3 AM Girl Casey Knowles Endorses Obama

Text Convo With My BFF About Hillary

I was feeling kinda down about Hillary winning 3 of 4 primaries on Tuesday. I texted my friend to tell her how I was feeling. Isn't it a shame how antisocial we (texters) have become?

Anyway, during this conversation, I was feeling dejected, hadn't considered Barack's delegate count, and thought it was over for him. Like my other friend said "He ain't dead yet."

Here's how the convo went:

Me: I'm depressed :-(

BFF: Why

Me: Cuz Barack fucked up with lying about d secret NAFTA meeting in Canada. I'm voting 4 Nader.

BFF: I never get all caught up in a politician that much cuz they have 2 many people 2 please. I try 2 go 4 d lesser of d evils so 2 speak.

Me: Yeah but I don't think Hill will do a better job than McCain. Nader '08.

BFF: Damn, I dunno. Politics is frustrating. I think this country needs a change. Fuck all the republicans.

Me: I'm not all excited with d dems. They've done jack since taking over d houses. This is y it amazes me how dumb some Americans r. Bipartisanship doesn't work here.

BFF: I think you should still support him (Obama).

Me: 4 what? It's over. TX is a 2 close 2 call & Hill's in d lead by 2 points. PA is going 2 Hill. The gov of PA said d White ppl there aren't ready 4 a Blk pres.

BFF: Ugh I dunno. I think Hillary would do a good job. She plays dirty but I think she reflects my values. McCain wouldn't mind keeping up in Iraq for a 100 more.

Me: But she's not an aggressive legislator. The library of congress substantiates that. At least Nader has American interests @ heart. And she's embroiled in a $17 mil fraud trial in Cali. Chk my blog.

BFF: We'll talk more 2moro. Me sleepy.

Me: Later.

Convo continues next day:

BFF: I really think McCain is not the man for the house.

Me: Yeah. The election's draining. I'm gonna stick 2 fluff on Lifetime & Oxygen.

BFF: If people have been rooting for Obama are so mad that Hillary will be the candidate and not vote for her then McCain will win for sure.

Me: I don't know about that. I think many of them will not vote. Also mAnn Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are strategists. They're telling ppl 2 vote 4 Hill so that she can be destroyed by McCain.

BFF: Both of those people are not popular with many. They're hardcore Repubs. I think not voting is gonna happen cuz people will be bitter. I'm excited and hope to see a woman president. I don't love her but like her more and she supports my fundamental rights so I'm for her.

Me: Nader '08.

BFF: He will never win. I wish that Black voters (BFF's White) won't be discouraged and bitter and not vote for her. It's not smart. (BFF is a lesbian and is willing to compromise her own interests if it means voting for a lesser evil.)

Me: So Blk voters should accept the slap in d face that she & Bill levelled? F her. She had Blk voters b4 u'know but she devalued our votes by playing southern strategy. Muslims shouldn't vote 4 her either. Women's rights groups shouldn't vote 4 her. I'm not dying to have a Blk person or a woman in d white house. & she's not an aggressive legislator.

BFF: Politics is dirty. I think people got really wrapped up in in the battle between them. I never like my politicians but she has more of an interest in issues I believe in. McCain is someone I don't want in office. Do you even know what he stands for? He will drag this war on forever.

Me: I know what he stands 4 but she was just as hawkish. That's what really made me dislike her long b4 d race baiting. & I'm not gonna give my vote away 2 billary just cuz mccain's a dirtbag.

BFF: Most politicians are simply trying to get your vote and they do lie. A lot. The point is to never LOVE or get attached too much. They all will at some point neglect us. I vote to see change. I don't vote with heart. I vote with my head. I can't stand to see another 4 years of a Repub era. It needs to stop so I'm voting.

Me: The Clinton yrs weren't that great 4 many americans. & Hill's moderate. Remember that she voted 4 this war 2.

BFF: Yes but she changed her stance. I don't blame her for voting for the war. She realizes now that it was a mistake and wants otherwise. I have a couple of friends that are going to Iraq again. I never thought about it that way but people are really sick of it. Even some Repubs. I wanna vote for someone who will try to speed it up. McCain is not the person. I most certainly rather see her. Anyway whatever man.

Me: Well of course she had 2 change her stance when it became unpopular. Many repubs r against this war. & I blame her. I wish politicians would put up their kids 4 war the way they do americans.

BFF: Whether it's war or environment or teachers pay or civil rights I am way more on her side than his (McCain). And that's that. My vote is going to her.

Me: I rented election from netflix & they said it's just like watching Obama & Billary.

BFF: LOL ha. Fuck I gotta go to class. Talk to you later.

End of convo.

