the deciding votes this year may favor Clinton who clearly has more political chits to call in than the less-than-one-term senator from Illinois.
How will black America react if Obama is “passed over” and Clinton gets the nod in this politically tainted and obtuse system?

Oprah, Jesse Jackson, and black scholars from Harvard may be angry and vocal, but, in the end, they will surrender to the pecking order that has always defined political reality. They are more comfortable with rhetoric than rioting.

But will those who cheered OJ Simpson’s acquittal because, finally, they beat “the man,” joined by college students always ready for a fight, and, inner city poor weaned on the rioting of Watts be physical or philosophical?

CNN and Washington Post polls show that if Obama is the nominee, Clinton supporters are willing and even happy to rally behind this capable, charismatic black man promising, “Change we can believe in.” The same polls say Obama supporters will get behind the brilliant, hard-working Sen. Clinton if she is chosen.

In the end, the demeanor of the losers, whoever the Democratic nominee will be, will test one “change” that we would all like to believe in.




______________END_______________

Randy Moss: GET A REAL JOB!

Even people who are not sports fans, like myself, are proud of our New England Patriots’ spectacular season.

Then there's someone called Randy Moss spoiling it.

Moss is the perpetually traded bad boy for whom the Patriots paid more than $3 million when they traded him from the Raiders (who were paying him $8 million.)

As far as I can tell, if Moss hadn't been a talented wide receiver, he'd probably be in a dive somewhere stoned on pot and barely surviving financially.

Football has been 30-year-old Moss's life. His dream was to play for Notre Dame, and after high school he got a scholarship to join that historic football team. Even in those early days, however, Moss couldn't avoid trouble. He lost his Notre Dame scholarship following his arrest on assault charges from a racially inspired school fight.

But Moss lives in today's celebrity world where moral character, civilized behavior and ethical concerns are irrelevant. As long as a guy can toss a ball through a hoop, carry a pigskin to a touchdown, knock his boxing opponent out cold, slide the puck to goal or hit a home run, the money will keep rolling in and the fans will remain adoring.

I have never understood the need for sports teams to be so tolerant of antisocial and even criminal behavior. They want to win, of course, but the playgrounds of New Bedford, Boston, Revere, Providence or wherever are probably full of kids at least as talented as Moss and others like him. The scouts need to spend more time helping talented kids get onto the college teams that have become football's free "farm team" system. If that's the way it's gong to work, professional football needs to have more players in reserve: when the time comes, they'll just pull some kid out of college anyway.

Somebody's time should be coming right now, to replace Randy Moss. It doesn't even really matter if the latest domestic assault charge sticks or not, as far as I'm concerned. He has also driven into a (female) traffic officer who stopped him after he took an illegal turn, squirted water in a referee's face, and walked off the field. Then, of course, there is the infamous "mooning" incident. Randy Moss's rap sheet already includes enough assault charges, marijuana use and parole violations to certify him as wayward.

Moss says the woman who has sought and received a restraining order against him is just looking for money. So let's take away this guy's money; it only seems to get him into trouble. Let's just fire Moss for his own good since he seems to be a threat "to himself and others" when he has access to enough cash.
While talk of recession gets louder and more difficult to avoid, struggling Patriots fans in Bristol County and elsewhere depend on the spiritual lift great local sports teams can provide (as long as we can watch them on TV, since tickets are beyond reach for most of us).

Those struggling with a moribund economy need real heroes to see them through. Moss and others "just here for the beer" don't fit that profile.

________________END____________________

THE PRIVATE SECRETS IN THE VOTING BOOTH

Although it might seem like ancient history for 20-somethings, it wasn’t so long ago when women had little chance of stepping outside the kitchen to make real differences in the public and private sector. Because of this, I was elated when Hillary Clinton, who personifies accomplishment and merit-based opportunity, emerged as a legitimate presidential candidate.

I hoped that the 2000-year bondage of women might end, so I resented Barack Obama’s entry into the race, which threatened that dream. When he won in Iowa, I wanted to be angry.

