Essentially Contested America

Tavis Smiley, PBS talk-show host and journalist, never impressed me as anything more than a pleasant man. Frankly, I could never sit through an entire episode of his show because Smiley seemed to lack any discernible substance. I’ve misjudged people before, but this time was a doozie. Recently, I watched “Real Time with Bill Maher” and Mr. Smiley was one of the guests. The topic of the conversation centered around the debacle in Iraq and the controversy over Senator Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Smiley eloquently pointed out the existence of an invidious double-standard regarding how we mercilessly condemn black provocateurs, yet show supererogatory tolerance toward white provocateurs. Specifically, he compared the media’s condemnation of Reverend Jeremiah Wright for some harsh, but true, remarks about America’s failings with Pat Buchanan’s “racially arsonist” comments urging African Americans to display the requisite degree of gratitude for being given the opportunity of living in America. How could people born into an African culture be anything but grateful for being kidnapped from their home and permitted to be slaves whose job it was to build America? Such ingratitude is mystifying.

That’s just the surface of Mr. Smiley’s insightful commentary. He also quoted Frederick Douglas remark “I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that
serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! I will not equivocate, I will not excuse; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, shall not confess to be right and just….” Smiley’s allusion to Douglas expresses a deep sense of “patriotism,” which can also be expressed as “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”Mr. Smiley’s patriotism is not the faux patriotism of flag-wavers; instead, his patriotism is the genuine article. We’re lucky to have Mr. Smiley on the cultural and political
scene and I promise never again to under-appreciate his thoughtful, perceptive insight into American history and political culture.

I’d love to display the video of Mr. Smiley’s magnificent performance on Maher’s show, but alas the following video will have to be sufficient.

This guy is dynamite. That Obama guy is pretty good too.

Check out Maureen Dowd’s column this week speculating on the reason Hillary’s remains in a campaign she can’t win: “Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill–which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight–is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain. . . . If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65. . . . Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic–and attended by more static–than McCain? . . . Why else
would Phil Singer, a Hillary spokesman, say in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday that Obama was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. [sic] ‘When it comes to voting, Senator Obama has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of nope,’ he said, adding, ‘There’s a basic reality here, which is we could have avoided the entire George W. Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida.’ So is Singer making the case that Obama is as anti-democratic as W. was when he snatched Florida from Al Gore?” For the entire article click here.

No one seems to challenge Clinton and her Clintonistas for insisting the votes in Florida and Michigan be counted. Why doesn’t Ms. Clinton play by the Party rules? Does her inability to adhere to these rules suggest that she will be challenged, as president, in following the rule of law? One may not like the Democratic Party’s rules concerning states that conducted primaries earlier than the DNC permitted, but Ms. Clinton certainly knew about the DNC’s decision. Would she be as insistent about “the votes counting” had she lost Forida and Michigan? Ms. Clinton’s disdain for the DNC’s decisions reveals that electing Hillary might be “Bush’s Third Term.”