In the last election, I voted for Kerry because he was the lesser evil. I don't wanna waste another vote on a candidate that I don't agree with or believe in. This is my third time voting in a presidential election and I've never been so excited about an election before.

You know, I was going through the motions weeks ago wondering "What if Hillary wins the nomination? What next? Should I vote for her?" I was thinking of being spiteful to the Democratic party and voting for McCain to send a message that they shouldn't counter the interests of the voters by giving Hill the nod. I can't stand leatherface McCain so you can scratch that. I'll vote for Nader or hand in a write-in ballot if Obama loses the nomination.

In the meantime, my other friend and I plan to volunteer for Obama's campaign. I've gotta properly channel my anger and make a difference the best way I can. I wanna do my part and be involved in the most exciting election thus far.

Left-Handed Endorsement/Compliment From Some?

Leonce Gaiter
Hosannas Spiked With Contempt

What does it say when those who have held you in open contempt lavish sweet praise on one who vies for your allegiance and claims to speak for you? That's the question I find myself asking in regard to Barack Obama. In the Guardian, writer Gary Younge quoted Hardball host Chris Matthews saying, "I don't think you can find a better opening-gate, starting-gate personality than Obama as a black candidate. I can't think of a better one. No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery. All the bad stuff in our history ain't there with this guy."

Let's review: "No history of Jim Crow. No history of anger, no history of slavery..." No history of "all the bad stuff."

According to the line of thinking put forward by Matthews, for a significant number of people, the fact that Obama has a white mother, a Kenyan father and no cultural relationship to the sons and daughters of African slaves save voluntary ones makes his blackness no more than a genetic quirk of the skin. Obama lets them feel "colorblind" because his color is not attached to their shame--their historical, legally sanctioned viciousness toward black men and women. When we black Americans mention it, we're accused of conjuring "white guilt." Statements such as Matthews', however, suggest that we don't need to conjure it. People are so busy projecting it onto us that they obviate the need.

Andrew Sullivan, who to this day defends his endorsement of "The Bell Curve" and its theories of black genetic inferiority as a "speaking truth to power," is another Obama fan. He wrote a wet, sloppy kiss to the candidate in the Atlantic entitled, "Why Obama Matters." In it, he claims that Obama, in classic "Magic Negro" form, will heal the divisions in America, and in the world at large.

"What does he offer?" Sullivan asked. "First and foremost: his face," was the answer.

Source

Let's be clear (White) people: This not addressing all White people. This is clearly addressing those who offer left-handed compliments and endorsements for Obama. If you're not guilty of it, do not take offense to this article. If you do take offense, oh well.

Obama Throws Kitchen Sink at Himself

'NAFTA-gate', Part II

"I don't just criticize [NAFTA]. I don't have my campaign go tell a foreign government behind closed doors: `That's just politics. Don't pay attention to it'"

--Hillary Clinton, Toledo, Ohio, March 3, 2008.

The Facts
The official Canadian report on the Feb. 8 meeting, leaked to the Associated Press over the weekend, presents a much more nuanced account of what took place than the story being retold by the Clinton campaign. It shows that Goolsbee talked about the need for a limited renegotiation of the NAFTA agreement, "in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement." This is consistent with what Obama has been saying about NAFTA on the campaign trail.

Unfortunately for Obama, the Canadian memo also quotes Goolsbee as saying that some of the protectionist sentiment aired in Ohio had more to do with "political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans." To anybody who has been following the campaign closely, this is a blinding statement of the obvious, but it is not the kind of thing that you want to concede in public. Goolsbee has denied expressing such sentiments to the Canadians.

Clearly, both the Clinton and Obama camps are trying to spin the Canadian memo to their own advantage, picking out the phrases that best suit their argument. At different times in the past, both candidates have talked about the economic benefits to America of trade agreements like NAFTA, while criticizing unfair labor and environmental practices.

Both candidates are also guilty of glossing over the difficulties of renegotiating highly complex trade agreements. During last week's debate, both Clinton and Obama threatened to "opt out" of NAFTA unless the deal is renegotiated to U.S. satisfaction. There was no mention of the fact that Canada might like to renegotiate parts of the agreement that give the U.S. preferential access to Canadian oil, or that Mexico may have second thoughts about importing subsidized American grain.

Source

Obama's Got Rezko and Hillary's Got a Fraud Trial

Obama's Eyes on Rezko
Andrew Romano

As jury selection began yesterday in the corruption trial of veteran Chicago fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, there was an unexpected face in the courtroom audience: an unidentified staffer scoping out the scene for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama.

As Newsweek reported this week, Obama is a long-time friend of Rezko's. In 2005, Rezko and his wife were involved in a tangled property deal in which Rezko's wife bought a vacant lot next to a historical house purchased by Obama and his wife; Obama later acknowledged that his real-estate dealings with Rezko were "boneheaded."