Obama’s moving speeches however, made it difficult to keep anger and disappointment alive. I recognize his magic: his intelligence, inspiring oratory and his themes of hope and change are what the nation craves. His appeal is intoxicating -- especially to young idealists-- but the dark cloud of questionable electability that faces Hillary also looms large over Obama.

Doubtless brighter and more articulate than George W. Bush, Obama has not used race as a crutch, and the media has not made race an issue (as they have gender). In lily-white Iowa, he transcended race. Then independent blue-collared New Hampshire leveled the playing field between the first-female or first-black potential president
The electability problems of a tough female like Hillary have been extensively debated. Yet if Obama heads the Democratic ticket, his race may also be a negative factor for many voters. For reasons of “political correctness,” people don’t reveal that they would prefer to elect the devil himself rather than someone they consider a “nigger,” but two weeks ago at a dinner party, an otherwise intelligent accomplished man actually said this. It terrifies me, but I believe he represents millions.

When a John McCain supporter referred to Hillary as “that bitch,” McCain never distanced himself from the insult to a Senate colleague and former first lady. If the questioner had used the N-word, would McCain have reacted differently?

While the word “bitch” barely causes a ripple, no one can deny the ongoing presence of a reservoir of racial prejudice, overt and subliminal, in this country. But to paraphrase Churchill, by November Hillary might be a warmer and fuzzier woman, but Obama will still be black.

Iowa Republicans chose folksy extremist Mike Huckabee over Mormon flip-flopper Mitt Romney. Democrats need to ask how many similar voters, along with others, will choose a Republican nominee whom they perceive as a bulwark against a black liberal in the White House.

We don’t know the answer, because no one wants to ask that question -- and because voters will never admit their bigotry to pollsters.

Despite the chorus that Democrats MUST win in 2008, lest the country be doomed, most voting Americans just want a president they can love; one with whom they feel comfortable and who, coincidentally, may guide the country to peace and prosperity. For Iowa caucus-goers that was Obama: in New Hampshire, women led a groundswell for one of their own. Now a black man and a woman—both pioneers- challenge a nation yearning for “change.”

Keeping our eye on the November prize, one blogger says it best. “Please, God,” she writes,” all I want for Christmas is a Democrat president.”
_____________________________________________________

IS AMERICA READY?

Democrats don’t smell blood the way Republicans do. They don’t keep their eyes on the prize and concentrate on wrestling the White House away from an opposition that thumbs its nose at their beliefs.

Republicans-- by their own admission—have a motley crew running for president, none of whom feels just right. Recently, arch-conservative Mike Huckabee has surfaced as the standard bearer. Romney may spend more and Giuliani may preach more than the former Arkansas governor/evangelist, but Huckabee keeps gaining.

Democrats, meanwhile, spend more time attacking each other than challenging their political foes.

Most voters are sick of the current regime. It would follow, therefore, that this race is the Democrats to lose, and lose it they may as they did four years ago. Are they learning-disabled?

Democrats Clinton and Obama bring a historic opportunity to the nation. The question is whether or not the party of the left-- which pretends to stand for tolerance and equal opportunity-- can get behind one of two qualified people who could become the first female or the first black president.

So why is “electability” getting more play than it deserves? How “electable” any presidential nominee may be is subject to as many variables as there are voters. Perhaps “electability” is code for whether an N-word or an insert-favorite-derogatory-term-for-woman is a greater risk?

Democrats seem too willing to encourage skepticism about whether the country is ready for a woman or a black president. What does “ready” mean, exactly?

It means getting beyond the bigotry Democrats should have abandoned in the 60’s civil rights movement but which, apparently, lurks just below their skin.

“Ready” means that the traditional white, male Democratic power base must finally put its money where its mouth has been for decades because a white woman and a black man have risen to the top of the heap and deserve their party’s support. “Ready” means embracing unity in the same way that Republicans—especially at the extreme edges of that party—understand the need for that term. They stand behind their nominee—sometimes gritting their teeth-- because the other party’s platform is just too unacceptable.

