Obama’s Election Brings Joy to…White Supremacists?!

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

Aside from Republicans, you might expect the American community most piqued by the election of Barack Obama would be white supremacists. There is surely no harsher blow to a single-issue political program of racism than the ascension of a black man to the highest office of the land. It’s like a hardened communist watching Milton Friedman elected Dear Leader in the Soviet Union, or Ariel Sharon taking over the Palestinian Liberation Organization. There is no way back for a movement so harshly served; it’s merely time to pack up, accept it’s over and move on.

Or so you would think.

In the increasingly surreal U.S. political landscape, white supremacists have actually greeted the election of the first black president not as the death knell of their cause, but a historic leap forward. “I don’t see anything but very positive things coming out of it,” says Tom Metzger, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, who now runs an outfit called White Aryan Resistance (or W.A.R., for short). “We don’t have to do much, everything is going sour; the economy is getting worse and worse,” he tells TakingBackPolitics.com. “I don’t think we have to do much more than sit in and be aware of what is going on and train because the government is eating itself.”

And not only is the American Nazi happy about his first black president, but he believes it occasions the way for dialogue with, of all things, the left. “We are becoming more like leftists, and leftists are coming more into agreement with us on race,” he says. “I actually agree with Ralph Nader on economics. Though he’s not a racist, I think politics is going to change a lot over the next few years, dumping of old left and old right.”

But for unbridled joy at Obama’s win you can’t beat August Kreis III, the fiery leader of the Aryan Nations, a Hitler-worshipping outfit out of South Carolina. “I can actually tell you it was the best thing that happened to our movement in the United States ever,” he says breathlessly. In fact, he even wants this new wave of pinko tolerance to spread overseas. “I’d like to see it happen in the UK, but in your case, a Muslim should be elected, because that will do something to get people off their fat asses.”

But it’s not just getting people off their fat asses (less of those in the UK) that has emboldened the American neo-Nazi movement; now white supremacists finally feel that one of their own is the president. “Obama is a racist down deep and his wife is even more,” says Metzger. “It would be better for him if he now said, ‘Hey guys! Fooled you! I’m a racist!’ and I would respect that.”

Erich Gliebe, who runs the biggest neo-Nazi group in the U.S., National Alliance, agrees. “As far as I know, John McCain is not a racist,” he says. “But Obama, he is an outright racist. He was part of a racist church, he had a racist pastor. At least he has that.”

Whether Obama is a racist or not, doesn’t this election render white supremacists in the U.S. irrelevant?

“No, actually it shakes people out of their slumber,” says Gliebe. “I think a majority of Americans still want racial segregation. There are tens of millions of people who would prefer only to marry other whites, and to send their kids to white-only schools.”

I have to remind myself that the first black president has just been elected with a large percentage of white voters. Gliebe pauses when I remind him, too. “Well, people voted for Obama because of white guilt,” he says after an awkward hiatus. “They were made to feel guilty! People were afraid of voting for McCain because they feared being called a racist!”

I refrain from mentioning that the U.S. has a secret ballot because, by now, appeals to logic are futile. Barack Obama, first black president the toast of the white supremacists. Unlikely, but true. Only in America.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

The White House on Election Night

By TOMÁS DINGES, Correspondent

All Tuesday Nov. 4, the television shots of the U.S. capitol were poor. Mist and drizzle obscured the ideal backdrop for what was seen by many as a defining presidential election in American history.

But at a little past 11 p.m. EST it didn’t matter what the city looked like. Barack Obama had been declared the president-elect of the United States. The streets of Georgetown began to flow with ecstatic young supporters. The neighborhood once derided by John McCain as the too frequent host of elite cocktail parties was now a conduit for a different sort of energy. Trailed by honking taxicabs, some weighted with passengers whose limbs flailed out the windows, and their predominately immigrant and black drivers, young people from Georgetown University, dressed in sweatpants and tight jeans, flip-flops and stilettos, marched on M St. chanting, “Yes we did, yes we did!”

Revolution was in the streets. These kids, many just 18 years old, may have thought that they were the ones who created it. Between 10 and 14 years old when George W. Bush was first elected, and gradually alienated by his reaction to 9/11 and his handling of the Iraq War, many had been passionately and personally involved with the election.

Inside a television studio on M Street, a twenty-four-year-old hockey player turned teleprompter operator checked CNN’s electoral map as he guided the moderator for ARD, Germany’s most-watched news network, through his almost 100 segments of election night coverage. Virginia’s numbers were against Obama and he was angry. “I worked so hard there,” he said. His updated vote counts varied by hundreds of votes. The channel’s political commentators began to ask him for input.

Outside, kids continued to flow by, jubilant. Tall, short, athletic, overweight, statuesque, humble, they walked, and then they ran. Some had no idea where they were going. They were just following the crowd. Others knew. M Street spills into Pennsylvania Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue leads to the White House.

Along the way, 51st State Tavern blared MSNBC as a clean-shaven young man wearing a navy blue suit walked out.

A Frenchman from Paris walked in. He asked if you had to specify what beer you wanted and whether you tip the bartender. He had arrived the Friday before to work in TV production. He got two lagers and repeated how lucky his timing was. He was 200 pages into Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father.”

The U.S., he said, is capable of electing a black man precisely because of our history of immigration and racism. France isn’t ready yet. The immigration in France is just beginning, he said, and most French have not spent any time with a Muslim or an Arab.

“We are the first generation that grew up with Arabs,” said the thirty-year-old. “I think that change will come. Maybe not soon, but it will come,” he said as he slowly drank his beer.

