Their Greatest Worry

by Cody Lyon
The rain was coming down on this chilly May night in New York City faster than Hillary's chances for winning the nomination. Inside the cavernous Crunch Gym on Lafayette, the crowd was `thinner' than usual, no pun intended, but the political chatter was louder than the 90's dance tunes blaring from the speakers on this particularly dreary East Village night.

As Campbell kept the CNN pundits under control on the TV screens above the high tech cardio machines, local gym pundits engaged in some soul searching while engaging in discussion over what they saw as increasing polarization within the Democratic party electorate and perhaps the nation itself.

In the past, the pundits had all been Pro Hillary, but this go-round, the instigator of the chatter heard the voice of a new pundit who hadn't been a part of the discussions in the past.

"Never underestimate the Clintons," said a Pro Hillary Dem to the instigator of the conversations as Clinton supporter continued his arm curls in a rush before he headed off to dinner.

Noting the tremendous numbers in Hillary Clinton's win over Barack Obama in West Virginia, this particular pundit pointed out the danger that spells for the fall, recycling worries that Obama has yet to win over large portions of the traditional Democratic loyalists.

"A lot of people just don't think he's for real or relates to them, for some reason, they don't trust him" he argued adding that the Republicans will have fun with those doubts, in unfortunate, sad and divisive ways that will probably be very ugly in the end.

The Pro Hillary gym pundit recalled the unfortunate history of disappointment of what he called, Starbucks Democrats like McGovern, Dukakis and Kerry.

"The last time a Starbucks Democrat won the Presidency," he paused, then sighed that "the closet thing to liberal who would fit that description, was JFK," he said

But, in 1960, when Senator John F. Kennedy faced Hubert Humphrey and Wayne Morris in the Democratic Presidential campaign, Kennedy did in fact go to West Virginia, and made attempts to address the prejudice and "suspicion" over his Catholicism.

In the end, Kennedy did win the primary in West Virginia.

"Barack didn't even really campaign in West Virginia," said the Pro Hillary pundit.

"When he did, he put on one of those stupid flag lapel pins" grunting as he curled his arm "they (the West Virginians) saw through that crap."

Later, the instigator of this increasingly tired chit and chat made his was over to another Crunch "pumper" and posed a general assessment question about the election, gently prodding to see who's team he was on, and quickly found himself an Obama supporter who proceeded to unleash less than kind words for Hillary and for that matter, a number of her supporters.

"Barack Obama would sail to victory if they don't keep riding him with the Wright thing," said the Obama supporter who noted how the undercurrents of racism are still alive in America.

On Clinton, he said "she morphs herself into "whatever" it takes to win a vote," calling her immoral in her tactics.

"They (the Clintons) have always done that, it's not like they really care about anyone other than themselves, she's only concerned about her power," he argued going on to say that "she's staying in the race because she wants something out of all of this."

But, the instigator felt that Clinton had perhaps learned a lesson in humility, since she'd long been held up as a shoe in, only to realize that much of the nation was not in the mood for a coronation of those individuals deemed next in line. The instigator worried that Clinton's image had been so diminished and that in the end, that image had destroyed the truly populist progressive hidden agenda lying beneath all the political baggage.

So, when seeking to challenge his Obama friend, he asked him about the lopsided Clinton victory in West Virginia along with the other wins in Pennsylvania and places like Ohio, "places" in America that progressives have work to do and trust to win, where aggressive attempts to prove to the economically disenfranchised or higher education denied and affordable universal health care starved people that government can indeed do good things for people, but then, the Obama supporter cut deep.

"In the first place, those people who support her tend to be less educated and reactionary, they always respond to that right wing thinking," and then he said "I think he (Obama) and this new movement needs to marginalize them."

At which point the Obama supporter pointed to one of the more unethical moments in American political history.

"It's still amazing to me, that the Republicans were able to use that Swift Boat shit to derail a man like John Kerry" he said noting the sleazy character assassination attempts made by the infamous Swift Boat ads in 2004.

True enough, but the political anger towards those voters outside places like the island we at Crunch gym call home, Manhattan, caught the instigator off guard.

What exactly did he mean by marginalize them?

