Lynette Long

THERE ARE NO LIMITS!

The Audacity of Audacity

The Audacity of Audacity

Olivia Taylor-Young

On my office wall was once a picture John Edwards and me. Taken at a 2004 rally, I was standing next to -- and loudly cheering -- the then Vice Presidential candidate. My husband loves that picture. He claims, because it portrays happy enthusiasm, that it’s quintessentially me. But I wonder if he secretly thinks that’s because, as usual, my mouth was open.

Ordinarily the photo would have remained in our Rogue’s Gallery. After all, win or lose, it’s part of our history. Not this year. On the day -- and because of the method -- Senator Edwards endorsed Barack Obama, I took that picture down.

There is a vast difference between disappointment and disgust. Of course Edwards endorsement was a disappointment. But it’s a free country and people can agree to disagree. Edwards did not just endorse Obama, however, he endorsed misogyny... and that’s why I jettisoned his picture. He ignored, thus tacitly approved of, the media’s unyielding assaults on Hillary. Then, he fawningly referred to Obama as "That MAN" so many times, I was sure someone had declared it National Testosterone Day …and that I had missed the memo.

Now it all makes sense. It seemed incomprehensible that a man who’d declared himself neutral, and whose terminally ill wife was endorsing the architect of Universal Health Care, would suddenly go against his own word…and in such an egregious manner. Now, for Elizabeth’s sake and their children’s sake, I wish the Senator’s word about political commitments was the only thing he betrayed.

Again though, now it all makes sense. Edwards’ self serving, ‘I’m the victim’ confession of his "liaison" blames it on his public persona having turned him into someone who became increasingly "egocentric and narcissistic." Ok, I’ll buy his being egocentric and narcissistic. And add that no wonder he endorsed Obama. They are soul mates, brothers of the heart.

What I can’t buy is his upbraiding of the media for picking on him, or that they’re responsible for his or anyone else’s narcissism. Reprehensible as the media behaves, it was Edwards’ ego that drank his own Kool Aid… there is no one else to blame. In People of the Lie, author Scott Peck wrote of people who lie, blame, make excuses and attack others instead of facing their own failures. "Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach," Peck wrote, "they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self image of perfection." Sound familiar? Sounds like Edwards’ confession. And sounds like the Obama campaign as well.

Barack would be wise to take notice of Peck’s words. And learn from them. If he considers himself above reproach, he’s in for a rude awakening. Although he and his campaign have made it clear that both my opinion and my vote are expendable, I’ll offer my opinion regardless.

Senator Obama, when you lose, do not blame the media. Or racism. Or anyone but yourself. Meanwhile, take a page from Senator Edwards’ playbook. No, not the ego-centric, narcissism page...the one that deals with its consequences:

(1.) Arrogance is not self-sustaining; and over the long haul, will just not cut it.

(2.) Stop believing your own spin doctors.

3. Instead of behaving akin to the second coming, realize that in life on earth in this day and age, it’s the media who has the power to giveth and taketh away.

Need proof of this advice’s validity, Senator? Look back a dozen or so years. Remember Newt the Speaker...who was greeted by a shamefully screaming, adoring , practically genuflecting Congress as Newt, Newt, Newt ? And remember how quickly Newt the Savior became Newt the sap?

Ginrich’s critics rightly insist his attitude did him in. Yes, the man’s demeanor was arrogant, his Contract With America a shell game, his ethics appalling and, like you, Senator Obama, his media-driven adoration had little to do with reality but instead had it roots in the trashing of a Clinton. In Newt’s case, the press initially behaved as if this member of the U.S. Congress was our Divinely chosen Czar. In your case, ditto the divine, forget the Czar. Granted, in both cases, it’s hard to be humble if one is being worshipped. Yet both of you have (or had) been around long enough to appreciate -- first hand -- that bloodsport begets better ratings than adoration. Both of you know (or should have known) better than to believe what you read in the papers or view on CNN.

No public servant belongs on a pedestal to begin with. Hence, just as Newt should have known his popularity plummet was inevitable…Senator Obama, so should you take heed.

So, too, should you and your minions take heed that lashing out with charges of racism at every opposing opinion, or at every supporter of a different candidate, is also a tactic doomed to failure. We refuse to dignify that specious charge, just as others will in the future.

Senator Obama, contemptibly adroit as you have been at twisting truths beyond recognition, and making those who dare defy you end up with egg on their faces, you’re going to run out of people to accuse…and the face wearing the eggs will be yours.