In front of the International Monetary Fund, the subject of furious protests by disenfranchised young people in 2000, a private security guard gave high-fives to passersby.

Waves of students seemed to roll back through the groups going to the White House, hugging, high-fiving and chanting.

A stern-faced cop and his companion in front of the old executive building were the first indication of a limited police presence.

The crowd began to come together and we dove into the teeming masses on the glistening street in front of the glowing White House. Thousands of people had accumulated, many young. Later, the crowd became more diverse in age and race.

“Grace Kohn said you can suck my dick Bush,” said Kohn, a student. Outgoing President George W. Bush had celebrated his wife’s birthday with coconut cake and a gift of earrings that night inside the White House.

Alex Rice, an 18-year-old from George Washington University took a different tack. “I love Obama and support this country,” he said. His disillusionment with Bush came when he was 13, he said, when the United States went to war with Iraq. “Finally we have a president that represents us.” There were chants of “U-S-A.”

The Frenchman saw his first American flag draped across the bare back of a bicycle rider. It was one of a few there. He was surprised. The French flag was a common site during group events, but, after years of representing national pride, it became a symbol of racist nationalism with the campaign by Jean Marie LePen. It became a regular symbol of hyper-nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment when waved at football games. But leading up to the election of Sarkozy, that nationalism began to change to suit the times. The people reclaimed it, ironically by the political posturing of Sarkozy.

It was the political posturing of the Republican party that in the end drove Dana Mozie, “the first hip-hop producer for a sitting president,” to the Obama party that night at The Park on Fourteenth, and then, alone, to the White House.

A hip-hop producer in the early 90s for the group Salt-n-Pepa, he helped bring hip-hop to mainstream America. Starting in 2000, he worked inside the White House under Bush on so-called outreach efforts to the black community. He emerged from those experiences, as did other “guys like me who were surrogates,” disillusioned.

“Republicans never would go to the ghetto,” he said, and as a result would never get the black vote. With Obama campaigning in poor black neighborhoods he noted something special in this candidate.

Still it was difficult for this black candidate to get elected. “One drop of black blood and it costs $670 million,” said Mozie, referring to the cost of the Obama campaign.

But now, the Obama candidacy allows for the “race card” to be thrown out, and “allows for a real sense of inclusiveness,” in America, he said.

The rain had stopped for a while now and Mozie, a dapper man around forty, put his umbrella down and looked wide-eyed at the people who continued to flow past.

“I thought it was a moment for black people, but it tapped something in other people too,” he said.

Mozie had been to the 54th and the 55th inaugurations, but, he said emphatically, “this is the original inaugural parade.”

People continued to squeeze through the tightening crowd on Pennsylvania Avenue. “America is back,” someone said. The fancier election night parties began to spill forth their participants near 1 a.m. Many paused in astonishment before entering the raucous crowd.

“Obama didn’t just change the party,” said Mozie, “he changed the paradigm.”

Tomás Dinges can be reached at tdinges@gmail.com.

It’ll Still be Politics as Usual Under Obama

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

A black president – it happened. Anyone who didn’t feel a twinge of emotion as Barack and his beautiful family came out to greet the crowds in that Chicago park officially has a heart of stone. In many ways it was a profound moment in history: the end to the centuries of white supremacism that has moved from slavery to Jim Crow to the still-existing economic exploitation – progress within what was all along referred to as “civilization.”

There on stage was the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world, the son of a Kenyan farmer and a single white mother from Kansas, beaming from ear to ear. It was as improbable as it was moving. And we should never forget the slaves who revolted against their masters and the civil rights activists who were shot dead in the 1960s; it was their sacrifices that furrowed the rocky path to this epochal moment. It was imagining their incredulity at such progress that really made the loins quiver on that night.

But Obama’s got a lot on his shoulders now. If you hear his supporters talking about his presidency, you might be forgiven for thinking Obama was the messiah, the untouchable Second Coming of Christ, who will cleanse us from the sulphureous scent of Hades, or George W. Bush, as he is more commonly known around the world.

And it’s a nice change for a world that has become accustomed to being ruled by nutcases. When Bush was elected I was 17, so most of my adult life has been lived with the most powerful man in the world as an unadulterated force for violence and pain. Whatever Obama becomes, at least he’s not mad, or stupid.

But I’m not holding out much hope about the next four years. Not because of Obama. I think he is probably an upright, nice guy. Certainly his writing seems to be sensitive and thoughtful. But what people don’t seem to understand as they undertake the flights of hope-infused rhetoric is that the president, while powerful, is often merely a vector in a vast tapestry of powerful forces that govern government policy. No matter how good, nice or genial he is, he is being pushed by decidedly malicious influences from all sides.

Most crucially, state power is nearly indistinguishable from big-business interest, limiting what a democratically elected leader can do. Essentially they are beholden to what Noam Chomsky has called “private tyrannies”: corporations and big money. They are private tyrannies because they have no democratic input and are driven by one sole motivation: profit.

This was revealed in stark terms with the financial bailout of the world’s biggest investment banks, where money was redistributed upward with no stipulations that the capital be used for loans, resulting in vast amounts going to shareholders, not the attested “stimulus.”

But while this was a particularly egregious case that has admittedly elected anger across the political spectrum, the same thing happens all the time behind closed doors. It’s how state capitalism works. There is a revolving door between big business and government in policy-formation and personnel. Dick Cheney went from the board of Halliburton to the executive branch of government like an oily fish, and will probably go back the other way. And look who benefited in Iraq.