Unable, for whatever reason to admit his offense at such a comment, since hypocrisy would be the self describing term, because he too, had expressed similar sentiments back when he participated in simplistic Red State Blue State thinking, when us verses them became a source of his own political and regional rage during the early days of the Iraqi invasion, when people and relatives in his home state of Alabama reacted to 9/11 and its horrific outcomes with what appeared to be different emotions, when he honestly believed that he and others in his adopted city saw the world through completely different lenses, so the instigator just nodded his head, listening.

In truth, the instigator had long wondered, why he had not hopped on the Obama bandwagon of spoken idealism and hope, especially since he too, had at times viewed Hillary Clinton as an opportunistic leader who spoke to the direction of the wind.

Here he was, at the height of his own educational and sometimes tortured intellectual attainment that was in a constant state of analytical stimulus, living daily in this metropolis of New York surrounded by exotic, smart, multinational, fashion forward well educated types who he'd assumed shared mostly similar values.

Perhaps at the core, they still did, yet, New York, was no longer politically unified in how to attain those values, at least it no longer seemed to be so united thanks in great part to this campaign.

. Maybe, it was his connection to his life's past, better yet, his where with all coupled with what he felt was a realistic dose of political pragmatism that led him to the other candidate although, knowing himself, at first glance, he'd have thought a bright new light like Barack Obama would have won him enthusiastically over.

He made his way back across the gym to the Hillary supporter.

"I just had a conversation with a friend who is an Obama supporter who basically just made the entire diary community of "Daily Kos" come to life" he said.

"The tone in his voice, the very dismissive nature," and before he could go on, the Hillary supporter said to the instigator " wait one minute because there are plenty of Hillary supporters who take the same tone."

He then argued that somehow, somewhere, perhaps in a smoke filled back room, a conversation or a meeting must take place. Those two, Hillary and Barack have to come together.

"Absolutely," said the instigator but there was something deeper in the Obama supporters comment and for that matter, the aggressive tones taken by other Obama friends and that drumbeat blasting from the professional pundits, other media outlets and yes, Daily Kos diarists that had let the most blood from the instigator's political being and spirit.

Do some Obama supporters believe that voters like those in West Virginia and other states, cities, towns and homes that are labeled as being absent of the widely used but equally simplistic term 'latte liberals' believe those voters could be simply dismissed?

"When you talk about those people who are less educated or those who don't fit the mold of latte' drinking liberals, you're talking about my people," said the instigator.

"Mine too," said the friend, a Florida native who is a Hillary supporter.

Despite that, a clear and deep connection to their New York lives had gained increasing strength in recent years, thanks in part, to outrage over a Republican party pattern of politicking that had successfully planted seeds of doubt in the national electorate by capitalizing on the fear, pain and tragedy the New Yorker's experienced first hand?

As the chances of Clinton's victory diminished, it was perhaps now their greatest worry about Obama as nominee, that being, that those same Republican players would use the same, misleading and fear mongering tactics yet again.

The Debate's Missed Opportunity for a Real Hit Job

by CODY LYON
Thanks in part to a still common reliance on ‘rabbit ears,’ record numbers of viewers tuned in to the ABC News Democratic Presidential debate this past Wednesday night.

What they witnessed was Barack Obama fumble and Hillary Clinton stretch, under the pressure of trivial irrelevance during the first portion of a live prime time meet up, and the viewing experience left many clearly upset.

What many appeared to be most miffed about was the unusual barrage of seemingly un-important salvos leveled by moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at Senator Barack Obama.

The truth is, voters should be upset, because if the moderators were looking to perform some sort of hit job on Senator Obama, they could have at least attempted to aim above the belt and attack issues of substance and relevance.

Folks are really not so concerned over whether Obama attended a fund raiser at the home of a 60’s radical or whether his church was friendly with Louis Farakhan. Those juicy tidbits might make for a great shrill headline or a slimy Republican attack ad.

Voters with real concerns might rather know, if for instance, special and corporate interests are looking to curry favor in a future Obama or Clinton administration

In Obama’s case, why not take a closer look at campaign finance money trails and confront the highly promoted “agent of change” about his financially cozy relationships with Washington insiders and corporate influence peddlers?