In a recent column, Stanley Fish argues that it is nonsense to believe that the recent flap over the role of superdelegates in choosing a Democratic candidate for president includes ethical considerations at all. Just as the purpose of the Electoral College is countermajoritarian, so too is the purpose of Democratic superdelegates. Hence, superdelegates should not feel bound to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. This defense of Democratic superdelegates is true but splendidly irrelevant to whether there are ethical issues that arise over the choice of the superdelegates. Only if knowledge of their purpose were widely disseminated would Fish’s argument have even a slender thread of plausibility. That was not the case. Vast numbers of Democrats had no idea that their vote could be overturned by a practice similar to, yet also significantly different from, the Electoral College’s purpose in presidential elections. Had ordinary voters, such as myself, known about the existence and purpose of superdelegates, they would have the choice to vote and therefore they should be committed to the Party rules as Fish insists or to not vote in the Democratic primary at all. (Had I known this was the choice I would not have voted in the Democratic primary. Indeed, had I known about the existence of the superdelegates, I would never vote in the Democratic Party primary again. Party bosses dominating the nominating process indeed. Shades of Tammany Hall.) Hence, unless a case can be made that any voter in the Democratic primary should have known of the existence and purpose of superdelegates, Fish’s argument fails dangerously. The very idea that the Democratic Party’s rules for selecting a presidential candidate reflect the constitutional requirement of an Electoral College could easily lead to the dissolution of the Democratic Party. Even so, there is an enormous difference between the Electoral College and superdelegates. Members of the Electoral College, in most states, are free, in principle, to cast their votes for the candidate they deem better for the country, but they are elected for that purpose by the people. Superdelegates are never subject to election of any kind. This renders them more like the unelected justices on the Supreme Court than elected Senators who can block legislation initiated by the representatives of the people in the House. Who could ever imagine a president being selected by the Supreme Court? Why the very idea is inconceivable.
Professor Fish is too savvy an observer to offer the argument that despite the Party’s adoption of superdelegates only recently (1982, I think), and despite the Party’s failure to ever conscientiously publicize the existence and purpose of Democratic superdelegates, no grounds exist for ethically challenging this august body’s right
to vote for whomever it sees fit. But, of course, such grounds exist. First, reliance interests and the reasonable expectation that one’s choice of candidate will prevail if one is in the majority, precludes granting any normative status to the role of superdelegates. Second, pulling the superdelegate rabbit from the Democratic Party’s hat can bring ruin on the Party.
Moreover, even if Fish is right, there’s no problem for ordinary Democrats to urge
superdelegates, on moral grounds, if not according to the Party’s rules, to endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Indeed, if the purpose of superdelegates is to provide Party bosses with the authority to broker nominations, in the hope of determining the “better” candidate for the Party, then following the pledged delegate vote might be prudentially and morally required. One can argue that the candidate chosen by a majority of pledged delegates has a much better chance to prevail in the general elections. And not following this choice might stimulate a vast exodus from the Democratic Party. Stanley Fish, once again, seems more intent on provocation than on thoughtful political commentary.

Credit for Image

Check out a recent article at TomPaine.com on the death of Conservatism. Here’s the introduction: “Modern conservatism is dying. There’s still an electionto be held, but conservatism as we’ve known it since Ronald Reagan is failing–ground down in the desert of Iraq, drowned in the floods of Hurricane Katrina, foreclosed by the housing crisis and poisoned by toys imported from China. . . . The American people are figuring this out. While conservatives repeat their time-worn slogans–’small government, low taxes, high security’–the American people are living the consequences. . . . We’ve seen eight years of a conservative presidency, six years overlapping with a conservative Congress, and 30 years of broadly conservative ideology. Now reality is showing how the values embodied in those slogans have been betrayed. . . . Conservatives say “shrink government.” We get inadequate levees, exploding steam pipes and schools without textbooks. Conservatives say ‘deregulate,’ and now Thomas the Tank Engine is painted with toxic lead. Conservatives say ‘low taxes,’ but it primarily applies to millionaires, billionaires and crony corporations. . . . What follows is a history of these problems, and the direction people want to go instead.” For the complete article click here.

However, unless the offspring of Reagan conservatism–neoconservatism– dies also, liberation is incomplete. Economic conservatism rests on the shibboleth that when the wealthy accumulate more wealth, everyone
benefits. Wow! Over the last several years the gap between the wealthy and the poor has expanded exponentially. So much for that virtue. Economic conservatism also rejects regulation because it inhibits efficiency and growth. Tell that to people injured by a collapsing infrastructure, poisonous food, or products made with dangerous
ingredients. Neo-conservatism champions imposing “democracy” on other nations through the barrel of a gun. The debacle in Iraq, which seems to be on the brink of another surge in violence, can be laid at the doorstep of these miscreants. Oh yes, neo-conservatives give short shrift both to sustaining democracy here at home and the
egalitarianism that makes democracy possible.