Every superpower through history has sought to dominate lesser powers and make them pliant to their own economic interests. This has happened whether the superpower has been communist, socialist, capitalist, Nazi, whatever. The common denominator to all superpowers is that they have extraordinary amounts of power, and power by its nature will try to dominate. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides expressed this timeless maxim most baldly in his History of the Peloponnesian War. “Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power,” said the Athenians to the Melians. “While the strong do what they can, the weak must suffer what they will.”

That fundamental dynamic has not altered since his time and probably never will. So essentially in the two-party system the individual leader is irrelevant to the real big picture. Be it Barack Obama, or Tony Blair or George W. Bush, the empire and power structure will continue to run unimpeded, with only variations in style. Political scientist Robert A. Dahl famously called this system polyarchy: a competitive elite ruling the rest of us.

That doesn’t mean that Barack Obama has tweaked his opinions to get into office, it means he couldn’t have gotten there if he believed anything different. As Comment Factory writer Laurence Witherington pointed out, it’s hypocritical of people to say that Obama is going against his principles; in fact, Obama has been consistent in his support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the war in Lebanon in 2006.

And there’s more too. If we can stretch our memories, we should remember that Obama suggested he would bomb the sovereign nation of Pakistan during his primary campaign, he has said he is against Iran enriching uranium even for energy purposes even though Israel is not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and he has proposed a surge in Afghanistan. He has also most egregiously gone in front of the vile outfit AIPAC and said Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, a position even hardened Likudniks like Ariel Sharon would gasp at.

Real change this election season didn’t begin and end with Obama. The Green Party had the first all-people-of-color ticket in history, as well as the first all-female ticket too. But how many people have heard of presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney or vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente? They were given a complete media blackout because they posed a real threat to the corporatocracy that runs American politics. The change they proposed wasn’t a cosmetic retouching of an imperial system, but the overhaul of a democratic system, which is saturated in private dollars that aren’t given altruistically by lobbyists, but are seen as an investment, like treating the federal government as a hedge fund.

Ralph Nader was another who provided a real alternative, but was ignored. Without the corporate backing he received one percent of the vote.

Maligned by both the “left” and “right” in the U.S. mainstream, he is one of the most principled individuals in politics. Here is his verdict on Obama: “Well, obviously we all congratulate Barack Obama. We wish him well.”

But the precursor to his election has not been very encouraging, and he has repeatedly taken up the positions of the corporate supremacists, not just his latest vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, but a whole string of votes and policy positions. He opposes single-payer health insurance. Well, the HMOs and the insurance companies do, too. He wants a bigger military budget. So does the military-industrial complex. His idea of a living wage on his Web site is $9.50 an hour by 2011. That would make it less than it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation.

He matched McCain in the third debate — belligerency for belligerency — toward Russia, toward Iran, more soldiers in Afghanistan, supporting the Israeli military repression and occupation and blockade of Gaza and the West Bank. And virtually nothing about 100 million poor people in this country. That’s why I really fault him; that he played the Clinton linguistic game by talking constantly about the middle class and not mentioning the word “poor.”

And we expect more of him. And I don’t think he has a public philosophy of where corporations must operate in this country. How? Under what rule of law? Under what regulation? Under what vulnerability to litigation in the courts? He’s proud of tort reform, supports the nuclear industry, supports the coal industry. So we’re really talking about just more of the same, in terms of the corporate domination of Washington.

I detected no concern, no quaking of concern, among the drug industry, oil, gas industry, nuclear, coal industry, Wall Street, over his probable election in the last few weeks. Usually, when they’re really worried about a politician, they will issue warnings. But Barack Obama has raised far more money than John McCain from Wall Street interests, corporate interests and, above all, corporate lawyers. And the question to be asked is, why are they investing so much in Barack Obama? Because they believe he’s their man. So, prepare to be disappointed, but keep your hope up.

Until people like Nader, and Bob Barr on the other side, are able to stretch the narrow political spectrum in the U.S., and likewise around the world, we will never be able to hope for change and not in the back of our minds think that in fact nothing ever changes.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Blame It On the Lame Duck

By SARAH N. LYNCH, Correspondent

Senator John McCain can take solace in one thing when he thinks back on his recent electoral defeat: Senator Barack Obama’s win does not really say that much about John McCain. Instead, Obama’s resounding victory was a referendum on President George W. Bush.

Shortly after NBC projected Sen. Obama the winner of the evening, people from around the world poured into the streets. They were excited to be witnessing a piece of history as voters overwhelmingly elected the nation’s first black president. But more importantly, they wanted to let the current administration know their true feelings.

The people are tired of this unjust and inhuman war that was spawn on a lie. They are struggling beneath the crushing weight of the economy that has come crashing down on them thanks to the lax regulations that let Wall Street cannibalize itself. They are sick of the United States using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit.

The crowds that gathered on Election Night were a stunning sight. They cheered in Kenya, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, New York City and Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

Here in Washington, a large crowd stood in front of the White House – not because it represents Obama’s future home for the next four years, but because they wanted to send Bush a message.

Yes, those crowded rejected John McCain, but it was not personal. Sure, it didn’t help that McCain ran a God-awful campaign.

He failed to vet Sarah Palin and wound up isolating independent voters and even some staunch conservatives who felt she was unqualified for higher office. He then yet again failed to vet Joe the Plumber, thrusting the man into the national spotlight for his criticism of Obama’s tax policy before he eventually discovered that Joe doesn’t even pay the taxes he owes now.

McCain resorted to petty arguments over why Obama was not fit for the presidency. He ran too many negative ads. His reaction to the collapse on Wall Street was chaotic and embarrassing to the GOP.

