Obama Disappoints

Preface: (The purpose of this entry is to highlight the fact that it is absolutely necessary to hold politicians accountable. It's much better to disagree with the person you voted for than to blindly follow without critical analysis; something many Republicans and Democrats have had difficulty with recently.)

Obama, after securing his party's nomination, has moved to the right. What's disappointing about this move is that it represents more of the same old politics, the kind he is apparently running against. Ultimately, I realize that Obama is trying to appeal to a broader base in order to win the election. Unfortunately, this means he sacrifices principle in favor of calculation, which only serves to confuse his base and others. Is Obama paying lip service to the right or is he geniune? There wouldn't be any confusion if he stood by his principles. (Issues of concern include FISA, public funding for campaign, and off shore drilling.)

One is certainly entitled to change his or her opinions after long deliberations, and in many cases one should change course regardless of the political consequences. In politics, timing, image, and perception mean everything, and in the case of Obama's recent changes, he certainly appears to be calculating his moves at the expense of principles. To me, this is a disappointment. For others, it may be a pleasant surprise. Nonetheless, I still plan to vote for Obama for a variety of reasons including McCain's well-documented list of transformations since his true Maverick run against Bush in 2000.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops

Excerpt from The Nation:
"Now Obama is not only putting politics ahead of principle--he's also calculating the politics wrong. The fact is, his stance in February helped him win a landslide victory in the Wisconsin primary, just as Feingold's principled but lonely stand against the Patriot Act helped him win overwhelming re-election in 2004. Obama inspired the support of millions when he refused to play the politics of fear and called on us to heed the better angels of our nature. He risks endangering that support when he plays the politics of calculation."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/editors

Updated Look at Possible Vice Presidents

On May 10, I posted this about possible Vice Presidents. Since then, I have made a few small changes. These are my final predictions.

Republicans (McCain)
1. Mitt Romney because he helps McCain keep Colorado and Nevada Republican, and he puts Minnesota, Michigan, and Massachusetts in play. Based on this alone, McCain would be silly not to offer the vice presidency to him. Hopefully, some Republicans can get over his Mormonism.

2. Mike Huckabee because McCain still has problems with the Religious Right. Additionally, Huckabee helps McCain retain Iowa and helps keep the Democrats out of the South. Will the Religious Right stay home if Huckabee's not on the ticket?

3. Mark Sanford of South Carolina drops slightly due to Huckabee's name recognition and religious appeal. Sanford's positives are his youth (for future of party) and his current status of being a Washington outsider.

4. Charlie Crist's stock has dropped considerably because McCain might very well be able to retain Florida for the Republicans without the current governor. And although Crist is only 51, he looks much older.

5. Joe Lieberman stays in his original position.

Will McCain choose someone he is more comfortable with or will he choose the candidate most likely to put states in play despite any real or perceived animosity? I suspect McCain is reasonable enough to overlook any ill feelings between himself and Romney. But will the Religious Right support a rebel and a Mormon? Not sure, but I believe the Religious Right might find more in common with McCain and Romney than they suspect. That is, if they take the time to look.

Other Possibilities:
Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
Jim Gibbons of Nevada
Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Rick Perry of Texas
JC Watts of Oklahoma
Condoleezza Rice
Colin Powell
Rudy Guiliani of New York

Democrats (Obama)
1. John Edwards has moved up because he helps bridge the gap between Obama, Clinton, and working class whites. Additionally, Edwards is a household name which helps the ticket overcome some worries about Obama's unknown elements. And Edwards totally fits Obama's theme of change because he has changed his view on the Iraq War.

2. Wesley Clark has moved up because he might help the ticket solidify the support of Clinton voters, and his military credentials alone are worthy of vice presidential consideration. But I'm still concerned about his political skills.

3. Tim Kaine of Virginia slips slightly because his unknowns coupled with those of Obama might be too much for America to accept at once. Nonetheless, I believe he is a highly qualified candidate.

4. Jim Webb has dropped considerably due to his views on women, which is not likely to sit well with many Clinton supporters, among others.