Whether the Republicans choose Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani- the likely contenders to top that party’s ticket—their candidate will not embrace the values, beliefs, and constitutional interpretations basic to the true Democratic tradition. In that sense, they should all be outside the realm of consideration for GOP opponents.

Those who say they stand for “inclusion” have an easy choice in 2008--“inclusion” on one side and “exclusion” on the other. While skin color and gender ought to be only footnotes in this presidential election, with Obama or Clinton likely to top the Democratic ticket, one of two representatives of America’s most victimized classes will test Democrats’ true commitment to equal opportunity.

The choice facing voters next November may bring out the best in America, or it may expose the worst of our fears, ignorance and secret hatreds. The real question should be whether or not the country is “ready” for such a tragic exposé?
_____________END________________

Rudy: Opportunist Numero Uno

“Campanilismo” is defined as blind attachment to one’s birthplace, traditions and ethic. In that spirit, members of groups like the Sons of Italy and the National Italian-American Foundation (the fifth largest “ethnic” organization in the country) will follow Rudy Giuliani to his last political breath. Others, not blinded by campanilismo see Rudy for what he really is: a duplicitous opportunist who threatens their ethnic pride.

The former NY mayor likes to say, for example, that he had four uncles who were New York policemen. The December 3 edition of Newsweek writes of another uncle, Leo D’Avanzo, described as a “…loan shark and bookie with mob connections who operated out of a bar named after” cop/uncle Vincent D’Avanzo. Vincent “acted as a front man for the bar.”

Giuliani’s dad, Harold, was a bartender there. Newsweek says he kept a baseball bat and a gun under the bar in case things got rowdy, and “[used] the bat and his fists to collect debts” for his brother-in-law. Harold “served more than a year in Sing [sic] prison for mugging the milkman.”

This family tree-- even for ethnic loyalists-- falls short of direct bloodlines to Leonardo da Vinci.

Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to run for Vice-President, received little ethnic defense when it was said her father might have run numbers. Giuliani has been given impressive latitude as a frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, even while questions continue to be raised-- by Poitico.com and the NY Times, to name just two sources—about city spending irregularities regarding the mayor’s travel to visit his then mistress/now wife Judith Nathan.

The mayor’s circle is strangely silent: Giuliani’s long memory, vindictive nature, and abhorrence for “disloyalty” are well known. Unlike Harold, Rudy doesn’t need a baseball bat to settle scores.

Even detractors of Giuliani and his party are intrigued by how desperate Republicans seems to be that they could entertain the notion of Rudy Giuliani as a pro-family, pro-life, moral majority conservative. He supported abortion rights when it was convenient: now he embraces overturning Roe. He roomed with a gay couple while divorcing Donna Hanover: now he courts the far right with anti-gay-rights rhetoric.

Rudy chose a press conference to tell Hanover, the mother of his now-estranged children, that he wanted a divorce. By comparison, Newt Gingrich’s face-to-face, “it’s over,” to his wife, then in a hospital battling cancer, makes him seem like Prince Valiant. Stereotypical Italian sensitivity and blind respect for wife and children (whatever else may be happening “on the side”) seem to have eluded Giuliani.

Still, some Italian-Americans will support Giuliani because his roots, like theirs, are in Italy’s boot. (These folks may also call Oprah’s support of Obama “clannish.”)

For some of us, however, it’s not about the vowel at the end of his name: it’s about his insincerity, secrecy, vengefulness and opportunism at the end of the day. Americans will have had enough of such things by the time they get to vote for the next president-- and eight years is a bellyful.
__________END_______

TRAPPED IN THE HOMELAND

After 9/11, many of us went to New York to respond to then-Mayor Giuliani's plea to help the city by spending money there. We visited Ground Zero, museums and restaurants, determined not to let "terrorism" lock us in our homes.

National leaders were also entreating the public to support the stricken airline industry by traveling. If we stayed home, terrified, the enemy won. Afflicted by wanderlust, I took this seriously and continued to travel as much as my schedule and purse allowed.

