David Ortez

The rumors that continue to develop about Obama’s character never fail to amaze me. That is until I realized that countless of people actually entertained some of those claims and took it as fact even when Obama took the steps to dismiss any false claims about his background. Steve Benen sheds some commentary on a Washington Post article regarding this subject. Jon Stewart added some comic relief by coining a new term: Barcknophobia – The irrational fear of hope.

The Washington Post article states, “On the television in his living room, Jim Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor’s house, at his son’s auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate’s background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”

Benen adds, “Peterman sounds sincere, and inclined to vote Democratic, but conflicted. A friend told him that Obama refuses to wear an American-flag pin. Another friend told him that Obama is a radical Muslim. Peterman’s friends, in other words, are lying to him, but he doesn’t realize it.”

Leroy Pollard, who lives in Peterman’s neighborhood,  claims, “I understand [Obama’s] from Africa, and that the first thing he’s going to do if he gets into office is bring his family over here, illegally. He’s got that racist [pastor] who practically raised him, and then there’s the Muslim thing. He’s just not presidential material, if you ask me.”

Obama has taken steps to counter any false rumors by setting up  “Fight the Smears” website so that people can inform themselves. As I claimed earlier, How Lies Become the Truth, the best way to counter the rumors is not to repeat them but instead inform voters of the actual facts.

Benen’s over argument is that these individuals may just be willfully ignorant. I concur but does it help that there is someone out there that is fueling the fire? Should I be surprised? As a cynic, I can state no but as an idealist I am saddened. Ideally, America should be comprised of some of the most intelligent people in the world but sadly that is not a fact. The truth is that open-minded, progressive thinking; intelligent individuals comprise a small minority of our population. It doesn’t matter if someone has an “education” if that individual cannot think for himself or herself and ignore talking points. As long as there is a television that broadcasts pointless hours of brain candy to Americans, our political discourse will be undermined. A combination of apathy and willful ignorance is detrimental to democracy and that is why we are in the current economic and political state. Stupid people do deserve a Stupid President.

Republicans are concerned about McCain’s claim stated multiple times about a U.S. troop presence in Iraq for 100 years. The National Republican Congressional Committee have issued a press release claiming that Democrats are "falsely accusing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of “promising” 100 years of war in Iraq." The NRCC justifies the claim as a desperate attack to capture the November election.

There is no secret that McCain stated that if required the U.S. should remain in Iraq if needed another 100 years, in fact he added 1000 years and 10,000. One only needs to do a quick YouTube search and they will find videos containing the clip.

These comments should enlighten the general voting population of McCain’s distorted view of the Iraq War. It should frankly scare those that hear his comments into registering to vote in order to demonstrate their opposition to McCain’s flawed opinion and perspective. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo adds, "McCain stipulates to the fantasy that Iraqis will be happy having us occupy their country forever and that the place will become like Finland. And none of our soldiers will ever get killed there and it won’t cost any money. If that’s the explanation for why we shouldn’t be concerned that he’s happy to stay in Iraq for a century, that just tells people that McCain is living in a fantasy world."

Joe Klein of the Time Magazine Blog claims that the issue at hand with McCain’s point of view is that, "he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam." I concur with Klein’s assessment of McCain’s distorted view of Iraq. Unlike Germany or Korea, the reason why we are in this mess is the reason why we are in this mess. Our presence in Muslim nations is not appreciated by those that attack us. Until we understand that, their attacks will not cease. Iraq as nation has not been stable like Germany or Korea either. The Saddam Hussein rein was the longest time period in recent history in which the region was stable.

Steve Benen theorizes that this, "is a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get people — everyone, really — to stop using the words “McCain,” “Iraq,” and “100 years” in the same sentence. No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts." That explains why the GOP is pro-active about the issue.

But, what is the true significance of 100 years? Just to put it into perspective . . . in the last 100 years:

• Women gained the right to vote in the U.S.
• Segregation in the U.S. was outlawed.
• Cars, Radio, Television and Airplanes just to name a few were invented.
• The World Community participated in 2 World Wars.
• The U.S. has seen 18 different Presidents in office and prior to that 25 had served (almost half).