After all, its those well moneyed players who might someday seek to influence policy that could potentially impact day to day lives across the nation.

During the ABC debate, Obama said “I believe that change does not happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up.”

He went on to say “that’s why we decided we weren’t going to take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists, that we were not going to be subject to special interest influence, but instead we were going to enlist the American people in a project of changing this country” Obama said Wednesday on ABC.

But despite the drum beat of that message, according to an April 11, 2008 article by Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis of the “The Washington Post,” “wealth and power also played have also played a critical role in creating Obama’s fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign.”

According to the “Post” article, a large portion of Obama’s campaign money has come from seventy nine “bundlers” who helped recruit more than 27 thousand donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. The “Post” reported that donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama’s total haul of $240 million.

According to the non partisan group Public Citizen, Bundling describes the activity of fundraisers who pool a large number of campaign contributions from political action committees (PACs) and individuals. Bundlers, who are often corporate CEOs, lobbyists, hedge fund managers or independently wealthy people, are able to funnel far more money to campaigns than they could personally give under campaign finance laws.
The “Washington Post” article says that in Obama’s case, the list of bundlers includes traditional Democratic givers like trial lawyers and also includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies.

The bundling groups include businessmen like billionaire Kenneth Griffin who started backing Obama just as he hired a team of lobbyist to urge Congress to preserve a “lucrative tax loophole,” according to the “Washington Post.”

Also on the list, a billionaire casino developer who plans to put a slot parlor in Philadelphia, this, despite Obama’s reported opposition to gambling, according to the “Washington Post.”

Mosk and MacGillis also report that big Obama bundlers include the director of General Dynamics, a military supplier that has seen profits soar since the onset of the Iraq War and has benefited from at least one Obama earmark, according to the Post.

Another revealing peak at Obama’s powerful fundraisers had come earlier in a February 3, “New York Times” article by Mike McIntire. The “Times” reported that Exelon Corporation, the nation’s largest nuclear plant operator is in fact, one of Obama’s largest campaign donors.

That piece noted that Exelon chairman John W. Rowe has been an Obama donor and is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s largest lobbying group.

The “Times” article did not mention that Exelon chairman Rowe, like several other powerful energy power players also sits on the influential, right wing and neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute's Board, an organization some have called an early and leading voice for regime change in Iraq through military action.

According to a January 2008 article in the “Baltimore Sun” last year Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan accused Exelon and another company of overpricing electricity to achieve "a massive transfer of money" from consumers.

In the end, Exelon agreed to pay an $800 million settlement.

Further evidence for concern came in a recent “USA Today” report by Ken Dilianian that noted lobbyist representing some of America’s most powerful corporate interests have been major players in Obama’s fundraising apparatus with some members even serving as advisers on his campaign.

That report said that the campaign has received $2.26 million from employees of ten former federal lobbyists.

The “USA Today” report said that those former lobbyist’s law firms were paid “$138 million last year to lobby the federal government” according to the article.

This again, despite a common Obama boast, that he is the “only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington lobbyist.”

In recent months, the Clinton campaign, referring to the Exelon influence, charged that Senator Obama had allowed the nuclear industry to water down a 2006 bill regulating the nuclear power industry.

That charge was met by Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton rebutting that his campaign “does not need any lectures on special interests from the candidate who’s taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any Republican running from President.”

Glass Houses aside, if there were ever a vetting hit job that needed to be done, Charlie and George failed on that point since those Democrats with doubts about Obama often point to these charges of influence by well moneyed insiders, even energy powerhouses like Exelon, as a point of concern for anyone that’s thinking about throwing political support behind a very pronounced message of change in Washington’s influence laden landscape.

Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non partisan think tank told “USA Today” that “it makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist, if the person is raising money to get access or curry favor.”

And, as Ken Silverstein’s November, 2006 “Harpers” article, “The Making of a Washington Machine” noted when he quoted an anonymous lobbyist who said, “big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a player.”

“What’s the value of a starry eyed idealist,” the lobbyist said according to “Harpers.”

So, how much influence might those looking to impact policy expect to exert if Obama makes his way to the White House?

It is, after all, the toxic culture of special interest and corporate influence in Washington that the Obama campaign has built so much of its foundation on during its crusade to take the White House.