I am always open to a "last-minute deal" that appears in my e-mail box. Recently British Airways offered great flights to London from Boston plus two free hotel nights.

I logged on to the Web site already dreaming of a London escape. Sure enough, I could book air from Boston to London, round trip, for $225. The kick in the teeth, however, was that taxes and Homeland Security fees, plus airport charges, added a full $347.99 to that ticket. The bottom line is that the total cost became $572.99, more than 150 percent more than the basic airline charge of $225!

Passengers start with this $347.99 charge, since the airport taxes and so-called "security" fees are flat and not based on a percentage of airfare. Add to these realities the plummeting dollar, now worth less than 60 percent of a euro and only half a British pound, and the global unpopularity of America and Americans and the "terror" that keeps us trapped in the homeland has less to do with jihadists than it does with our own misguided bureaucracy and policies.

Domestic air tickets on so-called low-cost carriers also add significant taxes and fees. With gas prices skyrocketing, airfare will only rise, and driving to our destination — when that is geographically possible — will also be unaffordable.
As for the use to which all this money is being put, most U.S. airports are more crowded, less comfortable, dirtier, less efficient and no more secure than they were on 9/10. Weekly we hear about someone smuggling a weapon on board, wandering onto the tarmac or actually working for the airport or its security team, the FBI or CIA while huddling with terrorists. Taxes and fees worth 150 percent more than the ticket itself won't fix that.

Like the song says, "We gotta get outta this place." Problem is, we can't afford to do so.
______END______

Cast your Cake Upon The Waters

With regular triple digit tumbles of the Dow and foreclosures threatening to outnumber new mortgage loans, it follows Americans might embrace Prosperity Theology. This is the belief—usually associated with evangelical groups-- that financial prosperity, and personal and commercial success and good health, are evidence of God's favor.

This premise suggests that preachers worth listening to should be rolling in dough. On that score, a half-dozen well-known (and well-heeled) ministries recently received a letter from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) minority leader of the Senate Finance Committee. By December 6, recipients are to answer the committee’s questions about executive compensation, use of private cars and jets, and ministry expenses.

Some might argue that high-rolling senators scrutinizing the spending of men and women of god smacks of the proverbial pot calling the metaphorical kettle black; but those doing “god’s work” are usually held to a higher standard. That standard probably precludes a $23,000 toilet like the one purchased for the headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo. Three of the ministers being asked for answers by Grassley’s committee are regents at Oral Roberts University, itself the subject of a spending probe. ORU “first lady” Lindsay Roberts is said to have $800 monthly cell phone bills. Charges include alleged “inappropriate” text messages to “underage young men.” My personal favorite extravagance of Lindsay’s is $39,000 in charges at Chico’s, which sells third world fashions at Fifth Avenue profits.

When biblical scribes spoke of casting one’s “bread upon the waters” to have it returned “a hundred fold,” it seems unlikely they had marble commodes from Carrara and brocaded slacks from Bangladesh in mind. Popular televangelists as well as the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, however, appear to have rejected the vow of poverty.

Pioneer televangelist Pat Robertson lives well and has power. He was in the news recently too, not for his lifestyle but for his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. How much Robertson spends has become secondary to his controversial pronouncements. Besides embracing the pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, thrice-married and openly philandering Giuliani, Roberts has called for the “taking out” of Venezuela’s Chavez, the rejection of feminism which he claims, “encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians” and the condemnation of Presbyterians as the “spirit of the Antichrist.”

While Robertson’s camp may quietly wink and plead the dementia defense, Giuliani is seriously running for president. Both men are full of contradictions and both fly in private jets.

At a minimum of $100,000 per public speaking engagement plus millions in consulting fees since he left Gracie mansion, Giuliani—a former Catholic seminarian—seems more suited to the Prosperity Theology camp than among the rope-girdled, sandaled Franciscans embracing poverty as basic to their faith.

I look forward to the “Prosperity Theologians’” responses to the senate investigators. Whatever the outcome of the government probe, however, it seems hard to believe the moneychangers were thrown out of the temple for nothing.

__________END______________