Partisan Politics Trump the Constitution?

I was just checking out Dave Lindorff's report from the House Judiciary hearing on impeachment. Two items stood out to me immediately.

First:

As Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee, made clear more than once during the six-hour session, this was “not an impeachment hearing, however much many in the audience might wish it to be” He might well have added that he himself was not the fierce defender of the Constitution and of the authority of Congress that he once was before gaining control of the Judiciary Committee, however much his constituents, his wife, and Americans across the country might wish him to be.

Yep. Conyers is bowing down to Pelosi's pressure on this one. He is more interested in keeping his job as judiciary chair than in defending the Constitution. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

Second:

The basic point, made by Holtzman, by Fein and by many others, including this writer, is that worrying about the political opposition to impeachment, both in the House, and in the Senate, not to mention among the broader public, is completely wrongheaded. Even when impeachment articles were first filed against Nixon, the public and the bulk of the Congress were solidly against the idea (unlike Bush, who has a 19% approval rating, Nixon had just won an epic landslide re-election victory in 1972 against George McGovern). It was during the hearings that the tide turned, as evidence of malfeasance, criminality and abuse of power became evident through hearing testimony.

The same would certainly happen in the case of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. Most Americans don’t even know that the president made up evidence to justify the war against Iraq out of whole cloth. They don’t know what the Geneva Conventions are with regard to torture. They don’t know why Congress passed the FISA act, which Bush has been feloniously violating to spy on them (it was passed because Nixon was using the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without judicial warrants--exactly what Bush is now doing!). They don’t know that Bush has been refusing to enact laws passed by the Congress. Public hearings by an impeachment panel would make all these high crimes and misdemeanors clear on national TV to all sentient Americans.

Moreover, as Holtzman pointed out, the president would not be able to use the claim of “executive privilege” to withhold testimony from aides in an impeachment inquiry, the way he has done when they have been subpoenaed by other House and Senate committees. Impeachment would be about violations of the very executive actions he would be claiming privilege on. As well, an impeachment committee, unlike any other committee of the Congress, is specifically sanctioned and empowered in the Constitution, meaning that even strict “constructionist” Federalists on the bench would have a hard time backing presidential obstruction.

As Holtzman noted, “There is no executive privilege in impeachment, because refusing to testify is itself an impeachable offense.”

So what do the punk Democrats (including Barack Obama) have to fear from an impeachment hearing?

According to the Associated Press, "Barack Obama told House Democrats on Tuesday that as president he would order his attorney general to scour White House executive orders and expunge any that 'trample on liberty,' several lawmakers said."

Why wait? What are his Senate staffers doing while the Senator is off jet-setting around the world? Of course,

Obama did not mention executive orders when he addressed reporters who waited for him outside the closed-door meeting. He said only that he would be campaigning alongside members to win the presidency and help expand Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

"I am looking forward to collaborating with everyone here to win the election, but more importantly to collaborate with everybody here and also some like-minded Republicans to actually govern and to deliver on behalf of the American people," Obama said.

Obama and Democrats are following the conventional wisdom that they need to play to conservatives in order to win the White House and maintain their slim majority in Congress. They are ignoring their base which is ready for the war to end and ready for Bush and Cheney to be held accountable for their crimes.

Since when do partisan politics trump the U.S. Constitution? Is this what our troops are fighting and dying for?

Click below to read Dave Lindorff's report:
ThisCantBeHappening.net - Friday's House Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment: A Victory and a Challenge

VIDEO: McCain's Straight Talk Economics

Originally Published at Think.MTV.com

Nadir's Note: Yes, that's a photo of Barack Obama. Yes, this is a video about John McCain. However, this isn't an example of what McCain calls the media's "Obama Love Fest".

Like other video upload sites, Think.MTV.com's system automatically chooses the photo it will add to the story. The website's bots grab a random frame and drops it into the description. The photo of Obama challenging McCain on economic policy just happens to be the random frame that the program chose, and after much back and forth, Think's webmasters tell me they can't change it.

So this is not an example of McCain falling victim to liberal ObamaMania. Unless the Viacom automatons love Obama more than they love McCain...

John McCain is trying to pick up his game on the Economy.

It's tough enough that the Republican nominee is saddled with the failures of "Bushonomics". McCain has also been forced to distance himself from one of his own advisers, a man who says Americans are "whining" about the economy. But at a recent town hall meeting with small business owners in Belleville, Michigan, the Straight Talk Maverick was up for the challenge, telling voters he has a plan too "fix" the economy.