Still, who can blame voters for their own often shrill attacks on those who profess to doubt the Obama message? They, like millions of voters are desperate for a political savior to help rectify all these years of inflicted political misery administered by the current secretive and tight lipped White House that has contributed to so much heartache and disparity.

But, the reality is, there are still questions, there are still doubts, all any observer need do is look at the divided polling numbers and infighting among Democrats.

Yes, it is important that our candidates are grilled on the hot seat during debates but the hope was, and perhaps still is, that the coals producing the heat, will eventually stoke up the fire, and ask controversial questions of relevance, not controversial questions of muck. And, it is then, that voters can make a truly informed decision on who it is they can believe in to make that necessary change.

(REUTERS) Clinton says China holdings threaten U.S. security

By Jeff Mason at REUTERS

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (Reuters) - The Bush administration has jeopardized national security and the ability to intervene in world crises because of the huge U.S. debt held partly by China, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said on Saturday.

The New York senator, who argues she is better prepared to deal with economic and foreign policy problems than rival Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, told a rally in Indiana that the United States' $9 trillion in gross national debt puts it at the mercy of other nations.
LINK TO FULL REUTERS STORY

Is Barack Obama a True Agent of Change?

By CODY LYON
(Opinion)
There is no doubt that Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has clearly inspired millions of voters in what had become an arguably depressed electorate. His words have engaged many who might have otherwise watched the primary process from the sidelines those who were resigned to the belief that change is virtually impossible within America's current political landscape.

"If we don't inspire the country to believe again, then it doesn't matter how many policies and plans we have," said Obama on February 17, according to Bloomberg News.

True, words, even if some phrases are borrowed, have the ability to inspire the electorate. But it's the enacted policy that impacts and ultimately changes American lives. And when one takes a closer look at the nuts and bolts behind Senator Obama's message, there are troubling signs that the change Obama espouses might be nothing more than beautiful rhetoric.

You'd be preaching to the choir if you wanted to harp on the Clinton machine's flaws and scars and then, there's always her yes vote that giving President Bush military authorization before the invasion of Iraq.

But, the Clinton machine has been, and continues to be picked and cleaned dry by the press, its past, its campaign tactics, its relationships questioned, blasted and torn apart by conservative as well as liberal columnists, pundits and bloggers.

The Obama camp has yet to be fully vetted by the majority of a press that seems almost shy about interrupting what many have called a movement. Those that have done their homework and posed legitimate questions about policy, relationships and other issues have often been met with arrogant, evasive and dismissive shrugs and a fiercely protective network of supporters who shoot down critiques of the anointed beacon of change.

According to a February 17 "New York Times" article by Kate Zernike called "The Charisma Mandate," accounts of the Obama campaign's volunteer training sessions have a revivalist flavor where "volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell how they came to Mr. Obama."

But it would be naïve to think that sort of tactic will work in November and it would serve Democrat's interest if the contradictions and holes in the message were pointed out now, before the Republican attack machine brings out its own weapons of destruction and doubt.

Central to Obama's message of change are claims that he is free of lobbyist influence. But in fact, he has been, and still is being funded by some of the same types of corporate interests as Clinton and other candidates through big corporate donors known as bundlers.

In fact, he's received so much funding, an estimated $30 million per month, that his campaign appears to be backpedaling on a November pledge where he said if he was the Democratic nominee, he would aggressively pursue and agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

"The Washington Post" said in a February 16 editorial that "this kind of backtracking and parsing is't what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for."

More telling, a November 2006 Harpers article "The Making of a Washington Machine" by Ken Silverstein quoted an anonymous Washington lobbyist who said, "big donors would not be helping out OBama if they didn't see him as a player."

"What's the dollar value of a starry eyed idealist?" the anonymous source said according to the Harpers article.

No one can say for certain what kind of role that big money contributions would make in a future Obama administration but they deserve full airing and warrant further questions that require answers, not evasive missives from the man who might be President.

A February 3, article by "The New York Times" reported that Exelon Corp, the nation's largest nuclear plant operator is one of Obama's largest campaign donors. According to the article, Exelon's support of Obama far exceeds money given to the other candidates.