But none of that really mattered in the end. The truth is, no Republican had a chance of winning this election. George W. Bush’s disastrous policies have essentially left the Republicans with a large scarlet A on their chests.

Just ask John Sununu or Elizabeth Dole. They were both casualties of war. They finally lost their seats thanks to Bush, who hijacked his party eight years ago thanks to a stolen election in Florida.

John McCain should know this better than anyone. And although Palin was definitely the wrong pick, his aides should stop putting so much blame on her for their loss and instead direct their anger toward the right person: our lame-duck president.

That means that now, more than ever before, is the time for John McCain to truly be the maverick he claims to be. It means he must publicly reject the Bush legacy, call for his fellow GOP colleagues to do the same and steal his party back.

Only then can the Republicans hope to pick up the pieces and regain the confidence of the public.

Sarah N. Lynch can be reached at sarahnlynch@gmail.com.

Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

Most political scientists agree senior citizens are the kingmakers in national elections. And, for much of the campaign, those 65 and older eluded Barack Obama’s steady sweep across the country, especially in the swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania. But in the final stretch Sen. John McCain found it difficult to keep this older demographic, which eventually leaned toward the Obama column. One of the reasons this happened, according to some experts, was that voters found Obama’s health care proposal more agreeable than McCain’s. Health care has always been one of the leading priorities for seniors.

A week before the election, Elizabeth Edwards was at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., addressing an audience of nearly 300 on health care, her cancer and Obama’s plan. She said she took on this role because the issue had taken a “back seat” during the campaign. The financial crisis and the wars in the Middle East had eclipsed the matter. But, she explained, “the financial crisis would be solved through health care” reform.

After her husband dropped out of the presidential race, Edwards became one of the ambassadors of Obama’s health care plan, which called for, among other things, universal coverage by 2012.

“Sometimes you get politicians who dig their feet into the sand and aren’t willing to listen to another voice. That’s not the case with Senator Obama,” she told National Journal On Air. “I think that’s a very encouraging sign about him.”

Edwards would not confirm rumors that she would have an active role in the Obama administration. Sources have told National Journal on background that Edwards would be called on to join the new administration.

Edwards, a Center for American Progress senior fellow, was diagnosed with breast cancer in October 2004. Two years later, she wrote “Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers,” a book about her son’s death and her battle with cancer. Then, in the spring of 2007, she announced her cancer had returned, and in a 60 Minutes interview she said doctors told her the cancer was treatable but not curable.
Mammograms are recommended for women beginning at 40, earlier if there are risk factors or a history of cancer in the family. Overall, she advocates a greater emphasis on prevention.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Congressional Budget Office’s former director, headed McCain’s health care team. Holtz-Eakin could not be more different than Edwards. He seemed uncharismatic, and too much of a suit-and-tie Washington insider. Holtz-Eakin pushed McCain’s proposal, which focused less on maintaining the employer-based health care system than on giving individual incentives to buy insurance. Edwards criticized McCain’s plan for relying heavily on insurance companies, which she said were being shortsighted about costs.

“In response to me, [McCain] added a new section [to his health care plan] which was to put people with pre-existing conditions in high-risk pools,” Edwards told National Journal On Air.

Edwards dismissed comments from the audience at the George Washington University forum that consumers should be making their medical decisions without government support, stressing that the issue is much more complicated.

“It’s a moral imperative,” she said. “It’s immoral to know that [the health care system] is disadvantaging good people and not do anything about it.”

Eugene Mulero may be reached at eugene.mulero@gmail.com.

Why I Voted for Obama

By AMANDA KOCH, Assistant Managing Editor

I am a registered independent. I voted for Obama, and this is why (in no particular order):

1. I want my president to be smarter than me. I don’t want Joe Six-pack to be anywhere near the presidency. I appreciate that my president can beat me in the high school octathalon. In fact, I pray he does. And not by a little. By a lot. He should remember every important Supreme Court case, because I won’t. Maybe he should even be elitist, or at least he shouldn’t be forced to pretend he’s not. I am intelligent; my president should kick my ass in that respect. I eat arugula, the president should eat more; it’s grown by U.S. Farmers; you should probably eat it too, it’s good for you.

2. I don’t mind losing (and this may be the thing that bothers me most in McCain speak). When I played sports when I was younger – softball, volleyball, basketball, track – winning was everything. When I became an adult, compromise became everything. I don’t mind losing, as long as it works out for the better. In my life, in my business, I have to talk to people. Sometimes I have to back off, sometimes I have to push them. Honestly, it’s not about winning; it’s about accomplishing something better than what is going on now. I think Obama gets this.

3. I don’t think he’s a socialist, so he doesn’t seem so bad to me. I don’t think he’s going to take all my wealth and give it to the less fortunate. Actually, I don’t have a lot of wealth, so when my friends complain about this sort of thing I laugh to myself – we are the poor the rich are sharing with! But, even besides that, and this is where my disdain of all politicians plays in Obama’s favor. He doesn’t really mean what he says. Sure, maybe we’ll lean a little further in that direction, but not as much as he promises. We will never be a socialist nation.

4. I really don’t mind the rich helping the poor. Carnegie did it. Rockefeller did it. Gates does it. I do believe helping the poor is a virtue, so buck up. I also believe that my contribution to the betterment of society makes my country a more pleasant place to live – for me. Call it selfish, I call it self-preservation. I want to live in a nice place, so I help and better my community the best way I can. This is not a novel idea. Like I said, Carnegie did it; it just sucks that we don’t have as many helpful rich, so we have to force them to be helpful. If only they would realize, what’s good for them is good for me.