Welcome to Denver!

The CEO of the DNC Convention is a Pentecostal Preacher…. of Black Liberation Theology    by Paula Abeles

In April 2007, Howard Dean announced that the DNC’s current Chief of Staff, Leah Daughtry would assume the onerous responsibility of organizing the 2008 Democratic convention.

"We are thrilled to have Leah Daughtry leading our 2008 Democratic Convention team,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Her strong guidance, skilled leadership and counsel have been invaluable to me during my tenure as DNC Chair and to the Democratic Party as a whole. I am confident that Leah will play a key role in the success of this important event that will help us elect the next Democratic President of the United States.”[1]

Prior to her appointment, Ms. Daughtry was managing the day-to-day strategy and national operations in addition to serving as Outreach Coordinator to “the DNC’s faith communities”. Ms. Daughtry is undeniably qualified. Prior to her position with the DNC

“Daughtry held various senior posts at the United States Department of Labor during the Clinton Administration, including Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Chief of Staff, and lastly, Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, with oversight for the development of the Department’s management programs and policies, including responsibility for the Department’s $35 billion budget.”[2] according to the DNC.

However, a recent article in the New York Times by Daniel Bergner sheds some additional light on Ms. Daughtry. For when she is not providing her friend Donna Brazile with biblical quotations for speeches, Ms. Daughtry who was raised “according to a strict religious code that forbids females to wear pants, lipstick or makeup” is a Pentecostal Preacher who espouses James Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.

“Behind her as she preached, a simple wooden cross hung on a brick wall in the vaulted and sizable sanctuary of the church, which is headed by her father, Herbert Daughtry. A prison convert who served time in his early 20s for armed robbery and passing bad checks, Herbert Daughtry — whose father founded the church and whose grandfather and great-grandfather were also ministers — became the church’s pastor 50 years ago, and today Leah was delivering the sermon as part of an anniversary celebration. Below the sanctuary, in the fellowship hall, a banner for slavery reparations proclaimed, “They Owe Us.” Fliers recounted Herbert Daughtry’s arrest, a few weeks earlier, as he led marchers protesting the not-guilty verdict in the police killing of Sean Bell, an unarmed black man. His ministry has always combined consuming spirituality with black liberation theology — the theology Jeremiah Wright invoked this spring to defend his controversial sermons — and zealous political activism. Leah holds these forces within her.”[3]

“Daughtry didn’t want to comment on the sudden distance Obama put between himself and his pastor, except to say that it pained her to see such a meaningful and private relationship come to such a public and distorted end. But she didn’t put any distance between herself and Cone’s book “A Black Theology of Liberation,” which she suggested I read and which relies on the words of Malcolm X to make its religious arguments. “Some may find it disconcerting,” she replied, when I asked if she feared driving away voters by standing behind ideas that could be deemed radical. “But they are far outnumbered by Americans who are concerned about the disparities. At the basis of black liberation theology is the understanding that God has a special place in His heart for those at the bottom of the ladder.” All colors are clinging there, she said, and went on to talk about the hegemony of corporations, the oppression of the people. “The right of self-determination is the concern. If I do all the right things, I will live a full and abundant life — this should be true. But it’s not. Something’s wrong with the equation. Americans may not call this liberation theology, but they have the sense that things aren’t fair.”[4]

In fact, anyone who has read James Cone’s texts knows that Ms. Daughtry’s statement that “…all colors are clinging there” is a complete mischaracterization of the fundamental underlying principles of Black Liberation Theology. Far from being a message of inclusiveness and love—it is a divisive message of acrimony and hate. Here’s an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal piece “Obama and His ‘White Grandmother by James Taranto:

“Here again is Cone's description of black liberation theology:  “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community . . .. Black theology will accept only the love of God, which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”[5]

DNC Chair Howard Dean has nothing but praise for Ms. Daughtry, particularly noting: “Her strong guidance, skilled leadership and counsel have been invaluable to me during my tenure as DNC Chair and to the Democratic Party as a whole.”[6]

Meanwhile, Leah Daughtry as bigger fish to fry:

“The drums and the electronic organ, along with an electronic keyboard, reached a thrilling clamor. Her acceptance of God’s call to lead, to make herself visible and to make herself heard, converged with her commitment to liberation theology, as she exhorted herself and the congregation: “I am on the rise! I am the power and not the pig! I am on the rise! I am the master and not the mastered! I am on the rise!” Her voice seemed to hold no doubt that she was carrying out God’s plan. “I am on the rise! I am on the rise! I am on the rise!”[7]

Copyright 2008

---

[1] “Democratic National Committee Announces Leah Daughtry as CEO for Denver 2008 Convention” 

April 20, 2007    http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/04/democratic_nati_21.php

[2] Ibid

[3] “Can Leah Daughtry Bring Faith to the Democratic Party?”