The "Times" pointed out that Exelon chairman John W. Rowe has been an Obama donor and is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry's largest lobbying group.

The article did not mention that Rowe, like several other powerful energy power players also sits on the influential, right wing and neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute's Board.

Alluding to the Exelon relationship, the Clinton campaign charged that Senator Obama had allowed the nuclear industry to water down a 2006 bill regulating nuclear plant safety. Her charges were met with evasiveness.

Obama spokesperson Bill Burton responded to the charges on CNN saying his campaign "doesn't need any lectures on special interests from the candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any Republican running for president."

"Sen. Clinton may have said that attacks and distortions are the 'fun' and 'exciting' part of the campaign, but they're exactly what everyone else in America is tired of," Burton said according to CNN.

True enough, Americans are sick and tired of distortions. But unfortunately, much of the feel good rhetoric in the Obama camp has served as a convenient "distortion" for those hungry for a more forthcoming and critical examination of Obama.

For example, Senator Obama has touted his healthcare policy as part of his change we can all believe in since it would make healthcare available to everyone.

But, The Annenberg Political Fact Check, or Factheck.org said that Obama is being misleading when he says his healthcare proposal would "cover everyone."

Factcheck.org says Obama's plan would make coverage available to all, but experts that the organization consulted estimate that 15 to 26 million Americans would not take it up unless required to do so, which means, the new policy would still leave almost half the currently un-insured, still un-insured.

Another hot button topic close to any progressive's heart is how the future President will address the sub-prime mortgage crisis that has driven a recession that is still threatening world financial markets.

In his January 24 "The Nation" commentary titled "Subprime Obama" Max Fraser pointed out that predatory lenders "targeted the most vulnerable; black and latino borrowers have been twice as likely to receive sub-prime loans as whites: female homeowners, 30 percent more likely than male; black women five times more likely than white men.

But, Fraser noted that of the Democratic candidates, only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest rate freeze. The article said "though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations."

The "Nation" piece quoted Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute who said "Edwards and Clinton talk much more about regulation of the financial industry going forward, and to the extent that blame is placed, they tend to place it on lenders for steering people into loans they couldn't afford."

Senator Clinton has loudly gone after Obama on several occasions regarding his yes vote on the 2005 energy bill.

To his credit, Obama led efforts to ensure investments in renewable energy and has sponsored legislation to strip incentives from oil companies.
Still, according to an August 9, 2005 report from the "Washington Post", the final bill included around $85 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for most forms of energy.

Many charged that the policy was co-written by big oil corporations under the watch of Vice President Dick Cheney but it got a yes vote from Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said his vote for the energy bill was reluctant.

But more telling, in the heat of campaign season 2008, when Exxon Mobil announced, at $40 billion once again the largest corporate profits ever reported by any United States corporation, it was Hillary Clinton who called for a corporate windfall profits tax on oil companies that would be reinvested into a strategic energy fund.

While the Obama campaign has called for the removal of oil company subsidies and other tax breaks, he has steered clear of a clearly populist and progressive proposal that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil corporations.

But finally, although Obama toots the horn of change for all people, happily embracing all members of the Democratic base, just four years ago, an incident in San Francisco offered telling traits that Obama is first a politician, who in the end, is probably capable of crafting a message or image that is capable of suiting whomever he seeks to appeal to.

According to a February 5, 2008 "San Francisco Chronicle" article by C.W. Nevius, in 2004, then Illinois Senatorial Candidate Obama told former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, that "he would really appreciate if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor," Gavin Newsome.

Newsome, San Francisco's current mayor, was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same sex marriage in San Francisco and according to the "Chronicle" report, Obama was worried about the image that would present to potential voters back in Illinois.

While things have certainly changed since then, and Obama has certainly championed LGBT individuals and issues, the incident doesn't speak well of Senator Obama as a real agent of change.

Instead, that incident along with other serious reporting beg the question, is Obama's message of change for real, or is it a carefully crafted political rhetoric that is in the business of selling an image.