Nader, Obama and 'White Guilt'

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I was a staunch supporter of Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign. In fact a pro-Nader piece I wrote called, "The Lesser of Two Evils or The Greatest Common Good" found its way onto listservs and blogs across the Internet in October of that year.

However, I have become disappointed in Ralph Nader, his decision to abandon the Green Party, and the fight to create a viable option to the nation's oppressive two party system. His actions since 2003 seem self-serving and divisive to me.

So I had to weigh in when I saw that Nader is catching flack for some comments he made to Colorado's Rocky Mountain News recently:

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said.

"Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

And...

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a Black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."

Barack Obama's response to this statement was:

"What's clear is, Ralph Nader hasn't been paying attention to my speeches," he said. "Ralph Nader's trying to get attention. He's become a perennial political candidate. I think it's a shame, because if you look at his legacy ... it's an extraordinary one. ... At this point, he's somebody who's trying to get attention, whose campaign hasn't gotten any traction."

Well, I have two comments to make about that. First of all, I've been to three Obama events in the past six weeks covering election issues for MTV's Street Team '08, and I can say, I haven't heard him talk about these issues either. With the exception of criticizing John McCain's economic stance and his pretty general talking points about improving education for everyone, Obama doesn't say a lot about the conditions of Black folks. If anything, it is most evident that he DOESN'T talk about Blacks much at all. More on that in a minute.

My second comment to Obama's reaction is that he is right. Nader talking about criticizing Obama and the Democrats will get him more press than he'll receive talking about his stance on the issues. The same was true in 2000 when he outlined the differences between him and Al Gore stating that Gore was no different than Bush. This attitude has proven to be horribly false, but the point remains... no one is listening to Ralph Nader's good ideas. They only listen to his controversial statements

Nader said he is not impressed with Obama and that he does not see him campaigning often enough in low-income, predominantly minority communities where there is a "shocking" amount of economic exploitation.

He pointed to issues like predatory lending, shortages of health care and municipal resources, environmental issues and others.

"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as Black is beautiful, Black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

This may be true, but I've talked to several of my Black friends who like the fact that Obama doesn't speak like a Black politician. He speaks like a winning politician. The absence of race in his rhetoric is calculated, and it is working.

Nader's comments are also calculated. He will raise questions about Obama in an attempt to get some of those votes to swing his way.

What Nader doesn't have this year as he did in 2000 is a national party that is standing behind him. In fact, Cynthia McKinney, a Black woman, is the likely Green Party nominee. McKinney doesn't shy away from discussions of race, and that has gotten her into trouble in the past.

Lebanese-American Nader, on the other hand, was accused of avoiding the issue of race by his supporters during his own 2000 campaign, ignoring racial disparities and couching the debate in terms of class. He hasn't discussed the plight of Arab Americans, and he hasn't talked about the problem of Islamophobia. This is a problem Obama will be forced to address in 2008. What about Nader?

So while I don't agree with the substance of Nader's criticisms, I do disagree with his own hypocrisy. Frankly, this a case of the pot calling the kettle Black?

IMPEACH BUSH: Kucinich Files Articles

Former presidential candidate Congressman Dennis Kucinich defied Democratic Party leadership by filing Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush on June 9. Despite arguments from constitutional scholars and activists that Bush should be charged with many crimes, the Democrats have consistently ruled that impeachment is "off the table".

View the 48 minute video of the proceedings here.


In November, House leaders killed Kucinich's resolution to impeach Vice-President Dick Cheney. Now Kucinich returns with 35 articles that outline the litany of crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney administration. They are expected to do the same this time.

Failure to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their many crimes is a HUGE mistake, by both the Democrats and the Republicans. It demonstrates to the world that there is no respect for the rule of law in the United States. It demonstrates the Democratic Party's complicity in government policies that have brought the world to the brink of financial chaos and endless war. It sets a dangerous precedent and leaves any new president with the dictatorial powers that Bush and Cheney now possess.

During his campaign this year Barack Obama will tie John McCain to "the failed policies of George W. Bush". If Bush is so bad, why won't Obama put his support behind impeachment when the crimes of the president are so egregious?

In fact, many of the same propaganda tactics that were used to start the Iraq war are being used by Democrats, Republicans and the media to incite a war against Iran, another nation that has not attacked anyone. There is no evidence that Iran's nuclear program is being used for weapons, and there is no evidence that Iran is supplying insurgents in Iraq. Still Obama says Iran is "a threat to us all." John McCain has consistently attempted to tie Iran to Al-Qaeda even though the Shiite Iran and Sunni Al-Qaeda would never work together.