5. Hillary Clinton retains the 5th spot due to her political gravitas, but she certainly does not fit Obama's theme of change. And her own comments concerning Obama's presidential qualifications and his possible assassination may preclude her vice presidency.

Other Possibilities:
Al Gore of Tennessee
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Ted Strickland of Ohio
Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania
Joe Biden of Delaware
Chris Dodd of Connecticut
Mark Warner of Virginia
Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska

In addition to selecting Edwards for VP, Obama should announce whom he would like to select for his cabinet. This would help calm concerns about what an Obama presidency would look like and generate excitement among the base.

The band...

The band...named Beirut...

People I Admire...

NBA Playoffs

My late prediction: Los Angeles Lakers over the Detroit Pistons in 6 (or 7) games. I don't like either team, but I hope it's exciting and no one gets hurt.

I'm cheering for the New Orleans Hornets and Cleveland Cavaliers, but I doubt they will make it.

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism in Perspective

It's my belief that voters rarely vote for someone simply based on race. Historically speaking, voters' options were primarily limited to wealthy white males. And minorities were not even allowed to vote for many years. Fortunately, black males earned the right to vote in 1870 by means of the 15th Amendment. However, unconstitutional Jim Crow laws prevented many black males from voting. And all females regardless of race earned the right to vote in 1920 thanks to the 19th Amendment. Finally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established equal rights for all minorities.

For the record, the United States was not the first country to grant universal voting rights to all citizens. That achievement belongs to the Corsican Republic whose constitution included universal suffrage in 1755.

A simple definition of prejudice is pre-judgment. A more detailed definition is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience (Oxford).
Simply put, prejudice = beliefs (attitudes).

Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex (Oxford).
Simply put, discrimination = actions.

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races (Oxford).
Simply put, racism = actions based on beliefs.

And minority is defined as a relatively small group of people, esp. one commonly discriminated against in a community, society, or nation, differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion (Oxford). Another definition is a group that has less power than the dominant group.

Clearly, someone can be prejudiced without discriminating, but discrimination implies a preconceived opinion (prejudice). Simply put, a prejudiced person can hold preconceived opinions of someone without ever acting on those prejudices. However, someone who discriminates is clearly demonstrating his or her prejudices in the form of actions.

So can minorities be prejudiced, discriminatory, and racist? Obviously, members of a minority group can hold prejudices against others. And it's also clear that members of a minority group can also discriminate, but his or her discrimination may have little or no impact due to an imbalance of power. Remember, a minority is a group with less power commonly discriminated against. In fact, definitions of majority do not imply that they are discriminated against. In reality, members of the majority are more effective at discriminating because they hold a majority, if not all, of the power. This is where racism comes in. Racism needs to be thought of as a system of prejudice and discrimination imposed by those in power, the majority.

So another, more accurate, definition of racism is:
racism = prejudice and discrimination + power
A more detailed definition of racism is:

Racial prejudice and discrimination that are supported by institutional power and authority. The critical element that differentiates racism from prejudice and discrimination is the use of institutional power and authority to support prejudices and enforce discriminatory behaviors in systematic ways with far-reaching outcomes and effects. In the United States, racism is based on the ideology of White (European) supremacy and is used to the advantage of White people and the disadvantage of people of color. (Enid Lee, Deborah Menkart, and Margo Okazawa-Rey; Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti-Racist, Multicultural Education and Staff Development)

Failure to view racism as part of a historical context only serves to perpetuate the system of racism which dominated and still disgraces American society. Very few would deny that we still have racism in the United States. A classic example of how the system of racism continues to disgrace American society is found in South Carolina where the Confederate flag (a symbol of racism) flew with the American flag on top of the State House from 1962 to 2000. It has since been removed but the flag now flies in front of the state capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers. The year 1962 is significant because it was at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Simply put, the Confederate flag was and still is used as a means of intimidation against blacks seeking more power. Use of the Confederate flag is equal to the use of the Nazi flag against Jews, and flying a Confederate flag at a government facility is a form of state-sponsored racism. Imagine what would happen if a government facility flew the Nazi flag. Hopefully, you get the picture.