NEWS UPDATE from AP 3/3/08- Political Positioning on NAFTA?
Associated Press ReportBarack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press

Gym Punditry Saying "Go Girl" To Hillary

BY CODY LYON

On New Hampshire Primary Tuesday, at around 730 pm, the work out floor at the Lafayette Street Crunch Gym in New York City was crowded, as it often is that time of night. Chests being pressed, arms were being curled, squats were being squatted and the cardio area filled with exercise bikes, cross country ski machines and such were occupied by women and men, mostly accompanied by IPOD headphones, tuning out the grunts, groans and loud conversation around them.

This three level Crunch also provides patrons with several television screens some which face the busy cardio area, and include a variety of network selections, including on this night, CNN’s coverage of the unfolding events in New Hampshire.

While most of the cardio crowd listened to tunes, watched the screens or read US Weekly, a group of four gym political pundits, two on machines, two standing, discussed the election and analyzed the potential future strategy for the woman candidate. In serious, worried tones, three argued that Senator Clinton was the better equipped to bring serious nuts and bolts change to America and rescue it from the morose state of mind and sense of insecurity it finds itself mired in, thanks in great part to current White House policy.

While all four claimed to identify with Senator Barack Obama’s message of hope and change, the loyalty was obviously with Clinton. They worried aloud that Obama’s lack of experience and failure to articulate a clear and specific agenda were he to be elected. They agreed with President Bill Clinton, that Obama had received a free ride by the press, but, that Obama’s victory in Iowa was historic, moving and a hopeful sign that America was slowly overcoming its racist curse.

Still, each argued that the Clinton campaign, with its "safe" promotion of Clinton as an anchor of staid leadership, was until recently, stale and un-enthusiastic. Where was that "Don’t Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" energy of yesteryear that culminated on Election night 1992 when those young looking Clintons and the Gores waved to a crowd of change seekers in Little Rock?

The frustrating conclusion among the Crunch Gym Pundits was that Hillary hasn’t owned her womanhood, and effectively sold the novelty of her own historic moment to voters, a moment they say should be an asset that might actually fire up the un-decided, both male and female? They claimed the coverage of the tears was sexist and that in fact, even if she’d been acting as some had claimed (an actor was among the pundits), it was a brilliant campaign moment.

In short, Hillary has not publicly embraced her power as a woman and icon, who as a serious contender for the White House, could along the campaign trail could chip away at the inherent plague of sexism that still infects America’s culture and power structure.
Where is the "Sisters are doing it for themselves" attitude on the campaign trail, the "I am Woman, Hear Me Roar" sense of confidence and catchy nuance in her television ads? Sure, her record speaks for itself and is available for all to see in this lifetime public servant’s long resume, but this is marketing 101, and America’s attention span is, well, short, so put on the pumps and work the campaign runway Hillary.

Hillary Clinton’s love for country is as evident as her obvious dedication to change. It’s clear, she wants a future America where all Americans are provided with ladders of opportunity that raise the socio economic bar for every person living within our borders, male, female and every race and ethnicity as well as sexual orientation. She is also someone to be reckoned with, what some would say is a force of nature, who on the world stage, has the nuts and bolts knowledge necessary to deal with any world leader.

She just happens to be a woman, the gender by which the majority of us were raised by, nurtured by, influenced in a classroom by, disciplined by, fed and clothed by and for many still intimidated by.

Unfortunately, we live in a nation obsessed with sexist pop culture drama where daily details of disturbed Hollywood type breakdowns fill headlines and network executives make a buck through false tawdry reality television shows like "The Bachelor" that reinforce sub conscious stone age imagery of women, images that little girls every where see and think this is something to aspire to be.

That night at Crunch on Lafayette in New York City, the selection on the screens was not just the election returns in New Hampshire.

Perhaps the Clinton Campaign needs to step up to the political and cultural plate and display some necessary courage and market Hillary not only as a staid leader, but show some female swagger and in their own iconic way, confront America's female imagery and mind set, own it, overcome it, and own it again, and yes, change America. Hillary, come on and Go Girl.