We're being set up again. If the Democrats allow Bush and Cheney to get away with the many crimes listed below they are guilty of aiding and abetting the criminal regime. They will push forward with their plans for war against Iran.

Congressman Kucinich has laid out an extensive indictment of the president. Here is the index of article titles:

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of
Aggression

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX
Imprisoning Children

Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Bush and Cheney should be impeached, indicted, tried and convicted for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the Democrats refuse to defend the Constitution and do their duty by following through with impeachment, the entire lot should be tarred and feathered.

Obama's Full Court Press in Michigan

Originally published at Think.MTV.com

Just one day after the Detroit Pistons advanced to the NBA’s Eastern Conference finals for the sixth season in a row, another basketball playing Mid-Westerner executed a full-court press to defend against accusations that he can’t put his opponent away, and can’t win the big one. After suffering a 41 percentage point pounding by Hillary Clinton in the West Virginia primary, Barack Obama turned up the heat on his rival with a fast break to Michigan capped by a slam dunk both contenders had prized – the endorsement of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

Read more HERE

VIDEO: Michigan Dems Elect Delegates

Originally published at Think.MTV.com

Although there is still no plan to seat their delegates at the Democratic National Convention, Democrats across the state of Michigan convened on April 19 to elect their delegates. The uncertainty of their status created some dramatic moments at Michigan's 14th Congressional District Convention in Detroit. Nadir was there to catch the action.

Falling Star? The Trials of Kwame Kilpatrick

Originally published at Think.MTV.com

What happened? Just four years ago, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick addressed the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston – the same convention that served as the nation’s first real introduction to Barack Obama.

The so-called “Hip Hop Mayor” is an attorney, a former state legislator and is currently Vice President of the National Conference of Democratic Mayors. His mom, Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, is Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. He is a super delegate in this year’s Democratic presidential nomination process. With this kind of resume, titles like “Senator” and “Governor” were thought to be well within Kilpatrick’s grasp.

Barack and Kwame should have been on similar career paths. Instead, the world watches the meteoric rise of presidential candidate Obama, while Kilpatrick’s political career is in freefall.

The chorus of criticism that confronts Kwame Kilpatrick gets louder every day. On March 5, the Wayne County Election Commission ruled that a proposed recall effort can move forward. If 57,328 registered signatures are collected in the next 90 days, Detroiters may be voting to elect a president, and voting on whether to remove their mayor from office on the same ballot.

A day earlier the Detroit City Council decided to postpone a vote on a non-binding resolution that would have demanded the mayor’s resignation. Council members expressed concern about the timing of the measure. They want to investigate the situation further, but some were ready to pull the trigger.

The Detroit Free Press reports that Mayor Kilpatrick’s office sited logistical concerns when it asked the National Conference of Black Mayors to move its annual convention from Detroit. The 1,100 hotel rooms that were booked at the city’s new MGM Grand Hotel have been cancelled. Detroit’s loss is New Orleans’ gain. We can only speculate that the mayor didn’t think he needed the extra media attention right now.

Controversy and crisis have dogged the mayor since his first few months on the job. During his first term, Kilpatrick was criticized for having his family chauffeured around in a red Lincoln Navigator that was leased using city money. The mayor would later repay $9,000 of a reported $210,000 in credit card charges that were used to purchase expensive dinners, massages and bottles of Moet champagne.

The most consistent and most damaging controversy, however, is the now infamous “party” and the death of “Strawberry”.

“Rumor” has it that a “wild party” was held at the mayor’s official residence, The Manoogian Mansion, on Labor Day weekend in 2002. “Rumor” because the mayor says the party “never happened”, the Michigan State Police say it “never happened” and after a five-week investigation, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said, “the party has all the earmarks of an urban legend and should be treated as such.”

This urban legend lingers because Tamara Greene, an exotic dancer who performed under the name “Strawberry”, was shot and killed in April 2003. “Legend” has it that the mayor’s wife, Carlita, came home unexpectedly. Upon discovering the party and the strippers, Mrs. Kilpatrick allegedly attacked and assaulted Greene. Word on the street is that a proper investigation would reveal the Kilpatricks’ involvement in Greene’s death. Tamara Greene was shot 18 times with the same .40 caliber bullets that are used in Detroit Police Department issue handguns. The shooter also wounded her boyfriend, but he wasn’t shot at, so it is believed he was not a target. Only Tamara was.

