(null)Created 11 Jul 2007 at 08:45 UTC by pedro.
URL: http:///www.whitehouse.gov/Notes: All about the 2008 election.
Who do you think are going to be the nominees?For the Democrats it's going to be Hilary or Barack... or Hilary/Barack? (dum DUM DUM!) ... right?
What about the Republicans? Everyone is talking about the Democrats having a hard time getting a candidate out there, but it seems like the Republicans are just more "white guys in suits" than ever. Personally, I know McCain is a flawed character, but of all the people out there he is the one I'm most excited about. I don't think Giuliani is cut out to be president, but that's just a gut feeling. And Mitt Romney just seems like a floater out there.
Do you guys think Bloomberg will run?
I really don't think McCain will get the nomination at this point, anyway.
regarding the prospects for mccain's campaign, see also: ronald reagan and john kerry and their respective party primary comebacks.in a gore vs. mccain election in 2000, i would have had a very hard time deciding. the fact that it was bush and not mccain made it easy. hindsight being what it is, i'm glad i voted for gore, and i hope that i would have still voted for gore even in a race against mccain.
i don't know that i, personally, would give mccain as much credence this time around as i did in 2000. he's played a lot of politics in the last eight years. i've seen him capitulate on issues that no red-blooded american should ever capitulate on, and he did it to curry favor with people above him. that doesn't sit particularly well with me, but with no one above him, perhaps he wouldn't feel the need to curry favor through capitulation. from the field of republicans, i just don't know any of them well enough to decide who's my favorite alternate. i can tell you i don't like giuliani or romney. giuliani is a war hawk and there are really just two possible reasons for that, first of all because he might think that it's politically expedient to be a war hawk, and second of all because he might actually think we need to keep up our military campaign against the world. neither of these reasons is acceptable to me. romney is totally transparent about his so-called "family values." let's be honest... those aren't "american family values," they're "lds family values." the last thing america needs is for one sector (any sector) of society to seize hegemony over all of society. and also, let me point out that the phrase "family values" is tv-ready way of saying "conformist social policy" where the standard of conformity is chosen by the speaker; see above re: hegemony.
from the democratic field, i like clinton for basically two reasons, 1) despite her short political career, she has come right out and shown her true colors and we know exactly what they are, and 2) they're not perfect, but not bad either. obama is, to me, just a darling, with emphasis on the word "just." he's only been in public office for 10 years, during which time he's played everything by the books (that we know of) and not fooled around. for me, that's just not a long enough or distinguishing enough track record to "know" him. richardson has a longer tenure in public office, but it's all tucked away down in new mexico where none of the rest of us can see it, so his poo might smell like roses for all we know. kucinich is ballsy, knows from experience what it's like to be down and out in more than just politics, and i generally agree with his prescriptions. i feel the same about the lower-profile edwards. but, since this is the hilary and barack show, no one's watching either of these two candidates.
as always in american politics, the non-front-runners aren't there to win (even if they think they are), they're there to metaphorically twist the nipples, flick the ears, and step on the toes of the front-runners so that ultimately, party policy represents a consensus. and with that in mind, let's hope clinton takes the democratic primary, and mccain takes the republican primary. despite all that might be wrong with them, at least we know that they're not ideologues who consider their own private opinions and convictions more important than the opinions and convictions of their party, their electors, their constituents, and the rest of the world. these are the two who would agree to a consensus and then abide by it, rather than stubbornly staying the course.
What does it mean for Democratic presidential candidates to be using the "Republican playbook"?
c. None of the above.I am quite disgusted at the amount of time and money spent on the 2008 election over a year out till election day. So far the candidates I like the most are the least likely to ever get elected and will probably not even make it to the primaries. Then again I live in Utah, who I vote for won't matter anyway.
I finally get to vote for Ron Paul!
It's still interesting. And it poses the truly important question....which candidate would I want on my bowling team?
Ok -- to be totally honest, I think this is the best presidential race I can remember and I'm really excited by the fact that the field is relatively "wide open" (on both sides) and that people are passionate about their DIFFERENT candidates. It's great.I don't like Hillary Clinton. I don't say that to make anyone mad or to "get ugly" in front of friends here who support her -- but it's just honest. Personally, I have always found her to be grating, ungracious, and disingenuous, even still today after my politics have gotten more moderate. Those harsh words said, I really don't think that she'd be a terrible president. But I feel like she represents more "politics as usual".