This list can go on and on about what 100 years truly mean. The U.S. has only been around since 1776, that just 232 years. The way McCain intends to scare us into accepting this scenario is by claiming that Muslim extremist will attack us at home. They love to use the recycled Domino Effect Theory (once applied to Communism) about terrorists and the reason why we should remain in Iraq. McCain apparently believes that if we depart from Iraq, the country will become a terrorist haven and then the whole middle east will fall prey to the ideology. According to McCain and the GOP, we should dedicate the next 100 years to Iraq, 1/3 of the U.S. lifetime, to combat such scenario. Don’t get me started on his statements of a presence of 1,000 or 10,000 years . . . Jesus died just over 2000 years ago.

McCain’s tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr. today lets voters reassess their opinion of the GOP hopeful. McCain did not always have the admiration for King as he claims he does now. Just 24 years ago as Congressman he voted against making Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a recognized Federal Holiday.

McCain states, “I voted in my first, I think it was my first year in congress against then… I began to learn and I studied and people talked to me and I not supported it but I fought very hard in my home state of Arizona for recognition against a Governor who was against my own party.” Let’s not forget that McCain was 47 years old at the time so it was not like he did not know what it was like to live in a segregated society where Martin Luther King, Jr. fought to gain the civil rights and equality minorities deserved.

Steve Benen notes:

“The vote wasn’t the only problem. In his home state of Arizona, conservatives in the state legislature blocked a measure to create a holiday honoring King, prompting then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt (D) to declare one through executive order. In 1987, Republican Gov. Evan Mecham’s first act in office was to rescind Babbitt’s order on the King holiday. John McCain endorsed Mecham’s decision. Complicating matters, McCain, no doubt embarrassed by his previous positions, is being less than truthful about them now.”

McCain justified his 1983 position in an ABC News interview in 2000 by claiming, “it was not necessary to have another federal holiday, that it cost too much money, that other presidents were not recognized.” McCain may claim regret for opposing the holiday but it does not explain why he did so 15 years after the assassination nor why he opposed the 1990 Civil Rights Act.

Benen claims, “If McCain “began to learn” and “studied” after his opposition to the King holiday in ‘83, he was a very slow learner. Four years later, he didn’t fight against a governor or his own party; he endorsed the governor’s move to eliminate a King holiday.”

So how does McCain’s actions speak for his record when it comes to civil rights issues:

• Honoring the Confederate – In 2000, McCain called the flag “offensive.” Later, he lauded it as a “battle flag” and a “symbol of heritage.”

• Honoring racists: In 2000, Richard Quinn, McCain’s South Carolina spokesperson in 2000, called the MLK holiday “vitriolic and profane.” McCain defended Quinn, calling him a “respected” and “fine man,” refusing to fire him. McCain’s current campaign has paid the firm Richard Quinn and Associates $180,000.

• Skipped African-American debate to campaign: McCain joined Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson in September 2007 in skipping PBS’ presidential debate, which featured “a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color.”

For a Presidential candidate running on his history one should not romanticize the character and forget his flaws. The media may not touch on the subject but that does not mean that deep down McCain may have some issues at hand. Donklephant has a video of McCain giving the tribute today so you can see how some reacted.

Many liberal bloggers attempt to make the argument that Clinton should quit the race as soon as possible . . . correction . . . many liberal bloggers that are Obama supporters attempt to sway Democrats into thinking Clinton should bow out of the race. The claim is there but there is no logical justification that comes to mind that explains why Clinton should bow out.

Some state that it is tearing the party apart or it is prolonging the process a bit to much. I have never understood the argument since it doesn’t make any sense. Even Obama states that Clinton "can run as long as she wants."

Steve Benen entertains the idea of what may be keeping Clinton around for another 5 months and offers a solution to Democrats. Funny enough it is the same solution that I provide to Obama supporters.