Bill Clinton once again revealed his treacherous dark side by his speculation about a possible presidential raceSenator John McCain and Clinton’s wife Hillary: “I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people “who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. . . . . And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.” What implication do these remarks have? There are three prominent candidates for president. Mr. Clinton points to two and claims that they love America. What about the third? That he too loves America? Clinton’s eloquence and smarts precludes any interpretation of his remarks other than as an attempt to denigrate Senator Barack Obama for not loving America. The former president, and morally-challenged “super star,” is insinuating that Obama does not love America because he hangs out with the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and because is married to a woman who has doubts about the moral integrity of the ruling elites in American politics. Let’s be clear on what patriotism and love of country means. It is a dedication to the ideals of this great nation and a sense of duty requiring sacrifice for the nation’s authentic interests. It is not the knee-jerk support of or rhapsodizing about American leaders or every political era in American history. (Are you listening Pat Buchanan?)

General Merrill A. McPeak, Obama’s co-chair reacted to these scurrilous remarks by saying “I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors so I’ve had enough of it.” How else can Mr. Clinton’s remarks be interpreted? This is the kind of sleaze that many principled Republicans already saw clearly in Bill Clinton. Only now Democrats are coming to the same conclusion. Is it too late for these Democrats to get back their votes for Mr. Clinton in the presidential elections of 1992 and 1996? Mr. Clinton once again demonstrates that he is one of the nastiest pit vipers to take the stage in American politics in decades.

Credit for Image between

Senator Obama wants to transform the subject of race from a symbol of anger, hatred, and divisiveness into a legitimate subject of examination with the ultimate goal of bringing us closer together. Unlike previous black leaders, Senator Obama wants to temper the rhetoric, put aside the recriminations, and stop shouting at one another. He believes race is an important, complex and frightening subject, but not one from which we should hide. And now Obama finds himself in the throes of controversy. The controversy arose over what some regard as incendiary remarks by Senator Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright These remarks generating just the kind of anger, hate, and divisiveness Senator Obama hopes to transcend. Reverend Wright has placed white males at the center of our racially-tormented past. He is angry at an America that tolerated racial apartheid too long and with too much encouragement and too much indifference. Some of his more vitriolic remarks have caused brush fires around Obama’s campaign. Consider Senator Obama’s attempt to put out these campaign fires. “‘The comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country” that we’ve never really worked through–a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education or the need to find good jobs for every American’”? For more click here. For the entire speech click here.

How do we work these issues through? Race, unfortunately, is responsible for the content and structure of the United States Constitution. It pervades both our social and moral environments. Slavery and Jim Crow segregation existed and defined America for many more decades than the “freedom” and “equality” African Americans now formally possess. Still today, many whites cannot appreciate why the American community might owe African Americans compensation. The problem is not that these individuals must agree with the proposition that affirmative action, reparations, or some other form of compensation is morally required. The complaint is that these individuals cannot even entertain the possibility of compensation or that the American community owes anything at all to African Americans. Instead, they denigrate race-conscious admissions programs as “reverse discrimination.” Even Americans who know better utter such banalities as “the only way to move past race is to move past race.” (Chief Justice John Roberts). Bravo! Author! We should just will racial factors away. Someone will necessarily pay for our tragic racial history. Should innocent blacks pay or innocent whites? Or both?

Perhaps, Obama’s point is that perseverating over this sort of battle gets us nowhere. We must instead begin a process, the first step of which is acknowledging that prejudice exists in even those people we love, even
perhaps in ourselves. Consider the Senator’s reply to the question of whether he should have disowned Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who has in the past made some harsh comments about white men. ‘I can
no more disown him than I can disown the black community,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother–a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

In this passage Obama reveals himself as mirroring the racial contradictions in all of us; indeed, these racial contradictions are embedded in the soul of America. He does this without anger, but rather with the honesty and sincerity of someone who, by force of character, resists the negative hold racial impressions have on black people such as Reverend Wright. This is not to judge Reverend Wright. I cannot imagine an individual of his era not experiencing the sharp sword of anger, sheathed but always present. Obama recognizes this anger, but insists it must be overcome. Keep what it teaches us alive, but nevertheless resist its power to draw all of us down into the mire of racial division. I’m not sure I agree with Obama that it’s time to let go of the justifiable rage some African Americans feel toward their century old oppression, but it is revivifying to watch and listen to someone who does, and it is exhilarating to contemplate that this same person may become the next president of the United States.