5. I’m tired. I’m tired of the way things are going and I need a change. It’s not good right now, and McCain does agree, fundamentally, with a lot of Bush policies, that makes him a loser. I do need a change. I’m not as afraid as change as some other people. Change is never as big, as traumatic, as you think. It’s just change, not the end of everything we know.

6. Obama is good for the world. Yeah, I know, overarching in an overbearing way. It may be trite and unnecessary to some, but I’d like to regain the respect of our allies. I’d like some acceptance in the world community – isn’t that what we preach to others? I’d also like some help, and we don’t get that now, because we are assholes. I try not to be an asshole to others.

7. The economy sucks and I think Obama will be logical and even-keeled when it comes to dealing with the economic troubles. That’s what we need, because, frankly, I don’t think any administration completely owns the economy, but they most definitely have to deal with it. Cool as a cucumber is better than pink as a pickle any day in any situation.

8. I think Obama owned the debates. It was close, but Obama explained things to me, and I understood. I got why his health care is a problem solver. I have no doubt McCain thought his proposal for health care was good, but am I eligible for his $2500 tax rebate on top of my employer health coverage? I still don’t know. On his web site it told me if I make $180,000 I can get better coverage than a member of Congress, with no increase in taxes. I don’t make this kind of money, and I am still wondering why he headed this section by addressing the middle class. Is $180,000 average for the middle class?

9. I think I’ll just add this at the end here, because after all this I want to be honest you – I really do not like Sarah Palin and her views, and I am really disappointed McCain chose her. He was OK in my view, he’s not the devil like some people think; I really think he thinks his policies will help America, even if I may disagree with some of them, but Palin was a poor choice. He catered to the far right even though he claims to be a “maverick”, and if he had chosen his own running mate he or she would undoubtedly be more centrist. His choice lacked political smarts, and he needs political smarts to get us through the labyrinth of world situations/communities/events/problems/triumphs/etc. Palin is the first failure of a possible McCain term. I do believe this.

10. After I realized my Palin rant was No. 9, I thought I should come up with a legitimate No.10. — so, I’m going to go back to Obama’s old-school argument which he used in debates. Iraq was a bad choice; Iraq was a horrible choice; Iraq was a mistake. I remember when the war was about to begin, and I was talking to my friend, I said, “What about Afghanistan? We aren’t done. How is Iraq more of a threat than a country like Iran?” If Obama had been president, I have not doubt he would have started the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and, you know what, he probably would have won it, because he realized Iraq was a mistake, it was a distraction, it was completely unnecessary. We would never have even gotten into the Iraq mess, and maybe we’d even have the upper hand on al-Qaida.

It’s late and I’m tired, but I just wanted to sort this out. It helped to write it all down. I think I made a good choice. I do live in Jersey though, so does it even matter?

Amanda Koch can be reached at amandarosekoch@gmail.com.

Symbolism of an Obama Presidency Can’t be Denied

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

I am caught in two minds by this election. I am fed up with the two-party system in the U.S., which has two wings of the same business party. If I was in a swing state I would vote for Ralph Nader. But there is something special in Barack Obama’s success. Not because of him per se, although the fact that his dad was a Kenyan farmer and he has now risen to the top is a great moment for the U.S. and the world.

I am talking about what he has come to symbolize – the anger and discontent he has co-opted. He will probably do what every other Democrat has done and sell out his constituency, but Obama has come to symbolize a fight back against the insanity of the Bush era, which has seen some of the most dogmatic and dangerous politicians in the history of this country, and their policies have been a disaster for Americans and world peace.

Obama is where he is because people are angry at the establishment, which has done them over again and again. Something must be said for his opposition to the war in Iraq as well, at a time when that was an unpopular position to take in this country, even though it was a completely insane second gambit in the war on terror.

I live in Harlem and there is a real buzz here which is very moving no matter what you think of the Democratic Party. This country used to be full of racism, but now the melting pot has won out. Obama is a testament, not to his own personality or talents, but to the hard work of the men, women and children who were killed, imprisoned and disdained when they were fighting for their civil rights decades ago.

This is a collective effort on behalf of many people. We should be glad that this symbol was electable, but the fight will continue so that he enacts some policies that will actually help people out, not, a la Clinton, oversee a widening of the gap between rich and poor and the bombing of more defenseless countries. The work is beginning now.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Elephants in the Room: Hip-Hop Republicans Speak Out

By JERRY LAGUERRE, Editor

The term Hip-Hop Republican is one some would consider the definitive oxymoron. Hip-Hop is young, urban and cutting edge. The Republican Party … not so much. So upon first hearing the term several months ago on CNN.com, I almost fell off my chair. Were these people for real or was this some Saturday Night Live spoof?

Sure enough, it was real. It was as if I discovered that unicorns or mermaids existed. I had to find out who they were and how on earth could they infuse the message of hip-hop with the ideals of the Republican Party.

I honestly do subscribe to the theory of never judging a book by its cover. But to be perfectly honest, I have to admit sometimes I slip and find myself prejudging. However, it’s at those moments that something happens that will remind me why I should never, EVER jump to conclusions.

There are about 500 strong (with an age range from about 20-45) who associate with this movement in some form, gathered largely through social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. With their numbers growing and their philosophy and message gaining respect, Hip-Hop Republicanism seems to be just scratching the surface of its potential.

My initial reaction as a young black Democrat is something that the people of the Hip-Hop Republican movement deal with on a regular basis.