What I am especially tired of in the political process is this kind of spinning sound bites to make political ammo -- especially when the spin is misleading, dishonest, and inconsistent with those candidates own records (see quotes below)! I know it's all part of the game, but it just cheapens everything.
The energy candidates spend coming up with this stuff should be spent on discussing real issues and convincing us that their real ideas are better. It insults me that they think this is more important, and I think it should be insulting to their supporters that they're being played this way rather than motivated honestly.
I'm certainly not saying that Hillary is the only one out there doing this -- but because Obama actually has a shot, it's been the Clinton-Obama fight where this kind of crap has been coming out.
Anyway, I'd love to hear what people are thinking about this election season. Because I know you're thinking something.
here's an interesting article from Eric Zorn at the trib:
Why stop short? The Clintons are lying about Obama's remarks on Reagan
(Barack) Obama stopped just short of calling (Hillary) Clinton and her husband liars... from the Swamp's live blog of last night's Democratic debate.
Hmm. I see no reason to stop short. Bill and Hillary Clinton have lied brazenly about Obama's recent statement about Ronald Reagan.
Let's look at the transcripts (emphasis added):
Hillary Clinton, Jan 18:
My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years.
Bill Clinton, Jan 18:
(My wife's) principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks.
Well, yes he is. The key, inflammatory words in the Clintons' quotes are better and good, and I invite you, reader, to find it in these transcripts of what Obama has actually said:
I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980's were different.
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.
I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.
I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful.
And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out.
I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.
Read it all again if you want, you won't find "better" or "good" in there, or synonyms or implications along those lines.
When the Clintons used "better" and "good" in alluding the Obama's remarks, they weren't paraphrasing, they weren't misremembering, they weren't distorting. They were simply lying.
Obama's observations -- self-serving as they certainly were -- focused on the ability of a leader with overarching vision and good communication skills to lead and inspire the country; the importance of "ideas" as opposed to 10-point programs for presidents who want to bring about real change.
Reagan frustrates and angers many on the left to this day because all these years later we still can't believe that an amiable, genial movie actor was able to sell his version of reality to a majority of the American public. The Clintons seem to be hoping they can tap into that lingering anger and frustration by lying about Obama's views on Reagan.
Can they not help themselves? Do they not know that not to understand Reagan, not to learn from him and not to emulate him in some ways is a path to political defeat?
In conclusion, let me ask you to take my little quiz, which I've put together with the help of archival quotes supplied by the Obama campaign. Which of the four statements below is Obama's, and which are the Clintons'?
1. [Reagan was] a child of the Depression, so he understood [economic pressures on the working and middle class]. When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.
2 When I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways...And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, ``You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important.'' And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.
3. [I feel Reagan's] unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people.... I am confident that we will again make the right choices for America, that we will take up where President Reagan left off -- to lead freedom's march boldly into the 21st century.
4. The Democratic presidential candidate who has tried to differentiate [herself/himself] by tacking to the center on some key issues, said yesterday that former president Ronald Reagan's defense buildup had hastened the collapse of Soviet communism. Breaking with the widespread position of liberals that Reagan's military program had little to do with the Soviet system's collapse, the candidate also praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back." {The candidate} was careful to add that the Reagan military program included "a lot of wasted money and unnecessary expenditure." Still, {the candidate} said, Reagan deserved credit for "the idea that he wanted to stand up to {Communism}"
Answers
1. Hillary Clinton, quoted in Tom Brokaw's book "Boom," page 404.
2. Barack Obama on "Meet the Press" in October of 2006
3. Bill Clinton Dedication of Reagan Library, 5/5/98]
4. Bill Clinton as paraphrased by the Washington Post on 10/17/91 Washington Post
MORE:
Jake Tapper of ABC news blogs on the above: What's factually not accurate is what President Bill Clinton said. I know he wants his wife to beat Obama. And it seems that unleashing the Big Dog seems to be working for the Clinton campaign. Perhaps some voters are even touched by his passion. But let's be clear -- Bill Clinton is spreading demonstrably false information. There's winning ugly, and there's winning with honor.