But the beat goes on. Rather than appreciate the moral sophistication of Senator’s Obama’s speech, the political shoutocrats such as Pat Buchanan continue the vitriol. This conservative pundit spat out his anger at Reverend Wright’s remark “Damn America” as “disgusting.” How could Barack have spent twenty years in the church and listened to his pastor spew forth such venom? Indeed, from Buchanan’s perspective it would seem that Reverend
Wright made no comments during his relationship with Obama other than vile, divisive, anti-American obscenities. Buchanan’s response is precisely the response Obama wants America to try to see beyond. We can and do react passionately to sights and sounds that push our buttons, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be self-reflective and subject our impulses to the same scrutiny that Buchanan and others are insisting Obama should have subjected Reverend Wright’s passions. And Senator Obama did subject the offending remarks to scrutiny and rejected them. But he chose not to damn the friend, especially, a spiritual “friend,” only his friend’s excesses. How can we aspire to civility even in the face of incivility when our reactions to excess are themselves excessive? (This, of course, assumes that Buchanan’s reaction was sincere and not just a charade for hurting the chances of the first presidential candidate in decades who is committed to thoughtfulness in civic discourse.) That said, Buchanan’s reaction might also be the result of ignorance of Baptist sermons. Go to approximately 3:30 minutes in the following video to hear Governor Huckabee’s defense of Obama.

Additionally, consider the remarks of one of America’s most distinguished, white–must that be mentioned–theologian, Martin Marty: “‘The big thing for Wright is hope,’ said Martin Marty . . . who has known the Rev. Wright for 35 years and attended many of his services. ‘You hear “hope, hope, hope.” Lots of ordinary people are there, and they’re there not to blast the whites. They’re there to get hope. Professor Marty said that as a white person, he sticks out in the largely black congregation but is always greeted with warmth and hospitality. It’s not anti-white,’ he said. ‘I don’t know anybody who’s white who walks out of there not feeling affirmed.’We have the following choice: We can retain the same raucous political street fighting, denigrating one another, and the candidates we oppose, or listen to the better angels of our nature and begin to transform civic discourse so that we can change our opponents’ status from enemy to adversary. We should try to understand others, not necessarily to forgive them, but to appreciate the origin of their anger and hate. Most important we should apply to others the forgiving attitude we typically apply to ourselves, and apply to ourselves the judgmental attitude we typically apply to others. Only by becoming more critical of our own passions, intentions, and conduct and
less judgmental of others will Obama’s vision of our common purpose be made possible.But there are extraordinary forces for whom gutter politics is desirable because their interests thrive in a
fractionated America. Is it possible to follow Obama out of the gutter toward a public square where we can deliberate with one another according to a civility that recognizes our “enemies” face reflecting in our own? Can we construct a process through which we can identify our weaknesses, biases, and fear of change in order to create a civic discourse aimed at enlisting everyone in purging America of her sins and shining the light of hope on the future? Any authentic patriot must be committed to American ideals of political community, but it is the faux patriot who thinks we’ve already instantiated those ideals in contemporary America. Obama’s patriotism is authentic and he wants to re-invigorate our pursuit America’s great ideals and expand the community to which they apply.

Every American should reflect on the past five years of lying promises about the eventual victory in Iraq and transformation of the Mideast. Why dwell on the past? The answer is simple. If you don’t understand the past you are incapable of intelligently approaching the future. The IPS has this article assessing our conduct in Iraq: “Devastation on the ground and largely held Iraqi opinion contradicts claims by U.S. officials that the situation in Iraq has “improved towards the fifth
anniversary of the invasion Mar. 20. . . . U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, during a surprise visit to Iraq on Monday declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a “successful endeavour”. . . . According to the group Just Foreign Policy, more than a million Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion and occupation, now entering its sixth year. A survey by British polling agency ORB estimates the number of dead at more than 1.2 million. . . . Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz recently published a book with co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University titled ‘The Three Trillion
Dollar War’, a figure it considers a “conservative estimate” of the long-range price tag of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. . . . The authors say the Bush administration has repeatedly “low-balled” the cost of the war, and has kept a set of records hidden from the U.S. public. . . . According to the U.S. Department of Defence, close to 4,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed. The number of British casualties is 175. . . . “The war in Iraq has been one of the most disastrous wars ever fought by Britain,” journalist Patrick Cockburn of London’s Independent Newspaper wrote Mar. 17. “It will stand with Crimea and the Boer War as conflicts which could have been avoided, and were demonstrations of incompetence from start to finish.” . . . According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, more than four million Iraqis are displaced from their homes, with roughly half of them outside of the country. . . . The Iraqi Red Crescent estimates that one in every four residents of Baghdad, a city of six million, is displaced from home.” For the entire article click here. Also valuable is Juan Cole’s piece here.