There is no allegation that there was anything illegal about the house deal or Obama's role in it. But federal prosecutors have indicated in court papers that it is at least possible that Obama's name could surface in Rezko's trial on complex corruption charges. Government documents say that an unnamed politician received a $10,000 campaign contribution through a straw donor from Rezko, and that the money originated with a dubious "finders fee" paid to the developer as part of an allegedly corrupt scheme to influence members of a state teachers' pension fund board. Chicago media have reported that the politician who received the $10,000 was Obama; this was confirmed to NEWSWEEK by a source close to the Rezko investigation, who asked for anonymity when discussing non-public information. (There is no suggestion that Obama knew that the campaign contribution was tainted, and he has donated $160,000 in Rezko-related funds to charity.)

Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman, confirmed that a campaign representative was indeed present in the courtroom for Rezko's trial. "She went to the trial to gather information since we've gotten so many media inquiries," Burton said in an e-mail to NEWSWEEK.

Source


Clintons to face fraud trial
By Kathy Miller

WORLDNET DAILY- Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing Thursday morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clinton's longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Source

Hip Hop Historical Site Saved From Gentrification

This is very good news.

Birthplace Of Hip-Hop Saved
by Chris Richburg

Efforts to save the birthplace of Hip-Hop culture proved successful as the New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) rejected a proposed sale of 1520 Sedgwick Avenue to a developer Mark Karasick. According to Sen. Charles Schumer, the HPD cited the fact that current rents could not be sustained if the sale of the property had gone through. The decision is the latest chapter in the struggle for Sedgwick Avenue tenants to preserve their building. Tenants enlisted Hip-Hop co-founder DJ Kool Herc last year to help save the property after word got out that the 100-unit apartment building’s owner planned to leave an affordable housing program. The building has also been deemed eligible to be listed on national and state registers of historic sites.

Source

Today's Jackass of Spades --- Gloria Steinem and Her Foot-in-the-Mouth Disease

SMH at this woman.

Clinton Surrogate Steinem Attacks McCain's War Record

The New York Observer reports that in Austin, Texas, over the weekend, feminist icon Gloria Steinem belittled Sen. John McCain's five-and-a-half years as a POW and said the media would treat that war record differently if it were a woman veteran's record.

"Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years?" Steinem asked, suggesting the media would ask "'What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?" ...

Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said, with bewilderment, "I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so."

Source

As I recall, Jessica Lynch's story made the news. She was martyred and everything until the truth was unfolded. Granted, her POW status wasn't years long, but she was a POW nonetheless who'd gotten a book deal and had almost gotten a movie deal. The one inarguable truth out of this is that Jessica definitely had it better than Shoshana Johnson.

Why is she so oversensitive about sexism? It's bad enough that the media continues to inject gender (and race) into the election coverage but shouldn't you be smarter than to take the bait? Why bring up some useless argument about how a female POW may be treated in contrast to a male POW? I fail to see the significance of her argument. Couldn't she have said "There's much more to leadership than serving in a war or being a POW" and then list Hillary's accomplishments?

Isn't Gloria tired of making thoughtless remarks?

"Pulling a Russert"; White Hate Mongers That Hide Behind Christianity Are OK

Meet Tim Russert
by Jamison Foser

"It's never the question that's the problem, Matt, it's the answer."
-- NBC's Tim Russert

"It's 'never the question that's the problem'? Really?
Spoken like the guy who gets to ask the questions."
-- CJR's Liz Cox Barrett

MSNBC recently began running commercials touting its coverage of "Decision 2008." One begins with on-screen text asking, "Why do people care about politics?" Viewers then hear Tim Russert explain: "It's about the war. Our sons and daughters. It's about the economy. Our jobs. It's about education. Our schools. It's about health care. Our families' well-being. It's about everything that matters." The ad ends with the on-screen declaration: "That's why you care. That's why we cover it."

During this week's Democratic presidential debate, Russert didn't ask a single question about global warming, continuing his longstanding habit of all but ignoring the topic. He didn't ask a single question about the mortgage crisis. (As one Cleveland resident noted, "We've got the mortgage industry's toxic waste scattered all over this city, but Mr. Blue-Collar-Buffalo-and-Cleveland-Marshall-Guy Russert couldn't be bothered with a question about it.") He didn't ask a single question about executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil-liberties concerns. But that shouldn't come as a surprise; of all the questions he has asked while moderating presidential debates during this campaign, only one has dealt with any of those topics.