You (may) have an opportunity to make a difference this year! If you can go vote tomorrow (or in your primary whenever it is) -- go do it!
What a tasty vintage this year is. The caucuses here in MN were crazy. We showed up about five minutes before they closed when Em got off work, and this huge school was absolutely packed. It was like a genetic splice between high school passing period and the first Slayer concert I went to. [In fact, there was a rabid metalhead wearing an Absu t-shirt desperately looking for his precinct and growling in frustration.] We could barely move, and found someone standing on a table. I took this as a sign of authority and asked if we could register at our precinct room. She said yes. Meanwhile, some kid was yelling "You gotta get one of these Rock the Vote T-Shirts!" by which I imagined he meant "Take the one that I'm holding out to you!" So when I put my hand out, he switched the shirt to his other hand (for no, he was not a Rock the Vote volunteer) and took my hand and then somehow I wound up in a very long and complicated handshake that very much took me back to high school.From there, we pushed our way down a flight of stairs--"only room 4 has to stand in line, not room 3! Only room 4!"--and as we were looking for room 3 we cruised past many many many people, some of whom were sitting on chairs cradling their heads in their hands. Oh, and I should mention it's like 4 degrees out so of course we're both wearing long johns and sub-arctic layers but now were pressed in with 5000 of our closest friends, who because we're all older now, smell a lot worse than we all did in high school, and finally we find room 3 which is packed! but finally we're here. As everyone has said, the diversity of people there was amazing. And so many young people. Like high school football game amount of young people. I guess the previous caucus record in MN was around 75,000 (during Vietnam, 1972). Tuesday, it was 300,000.
The caucus part was hard to hear because of the chaos, but we listened to a number of referendums, most of which had to do with legalizing marijuana and the immediate repeal of all prisons sentences for such offenses. Mr Lake Wobegon, who is about the friendliest neighborhood neighbor you could ever meet, as well as the tallest, was in line with us and stayed for the caucus. We cast our vote by writing onto a yellow sticky pad and dropping our vote in a shoebox. It was all very wonderful and both Em and I were kind of glowing to see the amount of activity surrounding this election (which also included the local DFL senate vote between Al Franken and Mike Cirisi). In our precinct, the final ballot count was something like 190 for Obama, 70 for Clinton, 1 for Edwards. And many write-ins of the Harmon Killebrew, Count Chocula, or Paul Bunyan variety ...
Short on personal views, etc., but wanted to give you a view of a crazy MN caucus night. People were abandoning their cars for miles in some cities because they couldn't drive any closer to the caucus site. Quite an evening.
Oh, and I should just mention this: most of the candidates came through the Twin Cities last weekend. At Obama's rally at the Target Center, Golden Smog opened for him. Um, sweet?
The first thing I've ever read that really makes me dislike McCain.Open request to the major political parties of United States of America: Please send someone who doesn't suck.
That's what this democratic primary is all about!Obama's mama - a free spirited wanderer Who Set Obama's Path vs. Mrs. Clinton
On one side ( Obama's mama) : "She always felt that marriage as an institution was not particularly essential or important," said Nina Nayar, who later became a close friend of Ms. Soetoro. What mattered to her, Ms. Nayar said, was to have loved deeply.
On the other side ( Mrs. Clinton): She always felt that Senate as an institution was not particularly essential or important. What mattered to her, was to have the White house and be his true boss this time.
Once McCain and Obama's race begins, that's when the old blood vs. young brain shall see their day.
Also Obama will pick Colin Powell as his running mate.
GO America GO!
All the interviews, ads and speeches lately really just scare me and make me wonder how hard it would be to leave this country. I really can't believe how stupid EVERYONE sounds.
that was the funniest thing i've seen in a long time! it must have been made before the vp nominees were announced - i doubt they would have intentionally not poked fun at biden and palin.
here's that word again: maverick. In Thursday's vice-presidential debate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the Republican candidate, used it to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, no fewer than six times, at one point calling him ``the consummate maverick.''But to those who know the history of the word, applying it to Mr. McCain is a bit of a stretch -- and to one Texas family in particular it is even a bit offensive.