I blame our instant gratification society. This is a primary folks. Think of it like the regular season of baseball or basketball. There is a schedule that has been set and it ends in June. This is no secret, we have known this for years. It hasn’t changed that much. It was the same for Kerry when he ran in 2004. It was even similar for Bill Clinton when he ran in 1992. You see . . . if the Democratic Party wanted to make this a quick and easy thing it would not take place over 6 months. But it does and that is the reality.

Just because there are two qualified, competitive and may I say great candidates, it does not mean that one should have to concede before it is over.

Clinton still has a chance but as a realist I do not expect her to secure the nomination nonetheless, I do not consent to negating the possibility that she fight it until the end. If Obama supporters want to end this primary (or Clinton supporters as well) then your candidate of choice needs to step it up and blow out the other opponent.

The primary season still has a few more months to go and until one candidate secures the minimum delegate count for nomination it is preposterous to ask either or to bow out. No matter what happens from now until then, it is a different story in my opinion how that second place candidate should conduct themselves at the Party Convention. Until we reach the playoffs in Denver though . . . as Yogi Berra said, "It ain’t over until it’s over!"

On a side note . . . I wanted to poke some fun at Steve Benen for titling that last post, "She’s in it to win it — for at least another five months" because who’s in it to lose? As Bill Engvall would say, "Here’s your sign." j/k . . . lol, oh I am having too much fun this Sunday morning.

[Update at 10:30 am]

Benen has just released a post about the primary and the shenanigans surrounding it. He offers some legitimate reasons why the primary should not keep going on and as to not repeat what I already said earlier today I shall only add.

Benen claims, "Yes, there are 10 contests left, but that’s hardly a good reason to keep a nomination fight going. Primary contests are usually over by now; we rarely weep for those states that play a minimal role in picking the next nominee." I agree what just because there are 10 that is not a good reason[in itself] to continue the primary but because the Primary is "usually over by now" in itself is not any better. Heck the Democratic primary is usually won by a white male . . . sort of throws that argument into a spin this time around. In fact, Bill Clinton did not secure the Democratic nomination until April when he beat Jerry Brown in New York back in 1992.

He then asks, "Who really believes a 14-month campaign (so far) for the nomination is insufficient?" I agree . . . I do not think anyone will be foolish to claim that it is insufficient but that is not the issue at hand. No one has secured the minimum required delegate count and that reason by itself is good enough to continue. How would it look if party members call of the primary because they want to unite behind one candidate without giving the process a chance to finish.

I also agree with Benen when he notes that, "states have a choice about moving up their primaries/caucuses if this is a priority," if they want a voice in the primary. I actually offer this as a solution but the fact of the matter it they did not want a contest to last this long (oh the horror of the past 3 months) it would have never been setup the way it is.

Benen concludes by entertaining the following, "If you’re a consultant/strategist at the RNC right now, are you worried that a prolonged Democratic process is going to help Dems with voter registration and battle testing, or are you doing the Happy Dance that the Clinton/Obama fight is going to continue for the foreseeable future?"

This is quite elementary my dear . . . the RNC shall be worried not because of the the number of voters registering (although that in itself should be a nightmare) but how can you do a Happy Dance when you don’t even know who you’re opponent is let along what to attack them on. Plus, it does not help that your nominee is getting neglected and ignored half the time. It also gives plenty of time for McCain to make a fool of himself as he becomes restless about the process.

[Update at 5:45pm] Justin Gardener over at Donklephant just made a post about Clinton going all the way. I recommend reading my entire post to understand my position on the argument and I shall only add now.

First of forth-most, why are people shocked that Clinton is going all the way? She has not been blown out of the water to warrant her departure. As I said she still has a chance . . . a slim one but she gets the opportunity to entertain the nomination as long as the elections are there or she has enough money. There is no reason why she or Obama should have to bow out. Should we have expected Obama to quit when late last year Clinton looked like the sure shoe in? No, and we should not be surprised that Clinton does not want to be forced to step down. Most candidates bow out because they never got the support early on to make it a viable candidacy. Must I remind folks that Clinton and Obama have practically split the popular vote. Obama may have the edge on candidates and popular vote but as he stated she can continue as long as she wants to.