[Added 9:26 AM] Yet, Mr. bush’s arrogance and audacity knows no limits. Here are some of his anniversary remarks: “‘The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable, yet some in Washington still call for retreat. . . . War critics tcan no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue he war costs too much. In recent months, we have heard exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war. . . . No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq,’ Mr. Bush said.” Of course, these necessary are paid by others–the fruit of the American republic and the people of Iraq. Our constitutional systems requires some serious tinkering to prevent such costs being imposed in the future.

[Added 12:49 PM] Mr. Bush continues his dastardly rationalization for the debacle in Iraq with these remarks: “The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage the battle in Iraq will end in victory.” It’s difficult to appreciate how our misadventure in Iraq can be called “noble” or “just.” Perhaps, it is naive to be surprised at these remarks. Only last last week, Mr. bush’s called the war in Afghanistan “romantic.” Mr. Bush’s privileged experience in America–a long with his own defects of character–have caused him to be morally obtuse and insensitive. After all, he is never the one who has to sacrifice for the “noble” and “just” virtues he forces other to pursue. He will never appreciate the depth of his wrongdoing; nor pay the price for being absolutely the worst and most harmful president–wounding both the spirit of American constitutionalism and the fabric of our politics–in American history.

Credit for First Image
Credit for Second Image
Credit for Third Image

Patriotic American soldiers are voicing their opposition to the Iraq war: “US veterans and active-duty soldiers on Thursday kicked off an event in Washington to protest the war in Iraq, urging other members of the military to join them in speaking out against the conflict. . . . ‘ It’s an upswell of disgust and disapproval for the Iraq war in the military,’ intelligence sergeant Selena Coppa told AFP at the launch of the four-day Winter Soldier’ event. . . . ‘The difficulty is letting them realize they are legally entitled to speak out about it, other than to service members,’ added Coppa, who is still on active duty in the US army. . . . Camilo Mejia, the first conscientious objector to the Iraq war, went a step further. ‘I want our servicemen and women to know that standing up to an immoral occupation is not only their right but also their duty to their country and humanity,’ he told reporters. . . . ‘My first mission in Iraq was to run a prisoner of war camp where we used sensory and sleep deprivation techniques prior to interrogation,’ he recounted at the opening news conference, which was heavy with foreign correspondents but light on US media. . . . Mejia was court martialled for refusing to redeploy to his unit after two weeks’ leave, and spent nine months in a military jail. . . . Now the chairman of the board of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), which has organized the four-day gathering, Mejia spoke of a groundswell of resistance within the US military to the war in Iraq, which will enter its sixth year later this month. . . . ‘Servicemen and women are refusing en masse to participate in this war. I have seen a rapid and inevitable growth of dissent within our ranks,’ he said.” For more click here.

With the fifth anniversary of our invasion of Iraq–five years of deceit and failure–soon upon us, aside from the thirst for peace, there’s a terrible desire to see Mr. Bush punished for his malevolence, insensitivity, and incompetence. Mr. Bush is morally stunted and thousands of young Americans, one million Iraqis, and a wreaked economy must pay the price. Pink, observing the moral depravity of the president, wrote this song:

Hyperbole? Sophomoric? Perhaps. But the moral vacancy at the helm of American government for the past seven years persists like a black hole in the delicate fabric of American life. Sometimes the sophomoric lyrics of a young singer can capture moral debility better than sophisticates waxing eloquent. Such is the case with Pink’s “Dear Mr. President.”