By Daniel Bergner July 20, 2008         New York Times

[4] Ibid, New York Times, July 20, 2008

[5] “Obama and His ‘White Grandmother’” by James Taranto, March 18, 2008 Wall Street Journal

[6] Idid, DNC Press Release  April 20, 2007

[7] Ibid, New York Times July 20, 2008

TO CALL OR NOT TO CALL? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Following the dictates of Howard Dean and David Axelrod, the cable pundits are gearing up for the weekend and another orgy of Clinton bashing.  How NASTY of Senator Clinton to even think of having her name placed in nomination. I watched five minutes of CNN yesterday and one pundit called Hillary a polterguist and the other a character from fatal attraction with a rabbit boiling in the pot.Witch. Get over it.  It reminded me of the primary and I had an attack of PTSD all over again. Sore loser. Whiner. Obama beat her "fair and square."  A bunch of bitter old women just won't give up. She is destroying the party. How DARE she!  Raising the conciousness of pundits is not going to be easy.  Someone needs to stand behind them with a cow prod for behavior modification training. I'm happy to buy the cow prods after the convention, but now we need to focus on getting Hillary's name in nomination.  Let's look at history.

1980:
Jimmy Carter - 1981 delegates
Ted Kennedy - 1225 delegates
Uncommitted - 122
No way Kennedy could win, but his name was placed in nomination.


2004:
John Kerry: 2192.5 Pledged delegates 
Howard Dean: 114.5 Pledged delegates 
Dean had already dropped out with no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.

2008:
Barack Obama: 1766.5 Pledged delegates 
Hillary Clinton: 1639.5 Pledged delegates 
The contender is being told to shut up for the sake of the party.


In addition, Teddy Kennedy has had his name on that first ballot in 1968 (12 votes), 1972 (12 votes), 1976 (1 vote), 1980 (1150 - he lost some supporters along the way).

Jesse Jackson has had his name on that first ballot twice: 1984 (465 votes), 1988 (1218 votes).


Why then is Dean so determined to keep Clinton off that ballot?

Simple. Chairman Dean steered the nomination to Obama. He appointed a third of the members of both the Rules & Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee. The other members of these committees were appointed by the Executive Committee, whose membership is not publicly disclosed. These committees effectively determined the outcome of the nomination. He led the calls - subtly - for Clinton to quit as early as February, assisted by Brazile.  Pelosi used her PAC to "persuade" the new members on congress who are superdelegates to endorse Obama.  The rank-and-file Democrats  haven't a clue how it happened and the media has not done its homework.

SUBSTITUTING ONE ISM FOR ANOTHER!

Olivia Taylor-Young

In the early days of Watergate, the discovery of fraud came from the top down. Woodward, Bernstein and the Washington Post’s editorial board were like voices in the wilderness…and it took a long time for a skeptical, unbelieving American public to take them seriously. Today, the outcry comes from the ground up. In spite of skepticism, outright dismissal and some vicious name calling, the voices in the wilderness already number in the millions and their groundswell increases by the day.

As I write this, it has been exactly two months since the Rules Committee debacle. Yes, only two months ago PUMA meant either a large animal or a pair of tennis shoes and myriads of protest websites were non-existent. Look what a few weeks have accomplished.

That’s why, although I vacillate between despair and guarded optimism, I end up feeling hopeful. I can’t predict when it will happen, but I’m convinced that, in time, Democrats will demand to know how their party’s leaders could have been so reckless, why they behaved so egregiously and that the investigation follows the chain of command to wherever it may lead.

I pray that time is sooner rather than later. No matter long or how many setbacks it takes, however, the forces to make it happen are not going away. Meanwhile, we want our country back and we want our party back. Otherwise, since both have become unrecognizable, the dilemma remains. If we manage to get the country out of the hands of the Bush gang only to put it into the hands of a party that openly disenfranchises it's voters and closes its eyes to misogyny... what have we gained?