``I'm just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,'' said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.
In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it, Ms. Maverick said; unbranded cattle, then, were called ``Maverick's.'' The name came to mean anyone who didn't bear another's brand.
Sam Maverick's grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio who lost his mayoral re-election bid when conservatives labeled him a Communist. He served in the Roosevelt administration on the Smaller War Plants Corporation and is best known for another coinage. He came up with the term ``gobbledygook'' in frustration at the convoluted language of bureaucrats.
This Maverick's son, Maury Jr., was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society. He served in the Texas Legislature during the McCarthy era and wrote fiery columns for The San Antonio Express-News. His final column, published on Feb. 2, 2003, just after he died at 82, was an attack on the coming war in Iraq.
Terrellita Maverick, sister of Maury Jr., is a member emeritus of the board of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.
Considering the family's long history of association with liberalism and progressive ideals, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, ``is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.''
``It's just incredible -- the nerve! -- to suggest that he's not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, `Oh, my God, he said it again.' ''
``He's a Republican,'' she said. ``He's branded.''
and then gave up...
... and really want to leave the country.
Good info at the Chicago Tribune. Turns out the guy is named Andy Martin, and that he posted on his website in 2004 that Obama was a muslim. He's also made some insanely anti-semitic remarks over his career and was denied admission to the IL bar because of his psychological issues.This article includes clips of Sean Hannity's show where he and an Obama guy get into the difference between Obama's association with Bill Ayers and Hannity's association with Martin.
In keeping true with the entree title, when I read the political news from the chicago tribune today, i would have spewed my wine all over this keyboard. I don't have any big thoughts to share about the tribune's endorsement of Obama for president. All I can say is that it's unbelievable and incredible.
In keeping true with the entree title, when I read the political news from the chicago tribune today, i would have spewed my wine all over this keyboard. I don't have any big thoughts to share about the tribune's endorsement of Obama for president. All I can say is that it's unbelievable and incredible.
and same with Rolling Stone Magazine.
From the New Yorker, and funny: David Sedaris Column
A joke in 1993 is reality in 2008.
Focus on the Family's A Letter From a Christian in 2012. Wow.
here's the actual letter
I'm not endorsing this blog, but check this out -- my irony meter has truly exploded. Thankfully nowadays grinding it up into powder to put into food is a lot easier...
We voted this morning... long lines at 7:45 AM!
Just saying I'm happy about the outcome of this election here in Utah.
my first time. first time i felt a candidate deserved my vote and my time.oddly enough, there were 2 people voting when i went in this morning. i had no wait.
you'd think they'd hire somebody to clearly explain the propositions on the ballot so people can understand what they'e voting for.
i'm not surprised at the outcome of this election.
i am surprised at the bitterness from McCain's general supporters/voters.
McCain's concession speech was classy and humble. I have a lot of respect for that man, though I did not vote for him.
Obama's acceptance speech was one for the record books. I wonder if it sounded so great because we haven't heard a President with an ounce of cohesion and clarity speak to us in many years?
I'm a fan of flickr.comhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/
Tolerance fails T-shirt testJohn Kass -- chicagotribune.com
November 13, 2008
As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we're all united now, let's consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.
Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.
She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching "inclusion," and she decided to see how included she could be.
So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:
"McCain Girl."
"I was just really curious how they'd react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters," Catherine told us. "I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be."
Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain's name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.
"People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said.
Then it got worse.
"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.
But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.
"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.
If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.
"Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said," Catherine said.
One student suggested that she be put up on a cross for her political beliefs.
"He said, 'You should be crucifixed.' It was kind of funny because, I was like, don't you mean 'crucified?' " Catherine said.
Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be "burned with her shirt on" for "being a filthy-rich Republican."
Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election. And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers. She didn't want to jeopardize her experiment.
"I couldn't show people really what it was for. I really kind of wanted to laugh because they had no idea what I was doing," she said.
Only a few times did anyone say anything remotely positive about her McCain shirt. One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, "I really like your shirt."