Former Detroit police Lieutenant Alvin Bowman stated in a sworn affidavit, filed on March 1, 2008, that he believes a Detroit police officer killed Tamara Greene. Bowman claims his investigation of Greene’s murder was derailed, and he was transferred out of the homicide division.

The mayor’s troubles came to a head most recently when he asked the city to pay an out of court settlement to former Deputy Police Chief Gary Brown and Kilpatrick’s ex-bodyguard Harold Nelthorpe both of whom claimed they were fired for investigating the mayor’s personal actions. During the trial, evidence surfaced that Kilpatrick had a sexual relationship with his chief of staff, Christine Beatty. Both Kilpatrick and Beatty denied the affair during the trial, but The Detroit Free Press obtained text messages that indicated otherwise. This has exposed the mayor and his former chief to possible felony perjury charges. Beatty has since resigned.

Since 2004 city attorneys have been able to keep secret an $8.4 million deal that prevented records of the text messages from becoming public. The release of those documents prompted the city council’s discussion of a resolution asking for Kilpatrick’s resignation.

Is it all over for Kwame Kilpatrick? Don’t count him out just yet. Pundits sounded the death knell for Kilpatrick’s political career when he became the first incumbent mayor to finish second in a primary ballot. Kwame went on to win a close general election and gain a second term.

Only time will tell whether Mayor Kilpatrick will reverse trajectory, and return to his rising star status. Right now, his chances look bleak. But then, just a few short months ago, there weren’t many people who believed America had a realistic chance of electing an African-American president.

Time will tell.

FLASHBACK! The Black JFK: Republican Support for Obama Raises Red Flags

This blog from May 2007 reposted in light of increasing reports of Republican support for Obama. Not a hater. Just making an observaton. - Nadir

The Barack Obama bandwagon is picking up steam. In many circles, the junior senator from Illinois is being compared to John Kennedy. He is young, good looking, charismatic and yes, articulate, providing a resounding echo of the JFK experience.

However, when NeoConservatives start issuing accolades for a Democratic candidate, it's time to take a closer look.

From London, England's TimesOnline:

But last week a surprising new name joined the chorus of praise for the antiwar Obama – that of Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990s, which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Kagan is an informal foreign policy adviser to the Republican senator John McCain, who remains the favoured neoconservative choice for the White House because of his backing for the troops in Iraq.

But in an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was “pure John Kennedy”, a neocon hero of the cold war.

So warmongering neocons dig Obama? The presidential candidate has expressed his opposition to the Iraq War, and says he was against it from the beginning, but his own words show that he is not an advocate of peace.

Let's get the straight dope from Barack's campaign website.

On the Occupation of Iraq:

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.

My reading of this is that Obama would allow the US occupation to continue perhaps with a smaller force, or with current troop levels if Iraq meets Bush's benchmarks. This doesn't sound like an end to the occupation to me.

And that speech that Kagan found to be pure JFK? More from TimesOnline:

In his speech, Obama called for an increase in defence spending and an extra 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines to “stay on the offense” against terrorism and ensure America had “the strongest, best-equipped military in the world”. He talked about building democracies, stopping weapons of mass destruction and the right to take unilateral action to protect US “vital interests” if necessary, as well as the importance of building alliances.

An INCREASE in defense spending? The US already spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined. The US already has the strongest, best-equipped fighting force in the world. "Building democracies?" Isn't that what the Iraqi invasion was supposed to be about?

Obama has also told the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC that Iran "is a threat to us all." His website says that, if elected, Obama "will bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq and refocus on the critical challenges in the broader region." Does that mean he plans to redeploy US military forces from Iraq to Iran?

This sounds like Obama is pushing for a continuation of American imperialism.

Those comparisons to JFK ring true. Let's not forget that JFK escalated US miliatary involvement in Vietnam, ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion and brought the world to the brink of destruction during the Cuban Missle Crisis. JFK was a hawk who increased military spending and upped the ante in the cold war. Obama's military policies show that he is cut of the same cloth.

Republicans who are defecting to the Obama camp believe that Barack offers a message that can unite the nation. That unification could be achieved by converting the so-called "War on Terror" from a GOP-led initiative to a bipartisan enterprise. This means more American aggression and more war.

Perhaps most terrifying of all, is this final quote from the Timesonline article: "For his optimism about the future, Obama has been dubbed the 'black Ronald Reagan'."