Ah…that terrible word misogyny. The ugly, unshackled sexism which was shamelessly peddled by the US media and eagerly embraced by democratic leadership and the Obama campaign. I’m certain history will depict the 2008 nomination process as one of America’s ugly intermittent episodes of collective craziness…when the inmates took over the asylum. The overall intent was to prevent the first major female candidate from actually becoming president. The methodology employed was simple:

1. Manipulate every political criticism of Obama as racist in intent.
2. Instill fear of widespread racial tension if the candidacy of the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history was thwarted.

PAC TO THE FUTURE

Nancy Pelosi's Leadership Pac, PAC to the Future, may be about the future but it sent the Democratic Party back decades. Pelosi's Pac along with BRIDGE PAC operated by James Clyburn the Democratic Congressman from South Carolina, who accused Bill Clinton of being a racist, both contributed to the campaigns of Freshman members of congress and encouraged them to endorse Obama.  Obama's HOPE FUND, THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC and THE NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION, also targeted these same new members of congress.  Consider the most frequent contribution from each of these PAC's is $10K and we are talking some pretty hefty sums.  These freshmen voted overwhelmingly for Obama, even when their states and districts voted for Clinton.  What would make a vulnerable member of congress go against the will of the voters and be subject to additional voter scurtinity.  Campaing money and pressure from party insiders. PAC's run by senators are exempt from saying who they distribute money to, so it's not easy to track but I'd bet that Kennedy, Kerry, and others all encouraged these vulnerable members to endorse their "boy."  Stay tuned.  This is just an overview.  Video in the works and more details to follow.

MAUREEN DOWD AND THE CRISIS OF "SORE WINNERS"

by Amy Siskind

I coach young children in team sports.  I teach them that there are two important life lessons which you will learn playing sports.  One is the notion of “teamwork” – working with and depending on others.  The second lesson is that in each game there is a winning team and a losing team.   When you walk off the field or the court, act with grace and dignity whatever the outcome. 

Maureen Dowd’s coach missed the second lesson.   Apparently, many of Senator Obama’s other surrogates seem to have missed out on this life lesson as well.

We all have our struggles in life.  We have good times and bad. We do things that we later regret.  We make mistakes. 

But there is one thing that cannot be forgiven – the hubris that comes along with being a sore winner.

I have been at a loss since Senator Clinton suspended her campaign.  I could not understand how Senator Obama and his surrogates could think that by belittling , degrading and bullying millions of Democratic men and women, that this would somehow unite the party?  I just could not grasp where they were coming from.

And the polls bore out the same.  When Senator Clinton first suspended her campaign, a CNN poll showed that 60% of her 18 million voters would move to Senator Obama.  A month later, in early July, that number had actually dropped to 54% - meaning that 46% of Senator Clinton’s voters were not planning to vote for Senator Obama – shocking?  Well, no.

Instead of reaching out and unifying the party, Senator Obama told us: “get over it.” He acted aloof towards Senator Clinton’s donors in meetings.   At a house party in

New York

in late June, one of Senator Obama’s top female aides told a group of women:  “We’re not used to this drama.”  He selected Patty Solis Doyle to be chief of staff to his yet to be named vice president.  Salt and more salt in open wounds.

But the degradation did not stop there.  There was the letter from Don Fowler and Alice Germond in mid July about their “fatigue and irritation.”  There were the daily diatribes by Obama surrogates calling us:  “childish,”  “move on already,” “angry bunch of women.” 

Hmmm.  I find myself still puzzled by this Obama Campaign strategy; but I continued to read the polls.

Senator Obama is the first Democratic candidate for president in 20 years that is actually BEHIND the Republican nominee with women over 40.  Typically, a Democratic candidate can count on a 10-15 point lead with this demographic; but Senator Obama is BEHIND Senator McCain by 4 points in a recent Fox Poll.  And in a Zogby Poll done in early August, among all women, Senator McCain closed 10 points on Senator Obama since early July.

But, okay.  Clearly the Obama Campaign knows something that I don’t.  They must have a strategy here.  Surely degrading, belittling and bullying voters will make them want to come aboard.  Right?