Are people racist when they vote for or against a particular candidate simply based on race? I wouldn't go that far, but people who vote simply based on race are certainly discriminating. Obviously, voters cannot discriminate based on race when there is only one race to choose from. Historically, minority voters rarely had the opportunity to vote for someone other than a white male. From 1776 when the Declaration of Independence stated that "all humans are created equal" until 1865, black males couldn't vote or run for office at all. And from 1865 until 1964, blacks had to contend with Jim Crow laws which made it more difficult for some blacks to vote. And it wasn't until 1920 that black women had the right to vote.

Do blacks who discriminate simply based on race when voting do so because they think their race is superior? Or is the discrimination based on gaining more power within society? Obviously, blacks could discriminate based on a belief of racial superiority, but it's more likely to be based on gaining more power. And remember that blacks often don't have any minority candidates to chose from. So voting for a white candidate often represents a vote for the candidate most likely to have the black community's interests at heart.

Do whites who discriminate simply based on race when voting do so because they think their race is superior? Or do whites discriminate when voting to gain or maintain more power within society? Again, I think the vote has more to do with power, but in this case, the vote to gain or maintain power is more significant because it serves to exclude minorities from positions from which they can create or maintain a level playing field. If minorities are routinely excluded from such positions, then they become dependent on others for social change. For example, blacks were dependent on President Lincoln and the Union Army during the Civil War, and they were also dependent on President Johnson and the US Congress for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Certainly, blacks such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks made significant contributions to the process, but the final legislation was ultimately in the hands of white males. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, 30% of the elected white males voted against it.

If blacks had been granted their freedom in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was written, the issue of race and politics would be an afterthought. But blacks and other minorities did not gain equality (on paper) until 1964, and even then 30% of the elected officials didn't want it. As a result, we are still talking about race when we should be beyond race. By the way, there were plenty of people in 1776 who thought we should have abandoned the institution of slavery. Unfortunately, our founding fathers listened more to money interests than moral interests. There was a huge conflict of interests because many of the founding fathers owned slaves.

Anyway, blacks could certainly discriminate when voting in order to gain enough power to establish a system of racism, but anyone who believes we are even close to such a system is clearly in error. Some point to affirmative action as a system of racism. Affirmative action was rightfully "implemented in the 1950s to redress the negative effects of past discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals, and police forces to be more representative of the population." Nonetheless, some believe affirmative action has gone too far in securing positions for minorities; that blacks and other minorities unfairly gain positions at the expense of whites. Some whites claim they are being unfairly treated simply because of their race and the unfortunate timing of their existence on earth.

But anyone who suggests that the unfair treatment of whites as a result of affirmative action is anywhere close to the injustices that blacks suffered for hundreds of years is clearly wrong. I often hear the phrase "life ain't fair." Well, that's true, sometimes it isn't. Life wasn't fair for all the slaves brought to America from 1654 to 1865. And life wasn't fair for blacks and other minorities until 1964. Like it or not, some injustices are greater than others and some injustices require amends.

Is life fairer in the United States today? Absolutely, but we still have work to do. Today, the 110th Congress is composed of 86% whites and 14% racial minorities. This is out of proportion with the population at large (approximately 70% white and 30% non-white). This is a lot better than having 100% white in Congress but it still needs improving.

By the way, the US Supreme Court has, rightly or wrongly, started to reverse the course of affirmative action. For many, affirmative action was only meant to be a temporary means of correcting past mistakes. But I doubt that some minorities like Native Americans will ever let affirmative action disappear. Why should they?

As I mentioned earlier, I believe voters rarely vote for someone simply based on race, but we would be naive to think it doesn't happen. In the end, however, I think a person's vote has more to do with who will serve his or her interests. Unfortunately, when people start thinking and acting according to the interests of MY "BIOLOGICAL" RACE instead of the interests of THE HUMAN RACE, their way of thinking and actions inevitably become racist.