This wasn't the first time Russert made the odd decision to ask Obama about controversial comments made by a famous African-American. During a 2006 interview, Russert asked Obama about controversial comments Harry Belafonte made the day before. But Belafonte, as Jane Hamsher noted at the time, had made similar comments two weeks before, and Russert had never asked any guest about them. Russert gave no indication of why Obama was uniquely qualified or required to comment on Belafonte's comments. (The only other time Russert has ever asked anyone about any comments made by Harry Belafonte, according to Nexis? 2003, when Russert asked then-Secretary of State Colin Powell about comments Belafonte made about U.S. actions toward Cuba.)

Given Russert's badgering of Obama about Farrakhan, you might be wondering how he handles endorsements by controversial figures who have a history of statements that are widely considered to be anti-Semitic ... when the endorser and the endorsed are both white Republicans.

Source

What stuck out to me in that part of the debate is that Hillary wasn't asked about rejecting the endorsement of mAnn Coulter. I'm also waiting on her rejection of Jenna Jameson's endorsement. If Tim wants to pose these "Gotcha!" type of questions, why wasn't Hillary leveled the same treatment?

Some hateful, radical ministers -- white evangelicals -- are acceptable
by Glenn Greenwald

One of this week's hysterical press scandals was that Minister Louis Farrakhan praised Barack Obama's candidacy even though Obama had previously denounced numerous Farrakhan remarks and the Obama campaign did nothing to seek out the Farrakhan praise. Nonetheless, Tim Russert demanded that Obama jump through multiple hoops to prove that he has no connection to -- and, in fact, "rejects" -- the ideas espoused by Farrakhan deemed to be radical and hateful.

Yesterday, though, the equally fringe, radical and hateful (at least) Rev. John Hagee -- a white evangelical who is the pastor of a sprawling "mega-church" in Texas -- enthusiastically endorsed John McCain. Did McCain have to jump through the same hoops which Russert and others set up for Obama and "denounce" Hagee's extremism and "reject" his support? No; quite the opposite. McCain said he was "very honored" to receive this endorsement and, when asked about some of Hagee's more twisted views, responded: "all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."

McCain's sainted supporter, Joe Lieberman, last year spoke to Hagee's group and lavished him with such obsequious praise that Lieberman actually compared Hagee, favorably, to Moses. Why is Louis Farrakhan deemed by our political establishment to be so radioactive as to not be fit for good company -- black candidates are required to repudiate his support even when they haven't sought it and denounce his views even when they've never advocated anything close to those views -- but John Hagee is a perfectly acceptable figure whom mainstream GOP politicians are free to court without any consequences or media objections?

Source

Where's the uproar for this? White Republican welcomes the endorsement of hate-mongering, crazed churchfolk, Obama caved into the bullying of Russert and Billary over semantics and tosses Farrakhan and his endorsement under the bus and people still aren't satisfied--- WTF?!

And as SheCodes noted, there seems to be an acceptable disregard for Muslims and I'm not feeling that. A lot of my childhood friends are Muslim and they and their parents were very good to me. Simply put --- I don't hate them. Consistency counts when unity is the backdrop to your campaign.

Ban Shirley Q. Liquor

If you are disturbed by this image of a gay White man paying "homage to Southern women," then please sign the petition.

I guess I'm gonna have to fight as fervently as the gay community did in getting Isaiah Washington fired from Grey's Anatomy.
http://www.banshirleyqliquor.typepad.com/my_weblog/

Juvenile's 4-Year-Old Daughter Murdered by Her Brother

WTF is going on?!

Rapper Juvenile's Daughter Killed in Ga.

By ERRIN HAINES

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. (AP) — A 17-year-old boy has been charged with murder in the fatal shootings of his mother and her two little girls, one of whom was rap star Juvenile's 4-year-old daughter.

Anthony Tyrone Terrell Jr. was charged Friday in the deaths at the family home near Lawrenceville, where the bodies were found the night before, said police spokeswoman Illana Spellman.

She identified the victims as Gwinnett County Sheriff's Deputy Joy Deleston, 39, and her two daughters, Micaiah, 11, and Jelani, 4. The motive was still unclear.

Deleston brought a paternity lawsuit in 2004, claiming that the 32-year-old rap star Juvenile, whose real name is Terius Gray, was Jelani's father, Gwinnett County court records show.

Attorney Randy Kessler, who represented Juvenile in the proceedings, said the case was resolved peacefully by consent order in 2006. Both parties agreed Juvenile was the father.

Kessler said Saturday he had not talked with the rapper about the killings. "Anytime you have a situation like that, it's shocking," Kessler said.

Terrell was taken to jail in neighboring DeKalb County to avoid any potential conflict because Deleston worked for Gwinnett County, Spellman said. He is being held without bail.

Because of his age, prosecutors cannot seek the death penalty against Terrell. A preliminary hearing will be set next week in Gwinnett County Superior Court, said prosecutor Danny Porter.

Source