Only a present who utterly lacks a moral core could say: “‘I must say, I’m a little envious,’ Bush said. ‘If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. . . . It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks,’ Bush said.” What’s wrong with the American system of presidential selection that permits such a morally obtuse individual from attaining the highest office in the nation?

Credit for Image

Without denouncing the type of “reasoning” Ms. Ferraro employed, Senator Clinton does irreparable damage to her campaign, to the Democratic Party, and what’s worse she contributes to American apartheid at the highest level of political office in the nation. Samantha Powers quickly resigned from Senator Obama’s campaign after injudiciously calling Senator Clinton a “monster.” Ms. Powers offered a gracious and classy apology to Ms. Clinton. Will the Clinton campaign return the favor with regard to the outrageous remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, the first women to run for the Vice-Presidency on a major political party? Here’s what Ms. Ferraro, who is also a member of Senator Clinton’s campaign finance committee, said: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept. . . . . Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. . . . I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.” I think we know her. She is just one of the millions of ordinary introspectively-challenged people who categorize individuals according to stereotypes while ignoring those individuals unique characteristic. She is, in a word, “racist,” pure and simple. Could we say that the only reason she was chosen as Senator Mondale’s running mate was because she is a woman? The only explanation why she doesn’t realize that she’s a racist is that she hides her racism from herself. She believes erroneously that simply because she opposed Jim Crow segregation, she cannot be a racist just as many who opposed slavery believed that they could not be racist. Such denial fails to apprehend the insidious, multi-leveled character of American racism.

In Ferraro’s view, Mr. Obama’s talents have nothing to do with his success; it’s only his blackness. This is tantamount to saying Ms. Clinton’s success has nothing to do with her talents, only her victimization by a philandering spouse who happened to be the president of the United States. Or that George W. Bush’s ascendancy in national politics is due only to the fact that his father was President. Or that JFK became president only because his father was a heavy hitting politician. The point here is that there are all sorts of special circumstances, accidents of birth, if you will, that assist people to become prominent politicians. Yet, Ms. Ferraro singles out race only.

Senator Clinton needs to repudiate Ms. Ferraro in the strongest possible terms. She should also instruct are staff to bury the race card. It’s not good enough to disagree with Ms. Ferraro’s remarks or even to fire her. She must publically condemn Ferraro and reject the type of “reasoning” Ms. Ferraro employed. What’s needed is a public condemnation Ms. Ferraro’s reckless generalizations and a promise to the American people to extirpate such rhetoric from her campaign.

Listen to Keith Olbermann’s advice to Ms. Clinton:

Without vigorously denouncing the type of “reasoning” Ms. Ferraro employed, Senator Clinton does irreparable damage to her campaign, to the Democratic Party, and what’s infinitely worse she contributes to American apartheid at the highest level of political office in the nation.

Pundits often insist that the Iraq War rages because Bush-Cheney has cynically asked the average American to sacrifice nothing in the war effort. There’s no draft; no higher taxes. Perhaps that’s right, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Bush-Cheney perpetuates a stealth redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich in the military attempt to control of oil. Consequently, the Iraq war hurts ordinary Americans, though most cannot quite detect how. Watch the video below for a vivid portrayal of the stealth taxing scheme that misappropriates American tax dollars which should be spent on improving the infrastructure, education, health care, fighting environmental degradation, and so forth.

In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned Americans about the military-industrial complex’ potentiality for changing the essential nature of the American republic. Perhaps his warning was too late, or perhaps we failed to take heed. But President Eisenhower was precisely right. What’s more, an unconstrained corporate structure defining electoral politics and controlling the military is transforming our republic from one where the electorate can occasionally influence the governing elites to one in which corporate governance–of the United States, that is–has free reign to do what it wants domestically and internationally just so long as it doesn’t interfere with conspicuous consumption, the Super Bowl, and other opiates of the electorates. American democracy exists in name only.