“They think we’re frauds. They think there’s no way you can be a true hip-hop head and a Republican,” said Lenny McAllister, a 36-year-old community volunteer from North Carolina who is firmly entrenched in Republican activism and a contributor to hiphoprepublican.com.

After talking with Lenny about the blog, I understood that it was more than just a term, more than just music. The ideology of Hip-Hop Republicanism goes way beyond beats, rhymes and traditional Republican themes. It speaks more to how the Hip-Hop generation views the world.
“They view race differently. They view gender differently. They view limitations differently. They view the box as being something you can regularly jump in and out of it. You don’t have certain rules that other generations felt themselves having,” McAllister explained. “As a matter of fact you look at the youth generation throughout American history, it was generally those movements, especially the last 75 years that changed the dynamic of how America engaged.”

After interviewing McAllister, who does a weekly spot on “Fox News Rising” in Charlotte, N.C., and talking to Richard Ivory (who founded the blog about four years ago), I noticed a driving force in both men that proved to me how passionate they were about this cause.

Ivory, 30, founded the site because of former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. While on the campaign trail in 2004, Steele centered his platform on urban issues. He received the backing of Russell Simmons and LL Cool J, and was dubbed a Hip-Hop Republican by The Washington Post. Steele was Ivory’s inspiration and in the years since, Ivory has learned that a number of young African-Americans also back the Republican Party.

“A bright spot for the Republicans is that most African-Americans under the age of 30 agree more on paper with Republican ideals than Democratic ideals,” said Ivory, citing a 30-page report from jointcenter.org, a national political and economic research institution whose work focuses on people of color. Ivory added that the reason why you don’t see more black Republicans is because of the stigma associated with the term, not because of a disagreement with policies.

There are 64,000 registered black Republicans in Florida, according to an Associated Press story published in August, and 3,000 black Republicans registered in Harlem, according to JoLinda Cogen, former Republican district leader.

Turns out black Republicans aren’t as rare as I thought. And even those who aren’t down with the movement are still tipping their caps toward it.

“Actually, most of the venom we receive comes from white liberals,” Ivory said. “The black community may not always agree with you, but they respect you once you’ve explained your opinion. Older black Republicans use to stay quiet. But we’re out constantly spreading our message.”

From being featured in publications such as, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, to radio spots for everything from NPR to Hot 97, a New York City hip-hop station, they seem to be popping up everywhere.

Their goal extends far beyond just letting people know that the Republican Party has a young, black bloc. They want to change the party from the inside.

“(Through our philosophy) we can bring about several changes,” McAllister said. “The diversification of the Republican Party, the inclusion of the Republican Party, the reinvigoration of the Republican Party within the core, energetic youthful voters (and using) free-market values and conservative principles to (address) the urban issues we face today. … (Issues) such as black-on-black crime … black under-education and underemployment in urban America. We can take a new approach and break the trends that we’ve been finding with Democratically-controlled city and state governments for the last 40 years.”

Ivory added that he never understood how some people could blame what they viewed as a white, racist government for their problems, but then look to that same government to fix those problems. “It starts from the community (not government),” said Ivory, who spends a lot of time working with Harlem’s underprivileged.

“Government can’t keep funding the same solution to problems that aren’t getting solved,” Ivory said. “I grew up in Richmond, V.A., and every year it was the same Democrats running the city. … Oftentimes the response is that people are in their situations because of racism and slavery. And I’m like ‘No, it’s not. Because why aren’t you in that situation?’ ”

Ivory and McAllister talk about how desperately change is needed in urban America. So I had to know, would either of these men be voting for Mr. Change, Sen. Obama? After all, they do share a common thread as African-Americans involved with community activism. And both men share an appreciation for the candidate’s charisma and ability to inspire.

“I support Obama historically. … But to me he’s too far left for me to support as a presidential candidate in 2008,” said McAllister, citing Sen. Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, record on abortion and his history of voting “present” over 100 times as a state senator. “If he goes up for reelection in 2012 or loses and runs again in 2012 and he’s more center, it’s a different type of evaluation process.”

“I always look at it as, if I had a daughter who was very ill and there were two doctors, one very charismatic young doctor who has a great medical degree from an Ivy League school … who came out of nowhere and is getting a lot of attention, and another doctor who has been tested and tried based on his experience, who would I choose to save my daughter’s life?” said Ivory, who is backing Sen. John McCain mainly because he believes the primary issue facing America is foreign policy, not the economy.

Ivory pointed out that history has been unkind to many presidents. “Bush initially talked about unilateralism and letting foreign countries be. … Obama may find himself in the same situation as Bush. We may see ourselves in anti-war rallies against Obama.”

Despite backing McCain, both men admitted to feeling conflicted about not voting for Obama because of what his presidency would mean for the country from a historical standpoint. But at the same time, they’ve chosen to vote their conscience, which is something I can’t knock anyone for. I also can’t knock a true grassroots effort because it makes me think of what American politics should be. Hip-Hop Republicans aren’t about assimilation, but diversification.

“The older generation of black Republicans wanted to look like the party. We want the party to look like us,” Ivory explained.

Not only do both men expect the movement to grow, they also see it expanding to where it is a recognized voice among the Republican discourse – despite the party’s current unwillingness to embrace the Hip-Hop Republicans and similar groups – highlighting the party’s historically poor record of reaching out to minorities.

“I can’t even name the minority director for the Republican Party right now. Republican Party outreach to minorities is sad. It’s just a sad, sad story,” Ivory said.