Early Look at Possible Vice Presidents

Here's an early look at possible Vice Presidents for the Democrats (Obama) and Republicans (McCain).

Preface: As I've mentioned before, I don't think age, gender, race or religion should be a factor when choosing a President or Vice-President, but I'm realistic enough to know that it still does matter to many people. For that reason, I have included these demographics as pros or cons for each of the potential vice presidents.

Democrats (Obama)
1. Jim Webb of Virginia (current junior Senator, former Secretary of the Navy)
Pros: White male with military experience; anti-Iraq War; attack-dog mentality; former Republican from possible swing state; age 62 (to counter Obama's youth)
Cons: Real or perceived over-aggressiveness; age 62 (perhaps too old for future of party)

2. Tim Kaine of Virginia (current Governor)
Pros: Washington outsider from possible swing state; 14 years of local and state political experience including city council, mayor, lieutenant governor, and governor; white male; Roman Catholic; age 50 (future potential)
Cons: Relative unknown; age 50 (too young of a ticket)

3. John Edwards of North Carolina (former junior Senator)
Pros: White male populist; admits mistakes; anti-poverty work; age 54 (future potential)
Cons: Couldn't carry home state in 2004 election; admitted too many mistakes

4. Wesley Clark of Arkansas (retired 4-star general)
Pros: White male with military experience; age 63 (same as Webb)
Cons: Uninspiring candidate; ties to Clintons; age 63 (same as Webb)

5. Hillary Clinton of New York (current junior Senator)
Pros: White female with 35 years of experience; health care reform; women's rights; popular among older and less-educated Democrats; age 60 (same as Webb)
Cons: Female; represents old Democratic Party; admits she has lots of baggage; baggage has not been completely vetted (one example: 1996 Bosnia trip); campaign debt; real or perceived negativity toward Obama; age 60 (same as Webb)

Who Didn't Make the Democratic List and Why:
Evan Bayh of IN: possible dark horse, but not likely to carry Indiana for Democrats
Ed Rendell of PA: age 64; ties to Clintons
Ted Strickland of OH: age 66; ties to Clintons
Bill Richardson of NM: minority; not a very good speaker or debater
Joe Biden of DE: age 65; from solid Democratic state
Chris Dodd of CT: age 63; from solid Democratic state
Al Gore of TN: never gonna happen; couldn't win home state of TN in 2000
Kathleen Sebelius of KS: female; boring speaker (reminds me of John Kerry)
Mark Warner of VA: currently running for an important Senate position
Chuck Hagel of NE: two words: current Republican

Republicans (McCain)
1. Charlie Crist of Florida (current Governor)
Pros: one word, Florida; Washington outsider; age 51
Cons: rumors of homosexuality

2. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (current Governor)
Pros: Governor; perceived as Washington outsider; age 47
Cons: Relative unknown; from solid Republican state

3. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (former Governor)
Pros: appeals to Religious Right; former Governor; charismatic; age 52
Cons: appeals to Religious Right; from solid Republican state

4. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (former Governor)
Pros: appeals to social conservatives; former Governor; Washington outsider; age 61 (but looks much younger)
Cons: perceived as flip-flopper; Mormon; not sure McCain likes him; not likely to carry Massachusetts for Republicans

5. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Pros: acts and talks like a Republican; good friend of McCain
Cons: two words, current Democrat

Who Didn't Make the Republican List and Why:
Tim Pawlenty of MN: Minnesota looks tempting but a McCain-Pawlenty ticket doesn't
Jim Gibbons of NV: age 63; relative unknown; Mormon
Colin Powell: age 71; disenchanted with Republicans; now believes Iraq War was mistake
JC Watts of OK: McCain knows he's not going to get many black votes even if he has a black person on the ticket
Condoleezza Rice: see JC Watts; McCain and Rice on same ticket = too much Iraq
Rick Perry of TX: Voters are now leery of governors from Texas
Bobby Jindal of LA: at 36, still a political lightweight: too much too soon = Quayle