That's when you know America is truly supportive of diversity of opinion, when children must whisper for fear of being ostracized, heckled and crucifixed.
The next day, in part 2 of The Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment, she wore another T-shirt, this one with "Obama Girl" written in blue. And an amazing thing happened.
Catherine wasn't very stupid anymore. She grew brains.
"People liked my shirt. They said things like my brain had come back, and I had put the right shirt on today," Catherine said.
Some students accused her of playing both sides.
"A lot of people liked it. But some people told me I was a flip-flopper," she said. "They said, 'You can't make up your mind. You can't wear a McCain shirt one day and an Obama shirt the next day.' "
But she sure did, and she turned her journal into a report for her history teacher, earning Catherine extra credit. We asked the teacher, Norma Cassin-Pountney, whether it was ironic that Catherine would be subject to such intolerance from pro-Obama supporters in a community that prides itself on its liberal outlook.
"That's what we discussed," Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. "I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you've done? The students were kind of like, 'Oh, yeah.' I think they got it."
Catherine never told us which candidate she would have voted for if she weren't an 8th grader. But she said she learned what it was like to be in the minority.
"Just being on the outside, how it felt, it was not fun at all," she said.
Don't ever feel as if you must conform, Catherine. Being on the outside isn't so bad. Trust me.
jskass@tribune.com
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
that is genius! and from a youngster....perhaps there is hope for the future pf our country.
Girl's lesson: Bias, like shirts, picked out at homeJohn Kass
November 14, 2008
Catherine Vogt--the brave 8th grader who used a T-shirt test to find out about political tolerance in Obamaland--is something of a celebrity now, thanks to you readers of this column.
By the time you read this, she will have already finished a round of TV and radio interviews, including a PBS spot for a Philadelphia station. It's all somewhat unsettling for a 14-year-old girl who had important high school entrance exams Thursday and a tryout for "The Music Man" at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School in Oak Park.
"Well, a lot of people came up to me and told me that they saw me in the paper, and my teacher told me that a lot of people were telling her 'Way to go, way to support your student' and everything," Catherine told me Thursday. "It's been very exciting and hectic too."
The Catherine Vogt Experiment on Diversity of Thought took place before the presidential election. She shared her idea secretly with her history teacher, Norma Cassin-Pountney.
Catherine wore a McCain shirt one day and secretly recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The next day, she wore an Obama shirt and also recorded the comments.
Her findings?
When she wore the McCain shirt, she was stupid and was told to go die. One kid said she should be "crucifixed," which should prompt outrage from that student's grammar/lit teacher. Crucifixed?
One student whispered--perhaps like Winston Smith in "1984"--"I really like your shirt." But she said it quietly so no one else would hear and denounce her.
And when Catherine wore the Obama shirt? Her brains grew back and she was smart again and welcomed into polite society.
Since many liberal journalists live in Oak Park, I expect to receive many snarky reviews. My crime? I dared to illustrate, through the actions of a brave 8th-grade girl, that even high-minded liberal communities can be intolerant, no matter how many times parents gush on about "diversity" at their cocktail parties.
So much for the audacity of hope.
But it's also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she'd get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction. And certainly some Republican children would outrage their grammar/lit teachers by wanting her crucifixed as well.
All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don't get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.
A kid doesn't learn to love Democrats or hate Republicans or vice versa by reading editorials. You can't blame this one on bloggers or "Grand Theft Auto." You can't even blame Fitty Cent or however he incorrectly spells his own stage name.
Many parents in Oak Park and elsewhere want their kids to figure out things for themselves. Others only want a mirror for their own tribalism. Parents, Catherine told me, "are actually a pretty big influence on kids. They take a lot of what's home to school."
At school Thursday in Ms. Cassin-Pountney's class, they discussed Catherine's experiment and my column.
"The students were mostly shocked because when they read it they kind of figured it out. They were like, 'Oh, I actually said that thing to her and now--I'm not mentioned--but I'm actually in the paper for saying something mean?' "
She said her classmates tried to determine whether she cracked and gave up their names to me, but because she's not a Chicago machine politician under federal indictment, she didn't have to name names.
"They were all like, 'So who did you mention and what did you say?' But I didn't give out any names," she said.