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

Can Michigan Get a 'Do-Over'?

Originally published at Think.MTV.com

Michigan voters are literally out in the cold when the subject of the state’s confused Democratic primary comes up.

A dozen or so dedicated supporters of presidential candidate Barack Obama alternately marched and huddled outside the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center in downtown Detroit on a freezing 12 degree February afternoon. The group shivered defiantly as they rallied for the state’s Democratic Party to establish a caucus that would settle the fate of Michigan’s 156 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

“We’re pretty upset about the way the primary election was conducted, and the fact that [Obama] wasn’t on the ticket,” said Lawrence Garcia, explaining why he and other members of the grassroots political organizing group Obama Democratic Future were willing to endure these frigid conditions on a Friday afternoon. “Now folks are talking about making those votes count, even though that was not a valid election.”

The decision to stay on the Michigan ballot has turned into something of an ace in the hole for Clinton. Supporters of Obama and former Senator John Edwards encouraged Michiganders to vote “Uncommitted”, but in the resulting confusion, Clinton walked away with 55% of the primary vote.

Garcia and his group are asking for a new caucus in Michigan. If they can’t get one, they don’t want any of Michigan’s delegates to count.

“It wasn’t a fair race,” Garcia contends. “Common folks like us didn’t have any say in moving that primary to January 15^th.”

[To learn more about Michigan’s January 15 Democratic Primary check out “Uncommitted: Michigan’s Democratic Primary Fiasco”.]

Though Obama supporters want a ‘do-over’, the prospects aren’t likely. Michigan’s Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm, has said there isn’t enough time and it isn’t practical to pull a caucus together.

“So far I haven’t heard any meaningful or trustworthy plan that would indicate to me that we’re going to have a ‘makeover’ or ‘do-over’ caucus,” Jeff Souza, chairman of the Washtenaw County, Michigan Democratic Party says. Souza suspects that Michigan and Florida may be out of it until the last minute.

“I believe that when a clear leader is established, the Michigan and Florida delegates may be seated just as a formality, as a gesture to the people of those two states so that they do have a voice of some sort,” Souza says.

“But the damage has been done. If [the race for the nomination] is tight, it’s going to be very contentious, and you’re going to see a lot of fireworks and it’s going to become extremely unstable,” Souza fears. “It’s going to be a free for all,”

Indeed, after eleven straight primary victories, Senator Barack Obama has taken a commanding 1371 to 1274 lead in the delegate count and the hunt for the nomination. That’s if Michigan and Florida votes are not counted. If the two prodigal states are included, Clinton moves ahead with 1466 to Obama’s 1443 declared delegates, making for a much tighter race.

All discussion about what to do with Michigan’s delegation has been biased, with each side working to gain an advantage for their chosen candidate.

“The Clinton supporters believe they have a built-in advantage,” Souza explains, “and so I don’t think they really want to have a do-over caucus, especially with the congressional districts’ conventions [on March 29] determining the allocation of [delegates].” There’s a strong possibility that uncommitted delegates who are actually Clinton supporters could be elected, and presumably they would vote for Hillary Clinton at the convention.

Conversely, Obama supporters believe a ‘do-over’ caucus would eliminate the confusion by allowing the rank and file of Michigan’s Democratic Party to determine the state’s choice once and for all. “They feel that they need to make it official and take away the wiggle room or the ability of Clinton supporters to get those uncommitted delegates and make sure that Obama supporters are officially elected by the people,” Souza observes.

Michigan state representative Coleman Young II is an Obama supporter who helped organize the February 22 rally outside the building that bears his father’s name. “At first I wanted to move the primary up,” Young admits, “because I wanted the presidential candidates to come here and tell us what their plan was to stimulate the economy, especially here in Michigan with all that we’re going through. There are a lot of different issues that we have that need to be addressed and should be addressed.”

“Our most valuable asset that we have in this country is our democracy, and our right to vote,” Young exclaims. “I think we’re being disenfranchised, and I think one person being disenfranchised is one too many. That’s why I personally believe that we need to have a redo. The citizens of Michigan were robbed horribly in this process.”

“My vote should count,” marcher Cassie Williams says. “For me to be told that my vote doesn’t count, or that the delegates from Michigan won’t be seated, that’s not okay. That’s not the American way. That’s not what democracy is about.”