HILLARY WINS AS DOES McCAIN

U.S. / Politics
Clinton Stuns Obama; McCain Wins (New York Times)
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: January 8, 2008
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s victory was a surprising show of strength after her loss in Iowa. John McCain reprised his 2000 primary win, beating Mitt Romney.
LINK TO FULL STORY

Now to New Hampshire- The Speeches (Video from New York Times)

Link to compilation

Politics Verses True Moral Leadership

BY CODY LYON

During a rousing March 13th sermon marking 20 years of the group he founded, ACT UP, 71 year old author and gay rights leader Larry Kramer argued that the current crop of Presidential candidates did not deserve gay votes. Kramer said they, the candidates, would all “sell us down the river given half a chance.”

Singling out Democrat Hillary Clinton, the candidate he predicts to win, Kramer said “the woman does not even know how to make simple declarative statements that involve definite details.”

Kramer couldn’t have planned the next day’s news cycle better himself. An answer Senator Clinton gave ABC News in response to a question about gay people suggested that Larry Kramer owns a mystical political crystal ball.

Clinton was asked whether or not homosexuality was immoral, to which she said “I’ll leave that to others to conclude.”

Showing traits of a real politician, the Senator did avoid declaratives and instead demurred, obviously hoping to avoid controversy from certain constituencies in America’s vast voting block. A few days later, after a great deal of uproar from some of her own core constituents, Clinton did step up and made it clear, that she does not think homosexuality is immoral.

In the first place, Clinton probably wouldn’t have been posed such a heavy handed question had it not been for highly publicized comments by the nation’s top military commander. When asked about gay’s openly serving in the military Joint Chief of Staff Marine General Peter Pace told the “Chicago Tribune” on the Monday before Kramer’s speech that the “United States is not well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way.” After Pace went on, likening homosexuality to adultery, he attributed his views in part to his personal upbringing where he said he was taught certain kinds of behavior were indeed, immoral.

Because of his position, General Pace’s comments trickle down into the courts of public opinion on gay people. To some, General Pace’s words further legitimize negative views towards homosexuality. Politically engaged, self serving Right Wing groups can point to his assertions as evidence that morality justifies policy, even if that policy clearly includes discrimination. Pace shares a background similar to that of millions of other Americans. But, his words have the potential to give pause to millions of socially moderate Americans struggling to overcome and move beyond clearly narrow interpretations of morality that lead to prejudices, stereotypes and ultimately the condemnation of entire groups of people’s ways of life.

To delve into the roots and definitions of morality would take hours, but there is no doubt, that over time, American’s views on what is moral and immoral has evolved. Many of these evolutions have resulted in elimination of policy and socially acceptable practices that enslaved, denied, separated and even paid less for the same labor, all which at one time or another, was justified by codes of conduct rooted in society’s interpretation of morality.

But there are countless examples where, with the help of strong and un-compromised leadership, oppressed people have stood up, and in the end, enlightened and affected the American moral compass in ways that have led to numerous examples of a more just and fair society.

That is why it was so disappointing that Hillary didn’t just say “no” the first time when asked whether or not she found homosexuality immoral.

Activist Larry Kramer is right about Senator Hillary Clinton’s chance at becoming the first woman President of the United States of America. Not to long ago, the idea of a woman President, believe it or not, may have been seen as immoral to some. American society subjected African Americans to second class citizenship and justified the slavery of human beings through narrow self serving interpretations of morality. Obviously, interpretations of what is moral have evolved and with that, society and its rules of conduct have changed. But those changes have involved difficult collective self examination and constant struggles to arrive at consensus. It has taken strong and brave leadership to make any headway to the more just and fair society of today, a fundament of true moral values.

One hopes that Larry Kramer is wrong about all the candidates selling gays down the river for political gain, and that in these days of competing interests and attempts at avoiding political minefields, reason and enlightenment, with the help of strong resolute leaders can help steer the nation to a more just society, for all people, including those who happen to be gay.

Although many on the Right point to interpretations of biblical based codes of morality as justification for much of Evagelical America's anti-gay sentiment, there is a passage in the bible that appears to rise above those condemnations and specific restrictions on behaviors deemed wrong by man. It is said to be a golden rule and it instructs God's children to “do unto others, as you would do unto yourself.”

Larry Kramer Tells it Like it Is (EDGE STORY)

The Man who founded HIV/AIDS activist group ACT-UP tells it like it is 20 years after that group's founding.
Read the piece at EDGENEWYORK