There were some rough patches on Thursday. The phone rang off the hook at home. She had her big tests and that tryout. And her parents--liberal Democratic mom and conservative Republican dad--had to run down to school to stave off an impromptu imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.
"Some parents were upset that one teacher remarked about her shirt. And other parents were upset that the experiment was conducted in the first place, and didn't go through 'proper channels,' " said Catherine's mom, Pamela Webster.
"So we rushed down to school to say we were backing the principal and all the teachers and not to make a big thing of it," she said. "It was just crazy. There was no crime committed here."
Not even a thought crime?
"No," she said. "We support the principal and the school. Let this be a way for students and teachers to discuss the issue. That's what we want in our home, not indoctrination but discussion."
Catherine still won't say whether she's a Democrat or a Republican.
"I still have four years to pick a guy or a woman," she said of the presidential election in 2012, which will be her first. "I've still got four more years. Then I can decide."
Catherine says she doesn't want to become a lawyer, but perhaps a surgeon. Either way, this week, she was a great teacher.
Thank you, Catherine.
jskass@tribune.com
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
that was a good project...however i think it's only news for some people.
But it just does illustrate the fact that intolerance is not a flaw that lives on one side of the political spectrum, or in one church, or school, or whatever. Being tolerant and respectful is one of those things that I think is just genuinely hard.
Barack Obama was sworn in as president. I watched it on TV at home... pretty inspirational, I have to say.
Some of my friends are having a conversation about the last 30 seconds of this clip:http://jezebel.com/5135436/fox-news-inauguration-coverage-black-people-like-basketball-and-other-observations
I'd like to know if i'm the only person that thinks that at most it's a sign that some people need a better news source.
Except that I heard the exact same thing from a lot of the people at my wife's internship church which was 100% african american. There are a lot of people in the older generation that are not happy with how their children/grandchildren are turning out and having Obama as a positive role model is a wonderful aspect of his presidency.
I just saw that clip and read the thread on FB. Let's ignore for a second that it was on FOX news. (I'll get back to that.)First, the way the guy made the comment about how the most powerful thing about Barack is that he is a contrast to all those "gangsta rap and thug life people that we see on TV" -- and because it was after a bunch of banter like "I don't know who all these people are on the podium" -- made his comment sound like, or have the air of, "the best thing about Barack is that he'll be on TV instead of those gangsta rap people" as though that were more palatable for (white) America. That's clearly not what he meant, but the way he said it made it somewhat ambiguous.
So what about what he was really trying to say? The guy was trying to say "that Barack Obama is a good role model for African American youth", which he undeniably is. But he's also a good role model for everyone on the planet! And, he was being sworn in as The President of the United States of America at the time! Taking an incredibly momentous occasion like this and saying that the best thing about it might be his affect on "gangsta rap people" really misses the point -- not just the point of racial reconciliation -- but the point of his campaign, his election, what he stands for, etc. It takes everything that Obama is and makes it small, and says that the best thing about him might be his affect on youth. It also smacks of the whole "Obama is so articulate!" thing. Like maybe he should have run to be President of the Boys and Girls Club of Chicago or something.
I also think that sentiments like that tend to reinforce (or come from) the idea that marginalized people need to just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" -- what they really need are "good role models" -- as opposed to addressing the socioeconomic causes of the issues. I think people often use that as an excuse against making sacrifices or doing something, either personally, or politically, because they think that people "just aren't trying hard enough."
And this brings us back to FOX News. FOX has a reputation. So when a faceless commentator makes a terribly worded, awkward, untimely, obvious, and potentially inappropriate comment about race and culture, not only are "liberals" going to see the worst in it, but FOX's audience is likely to either take it the wrong way ("Glad we'll have less gangsta rappers on screen!"), or take it at face value and start thinking that the best thing about Barack's presidency his his role-model value... as if that is some kind of consolation for his election.
SO I guess my point here is, I think the commentator meant something positive, but it was not an appropriate time or place for the comment. But more than that, I think the whole thing -- his words, the occasion, the brouhaha over the clip, the fact that he is a good role model, just highlights the fact that was have a long way to go in this country. (And yes, neo, people need a better news source.)