“For all of our lives we’ve been told, ‘get out and vote, your vote counts, you matter, you have a voice’,” William continues. “Then to be rendered voiceless, that’s a problem. That’s a serious problem.”

Currently Michigan Democrats are in political purgatory. The state’s delegates have become a pawn in this game but they may never be played. Because state party leadership chose to cut line, Michigan Democrats are forced to watch from the sidelines as the most exciting race for the nomination in fifty years has played out everywhere else around the country.

If the state’s party favors one candidate over another and holds a do-over caucus, it could create even more disention in the Democratic Party ranks. If it fails to act, or it seats the delegates in a close race, which could effectively hand the nomination to the other candidate, full-scale riots could break out at the convention. Come November, frustrated Michigan Democrats in this traditional battleground state may turn to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain who has been accused by conservatives of being too liberal.

“It’s quite a mess,” Souza sighs. “It’s almost like Iraq. There’s no good solution at this point.”

Judicial Watch's Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politician List

Watchdog group Judicial Watch recently released their Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politician list for 2007. Though I'm a bit perturbed that George Bush and Dick Cheney aren't included (presumably because they are in the all-time hall of infamy), you may be surprised to see who made the list.

Take special note of how many presidential candidates made the cut. Here they are in alphabetical order:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release of her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): House Judiciary Chairman Conyers of Detroit reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll. While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter. [Is it possible that Conyers' failure to press for the impeachment of Cheney and Bush has something to do with the skeletons in his own closet?]Read more »

Obama Isn't Black?? Part 3

Imani Perry raises some good points in a recent Afro-Netizen article:

I don’t believe the authenticity problem lies with African Americans. The authenticity problem lies with white Americans. The real question is: Why have White pundits, journalists and newscasters been so eager to comment on Obama’s being biracial and the son of an immigrant, rather than his history of civil rights activism or his long time involvement in African American social and political communities? Does it reveal a desire, among whites, that he not be authentically black (whatever that means), but somehow “different?”

The fixation on Obama as “different” appears to be an effort to exceptionalize him. He is seen as acceptable, in part, because he is considered to be unlike other African Americans, and in particular, African American men, who have been so widely commented upon as a “social problem” in the most prestigious news media in recent months. Joe Biden got in trouble for saying what many Americans are thinking, and that is a much bigger problem than a foot in the mouth.

While there is no particular tradition of African Americans being suspicious of immigrant political activists and leaders, there is a long tradition of African Americans being suspicious of Black leaders who seem to be eagerly touted by Whites as the “next best thing.” Why, we wonder, do people who seem to hold animosity for us as a group, make an exception for this individual?

Good question... Why is Obama being treated as if he is the second coming?

I'm still not drinking the Kool-Aid...

Click HERE to read all of Imani's post

Obama Isn't Black?? Part 2

The cards are on the table.

Barack Obama's 2008 presidential candidacy is going to be about race. I'm sure he doesn't want it that way, but that is how it's going to play out.

Already his ethnicity is being attacked from all sides. I've blogged previously about Black folks like Debra Dickerson of Salon.com who say Obama isn't Black.

Now the darling of race-baiting conservatives, Rush Limbaugh, encourages the biracial Obama to renounce his Blackness and declare that he is white.

Think Progress reports:

Yesterday on his radio show, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh derided Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) — who is biracial — for saying, “If you look African-American in this society, you’re treated as an African-American.”

Limbaugh claimed that this statement meant Obama didn’t want to be Black and should “renounce it”: “If it’s not something you want to be, if you didn’t decide it, renounce it, become white!” He added, “If you don’t like it, you can switch. Well, that’s the way I see it. He’s got 50-50 in there. Say, ‘No, I’m white.’”

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO LIMBAUGH

Read the Think Progress post HERE

American white folks created the "one drop rule" centuries ago. If you have one drop of African blood, you're Black. If you could pass for white, you could identify yourself as such until someone found out who your people were. Then you became an outcast on both sides.

For the record: Barack Obama is Black.
For the record: Tiger Woods is Black whether he claims to be or not.
For the record: Rae Dawn-Chong is Black.

Of course, this is all a distraction. What about the issues?

I hate to be a cynic, but I don't think the United States is ready for a Black man or a white woman to become president. It doesn't matter whether Barack and Hilary are the best candidates or not (of course, I don't like either of them at this point). America is still too racist and too sexist to elect them.

But let's get the conversation out of the way now, so we can get down to the real business of presidential politics.

What do YOU think? Is America ready for a Black man or white woman to be president?