McAllister attributes the problem to the party’s inability to grow their image outside of the ’70s and ’80s – which has put the party in the position it’s in now: staring at the possibility of the Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress. He believes that had the Republicans tried to engage young voters and diversify its image years ago, the brand name wouldn’t be so weak.

So the Hip-Hop Republicans are doing the outreach the party has failed to do. Ivory believes that the reason why Republicans are failing at outreach is not racism, but a lack of understanding in terms of how to go about it.

“They’re just not comfortable talking about [race]. But they have a responsibility to bring in people who are,” Ivory said. He believes the party shouldn’t be afraid of change because it has always been changing throughout its history. His philosophy: Republicans have some core beliefs that unite them, but it’s OK for differences among the group. He went on to talk about the Hip-Hop Republican movement having many different types of Republicans from conservatives to libertarians. And that’s the point – more ideas will result in more solutions.

“(Hip-Hop Republicanism) is not a moniker. It’s not meant to just be cute. It’s meant to show a growing movement of urban Republicans voicing diverse opinions that will impact the Republican Party internally and impact our communities externally,” McAllister added. “This is something that’s not going to go away. And it’s something that’s for the benefit of America. … The message of hip-hop is always about keeping it real and telling the story about what people are going through so that somebody can be the ambassadors to help move people past those challenges.”

With an Obama presidency apparently looming, McAllister stressed the importance of the African-American community not to become complacent. And Ivory believes that an Obama presidency could help strengthen the movement because it would force the party to examine itself and in turn, hopefully become more inclusive.

“There are some people who say a President Obama proves that affirmative-action is not needed. That’s the furthest thing from the truth. … We have black youths that are given up on in the third grade (in our public schools),” McCallister said, adding the fact that despite the growing number of black mayoral and gubernatorial leaders over the last 20 years, the issues in urban America remain the same. “He’s America’s president, not just black America’s president.”

Jerry Laguerre may be reached at TakingBackPolitics@gmail.com.

Nonsensical Hitchens Has Become a Joke

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

I remember the first time I read Christopher Hitchens. I wasn’t that old, maybe 13 or 14, but even at that young age I recall being dazzled by his command of the English language, his razor-sharp mind and the courage he demonstrated in unashamedly taking on society’s sacred cows – those institutions or individuals elevated to sainthood by popular culture for reasons often divorced from reality. Hitchens has dispatched Henry Kissinger and Mother Theresa with righteous ferocity during his career.

I had been bought up on a self-inflicted diet of George Orwell, and, as a kid, I remember wondering what it might be like to have a mind of Orwell’s caliber when talking about current events. Hitchens was not Orwell, but I trusted him in the same way, believed that he had an independent mind; that he would not lie if he knew the truth.

As an ex-pat British journalist now living in the United States, just like Hitchens, I still follow his career and writings with keen interest. He is now a big, bright star in the American media firmament, talking on endless chat shows and lending his writings on politics and literature to a host of august journals.

Back when I first started reading him Hitchens was on the left, but that wasn’t what attracted me to him. He used his journalism to take on the powers that be, whether they were left, right or center. He had a disdain for platitudes, for lazy narratives and baseless hearsay. He had written expertly on the criminal Turkish occupation of Cyprus, the subject of his first book; he penned acerbic polemics on the criminal U.S. war in Indochina; he vented against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Hitchens was never a bien-pensant on the left, however: he supported the Falklands War, and intermittently came out with shock positions that would offend his comrades. But even if you disagreed with him, you had to concede he was thinking for himself, and his equations had some equilibrium.

Hitchens is a different man now. His facile word skills are still there, his fearless attacks on venerated institutions, his quick mind, but he’s not serious like he was. His pronouncements make no sense and have no inherent logic. Instead of expressing rational thinking in cute phrases, he now, in the words of Norman Finkelstein, dresses up flatulence in bouquets.

I’ve been watching him during the 2008 election and his illogical and strange pronouncements have really been embarrassing to watch. It’s telling that the point when his political bearings went off-kilter was the same point when the establishment started to accept him with open arms. Now he is everywhere; you literally can’t turn on the TV without his brash private-schoolboy schtick in your face.

His position in the 2008 election is that you have to support Obama because, (a) John McCain is senile, for which Hitchens provides no evidence, apart from a few linguistic lapses, which are inevitable as the factor of speeches goes up on the campaign trail. And (b) Sarah Palin is a religious fanatic hostile to reason and science.

On (b) he is undoubtedly correct and any right-thinking person couldn’t disagree (probably she doesn’t even). But, wait. Hitchens himself voted for George W. Bush in 2004. Yes, the same president who doesn’t believe in evolution, wants creationism taught in schools, is against stem-cell research and acted like a zealot in the Terry Schiavo case. Doesn’t that qualify as religious fanaticism? Why does he suddenly care now about religious fanaticism when Bush’s pea-in-a-pod Sarah Palin is the vice presidential candidate?

The only reason I can think of is after supporting the Iraq war, he just doesn’t want to be caught on another sinking ship.

Just think about it. McCain is Hitchens ideological bedfellow:

(1) Hitchens says he used to be a single-issue voter on the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to the Western world. Well, McCain is probably even more hawkish than Bush (if possible) and wants to bomb Iran. Surely that would get Hitchens on board, especially as Barack Obama wants to – shock, horror! – talk to the leaders of Iran before bombing them.

(2) McCain, like Hitchens, had a religious fervor when supporting the war in Iraq and the surge. But Obama was against both.

(3) And Hitch, if religion is your problem, McCain is much less fanatical than Bush. Even McCain’s foreign policy is closer to Hitchens than Bush. Bush recently took the slave state North Korea off the terrorist list, against McCain’s wishes, and I’m assuming Hitchens’. Obama has said he would talk to Kim Jong-Il.