Who cares if her intentions are to continue until the last primary. That is how our democratic process works. Who decides when it has become to long? Did they really make the primary a 6 month event because they never thought anyone would care what happens in June? Now, what happens once the last ballot is counted on the last day of the primaries is a different story and that in itself can be a topic of its own.

I have to give credit to President Bush and Company on how well they have branded and marketed this war to the American public. Perhaps, they learned a few lessons from the past few wars that did not sell to well. Nonetheless, 5 years later and 4,000+ deaths due to a War in Iraq we are no where closer to our goal. As I pointed out earlier, the trouble is that there is no clear defintion of "win" so the administration can tout to chase after a goal that is not forseable.

But . . . just because we are in a war that can not be won . . . Bush has to present it as something that can be and will be if we only do the things he recommends. Any other strategy is doomed for failure. Steve Benen does a great job of pointing out how it becomes a catch 22 for the public when Bush states that there is progress and success in Iraq.

Benen notes, "When conditions in Iraq deteriorate, the Bush administration says, “We can’t withdraw U.S. troops now; this is when they’re needed most.” When violence wanes, those same officials say, “We can’t withdraw U.S. troops now; their presence is helping bring some stability to Iraq.” We should stay the course if Iraq improves, and stay the course if Iraq worsens. Either way, we have to stay the course."

I agree! This is a splendid marketing strategy that most have not caught onto. Success is thus not achievable because like I said . . . how can we win something that can not be won? After all . . . if we leave and Iraq goes to hell, Bush wins, and if we stay to quell the unrest before hell breaks . . . Bush wins. 

According to the presumptive GOP nominee and the current President, we should remain in Iraq until we "win" or "achieve victory." I never entertained the notion nor the semantics of such argument but Steve Benen articulates the point well. If we are to make the Iraq War an issue of debate should we not define the terms used when arguing for a position.

Slate’s Fred Kaplan attempted to grapple the issue and concluded that, "[B]y the Bush administration’s own standards of success, laid out in the president’s speech and the NSC’s strategy review, we are no closer to victory now than we were when those documents were drafted."  It’s no surprise then that McCain would boast about numbers like 100 or even 1000 years.

Benen adds, "the president has defined “victory” in such a way as to make it practically impossible," which make sense since it would be foolish for him to define a standard to be judged upon. One can not fairly assess what is going on in Iraq nor the War on Terror if there is no way to grade it. And that’s the magic that Bush and Company have been able to create. McCain is not far behind on the agenda which begs the question: How do we win something that can not be won?

Steve Benen enlightened me today of the fight at capitol hill to do away with abstinence only education. In fact, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, a religious right organization, claims that, "“Liberals Want Federal Abstinence Education Cut."

It’s true! Their report states, "President Bush’s 2009 budget proposal includes $204 million to support Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), but dozens of liberals in Congress want all abstinence money axed from the budget." Their concern to "defend" the mis-education of sex to our teens comes at time that the CDC reports 1 in 4 teen girls has a sexually transmitted infection (STI). 

I have always been an advocate for quality education in our publics schools and that is not limited to sex. Benen adds, "It’s quite simple: the evidence that abstinence-only is more effective doesn’t exist." It doesn’t take a genius to figure that our either. One only needs to do research for about a day to gather evidence to counter the administrations claims.

ABC News reports, "the Journal of Adolescent Health found that those who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to become pregnant than those who received abstinence-only education. The study also found that those who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to become pregnant than those who received no sex education at all." It’s quite evident that Bush Administration has fudged everything the past 8 years and his approach to "abstinence-only" education is one of them. The reason why the CDC found such alarming ratings of STI’s among teen girls should be a wake up call to all Americans but in particular parents that the last 8 years of abstinence only education has not been cutting it.