And now back to our gal Maureen Dowd, who this past Sunday came out with yet another of her blistering attacks on women.  This time rather than vilify Senator Clinton herself, we

Clinton

supporters got a turn to be the target.  The first sentence of her editorial reads:  “It is a truth universally acknowledged that Barack Obama must continue to grovel to Hillary Clinton's dead-enders, some of whom mutter darkly that they will not only not vote for him, they will never vote for a man again.”   First off, I would like to point out that Maureen copied the words “

Clinton

dead-enders” from a much younger and more talented writer, Michelle Goldberg of The New Republic who wrote an article in early June titled 3 A.M For Feminism: 

Clinton

dead-enders and the crisis of the women’s movement.  Michelle’s piece is thoughtful and insightful – not a sling full of mud.  Second, Barack Obama does not have to continue anything – he and his surrogates need to START acting with dignity and grace – not act like sore winners.  And lastly, we are hardly muttering that we will never vote for a man again.  We are ready, willing and able to vote for a qualified man.  We voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Bob Kerry to name a few.  And, if Maureen et al continue to degrade us, belittle us, bully us, and act as sore winners, we will once again be voting for a man – Senator McCain!

QUESTION OF THE WEEK

How well did feminist organizations such as NOW support Hillary during the primary?  Did you think they defended her effectively against sexism? 

WHY THE SILENCE ON HILLARY'S BREAST CANCER INTITATIVE?

I am very sorry to learn that Christina Applegate has been diagnosed with breast cancer.  And if Hillary Clinton were our nominee, I would feel more confident that help was on the way for Applegate and the thousands of women who struggle with this devastating disease.

As a breast cancer survivor, I was excited about Hillary’s initiative to find a cure for breast cancer in our life time. It is an epidemic. So many women are being diagnosed with breast cancer.  More and more all the time. When I was diagnosed, it was one in eleven women.  Now it is one in eight. And they are getting younger. Applegate is only 36 years old. And I know of many women younger than that that have breast cancer,

Yet despite announcing this groundbreaking initiative on the Ellen Degeneres Show, Hillary got zero coverage.  Yet more evidence of sexism in the media.

When I went to Portland to volunteer for Hillary, Chelsea came to the office to thank the many volunteers who were working in difficult circumstances.  I told her how meaningful her mother’s breast cancer initiative was to me and asked why she thought there had been so little coverage when it is an epidemic that affects everyone. Everyone has a mother.  Everyone has women in their lives.

She smiled wanly and said, “We have tried.  It is very hard to get the word out.”

I know that to be the case personally. I wrote dozens of letters to the editor and articles which I sent all over the country.  Zilch. Except for one lovely male editor in North Carolina who wrote back to say he sympathized. That his wife had been treated for breast cancer and it had rocked his world. But he did not publish my piece.

When I went to DC to attend the Rules and By Laws Committee meeting and the attendant rally, the place was swarming with press.  I tried to talk with reporters from national press about Hillary’s breast cancer initiative as  just one more reason I believe she is such an outstanding candidate. No one I talked to in the American press was interested, including female reporters and producers.  The foreign press was much more open.

The rise of breast cancer is frightening and should concern us all. Science tells us that there are a lot of factors.  Some of it is genetic.  Some of it may be due to the early onset of puberty.  But increasingly, we are hearing about environmental factors.

On May 14, 2007, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Silent Spring Institute announced the publication of Environmental Factors in Breast Cancer, the most comprehensive review to date of scientific research on environmental factors that may increase breast cancer risk.

The state-of-the-science review, commissioned by Komen for the Cure and conducted by the Silent Spring Institute with additional researchers from Harvard University, Roswell Park Cancer Institute and the University of Southern California, co llected and assessed existing scientific reports on potential links between specific environmental factors and breast cancer.

Researchers identified a whopping 216 chemicals that cause breast cancer in animals.

Their database reveals that among the 216 compounds that cause breast tumors in animals:

-- 73 have been present in consumer products or as contaminants in food
-- 35 are air pollutants
-- 25 have been associated with occupational exposures affecting more than 5,000 women a year
-- 29 are produced in the United States in large amounts, often exceeding 1 million pounds per year.

Wow. This is terrifying.  And yet, with Hillary’s initiative to find a cure for breast cancer in our lifetime, I was encouraged.  As part of her plan, she vowed to increase research.

I can only wonder if men faced a similar rate of cancer specific to their gender,  if there would there be no coverage. I still stand solidly behind Hillary as the best candidate for the job

Joan Lipkin, St. Louis

HAPPY BIRTHDAY BARACK!