So Hitchens’ ideas are nowhere; he is scrambling to patch together his disintegrating platform and it shows. He has used Palin’s fanaticism – nothing worse than his previous favorite for top office, Bush – as an excuse to go against a presidential candidate who is actually in agreement with all his ideas. It’s cheap and see-through, but hey, this is Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens nowadays is even too dense to have an opinion on domestic policy. Nowhere does he comment on taxes, or health care; he just doesn’t care. Why? Well, foreign policy gives his ego full license to wander off on macho rants about murdering scum fascists, but you don’t get any of those primal screams on domestic policy because it’s not some abstract fantasy about Good and Evil, about democracy and fascism or any other puerile oppositions.

The descent of Hitchens into some fat joke, the risible and edgy plaything of the American right wing, has really been solidified by his weird performance in the 2008 election. Conservatives in the U.S. have expressed surprise at his about-face, and this is a perfectly legitimate emotion. Hitchens disgraced himself by backing Bush in 2004, but perhaps, worse now, he has now shown himself to have no spine, his faculties of clear thought and logic have been jettisoned in clear daylight by not backing McCain.

It’s not tragic though. Hitchens is good for a laugh. Watch him on a show and he will be arrogant and rude, he will make funny one-liners, he will give you all the good branding he has worked on so assiduously. But that’s what he is: a stand-up comic, not a political thinker.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

How ’Bout a Juicy McMac?; Celebs, Ads Don’t Sway Voters

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

What have we become when a vice presidential nominee has to make an appearance on Saturday Night Live two weeks before an election and a presidential candidate has to do a makeup appearance for getting on David Letterman’s bad side?

Why does David Letterman’s or any celebrity’s opinion matter to us? He can’t even beat out Leno, but scathing remarks after being stood up by a candidate causes a dip in the polls?

Celebrities don’t care about us. There are a few who are genuinely nice and care about mankind, blah, blah, blah. But most have had to step on the faces of rivals to get where they are and the most important thing to them is staying on top.

Have you ever stopped to think that the endorsing celebrity could have concerns about taxes, education or any number of issues in direct opposition to your own?

Let’s not forget that it’s also an issue of ego as well. Liberal celebrities have had it handed to them by the Bush administration for the last eight years. Their egos have been bruised because no matter how hard they’ve campaigned for the opposition or pointed out his obvious flaws, Ol’ Dubyah has kept right on truckin’. These self-important asses want to feel like they can actually have an effect on the direction of the country as much as, if not more than, they actually care about the well-being of the country.

As I watched Palin bobbing her head to the beat I wondered if Gerald Ford ever had to yuck it up with a few talking heads on some cheesy network morning show. I don’t recall Big Bush dropping by SNL and surprising Dana Carvey.

Just as I began to feel queasy over the thought that an appearance on late-night television could be a deciding factor in an election I realized something … that really hasn’t happened yet. Despite all the pulling and prodding by the media we always seem to elect whoever we want. Advertisements and appearances just serve as supplements to keep us interested until Election Day. I can’t think of a time in history when we’ve let outside opinions change our minds about candidates. Whoever you wanted to vote for when the nominations were accepted is probably the same person you want to vote for now.

Which makes me wonder, does any amount of campaigning ever change a person’s mind? We’re only interested in the evidence that supports the decision we’ve already made. We form our opinions based on the sum of our experience and don’t usually change our minds no matter how compelling the argument. So for now I have found some peace by convincing myself that people aren’t directed by the media when they cast their ballots.

So why was Palin on SNL this week?

I prefer Coke over Pepsi. The difference between the two is negligible, but I’m always choosing Coke. In my mind no amount of advertising is ever going to change that. That’s the point. Whenever I made my cola decision advertising played a big part in it. Now that I’ve picked my side it’s up to them to remind me of what a great choice I made. I want to back a winner and be affirmed that I’m a winner for making that choice as much as possible. I even go as far as to root for Coke to have better commercials and higher sales.

Of course no one is going to decide who to vote for because of a boat, but somewhere someone felt good about seeing it and said to themselves, “I haven’t seen any Obama sailboats out today.” The candidates need to keep reminding their supporters that they’ve made a good decision.

It’s our nature. We want our candidates to be superhuman. We want them to be the most amusing when telling jokes, the most eloquent when debating and the most intelligent when discussing policies. They do whatever they can to sustain that image. Whether it is charming late-night appearances, well-scripted commercials or kissing babies in minimalls. We will always love them for doing it.

Politicians know something that we don’t. In the end they are all just people like you and I. That’s why Palin can laugh off Tina Fey’s impression of her and kick it with Lorne backstage at 30 Rock. That’s how Obama and McCain can have a heated debate one night and act like a couple of open-micers the next. Most of us have this thought stuck in our heads that Democrats and Republicans are these two competing factions in an all or nothing battle for supremacy.

In reality, they’re no more different from each other then McDonald’s is from Burger King. Either way you’re still going to go get that delicious, fatty garbage in you. All elected officials have the same goals ― try to accomplish something positive and not get booted before you’re ready to go. They respect and relate to each other the same way employees at Mickey D’s relate to their contemporaries at BK.

They know we are as influenced by the image created around a candidate as we are by their actual accomplishments. Obama’s the smart, young, contemplative diplomat we need to unite the country and turn things around. McCain is the strong-willed, experienced, maverick that will buck the system and lead us to a better tomorrow. Big Mac, Whopper.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

Next Page »