The Alligator

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) most prominent Senate supporters made a prescient statement today that Senator and President Clinton should think about long and hard.

Senator Feinstein said:

“I, as you know, have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I’m very loyal to her. Having said that, I’d like to talk with her and [get] her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is. I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party. I think we need to prevent that as much as we can.”

In addition to Senator Feinstein there’s a lot of other tough love out there for Mrs. Clinton. Several other Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they are detecting a shift in the race between their colleagues. Senator Jack Reed (RI), who remains uncommitted, said Tuesday night’s primary results “shifted momentum” in the contests. Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ), who also has not endorsed a candidate, stated that “the hill has gotten steeper” for the former first lady.

Obama supporters echoed the sentiment while being careful not to push Clinton out of the race. “It was an extraordinary win and a magnificent campaign,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy (MA). “I pay tribute to Sen. Clinton. She’s been making her case and doing it effectively, but the outcome is very clear for the Democratic nomination. It’s effectively Barack Obama’s nomination.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan (ND) said Clinton would have to “make her own decision.”
“Both are colleagues — they have run aggressive campaigns … but ultimately, there is going to be a winner,” Dorgan stated. “I think last night perhaps moved Sen. Obama closer to that position.”

Veteran Democratic Party figure George McGovern dropped his support for Hillary Clinton on Wednesday and endorsed Barack Obama, saying the Illinois senator seemed certain to win the party’s nomination for the November presidential election. McGovern, 85, said he told Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, of his surprise decision in a telephone call, and that Clinton made no attempt to change his mind. “He just wanted me to know that he thinks that Hillary has made a great race and it’s up to her to decide when she leaves. And I don’t argue with that,” McGovern said.

What’s most striking about the McGovern statement is not that McGovern switched allegiances- while a figure in the Democratic party, he hasn’t been very influential since he lost his own bid for the White House to Richard Nixon in a landslide 38 years ago- but rather the comments he reported from President Clinton. If Mr. McGovern’s report of the conversation with the former President is accurate- it could be taken on its face to mean that he knows its over.

Clearly President William Jefferson Clinton is one of the most astute politicians that has graced the national stage in my lifetime. He knows how to count, he knows the metrics, he knows about momentum – so he knows its over. But Clintons don’t give up easily and they must be provided a graceful way to exit. She is a woman of testicular fortitude (a rather vivid description by her supporter Paul Gipson) and she has given her all- including more than $10 million of hers and President Clinton’s own fortune.

Some of my fellow supporters of Senator Obama believe that Senator Clinton is embarking on a scorched earth policy in order to make Mr. Obama unelectable so McCain wins and she has a shot at a Presidential election in 2012. I think that is overly cynical.

While I think that the Clintons will do almost anything to win, I do not think that they are willing to destroy their legacy by tearing the Democratic Party apart. Mrs. Clinton has to tread carefully. She needs to ensure she is seen as strong and as a fighter- yet also fair and loyal to the party – the house that Bill built in 1992. While Bill may have shown a degree of a personal self destructive streak when he embarrassed himself, his family, and the office of President by his trysts with Monica Lewinsky, I truly don’t believe that the former President has a whiff of a political self destructive streak and I think Mrs. Clinton is too smart and strategic to turn the Democratic Party the incendiary Valhalla in Wagner’s “Götterdämmerung”.

Mrs. Clinton certainly wants a political future to secure her own legacy- even if it doesn’t include the Presidency. In 2012 her seat in the Senate will be up for election. If Senator Obama doesn’t self-immolate, Mrs. Clinton will need to think hard about her future. She would certainly be a candidate for Senate Majority Leader and she is an oft talked about candidate for New York Governor in 2010. She may feel miffed by being in the Senate with colleagues where many have supported Mr. Obama. But Mrs. Clinton would get over that- she clearly got over being ticked off with the vast right wing conspiracy when she was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and Richard Mellon Scaife- two of the paragons of that group.

Mrs. Clinton needs to have a soft landing. Mr. Obama offered that to her last night and it seems that he is not only willing to negotiate about Florida and Michigan (after all- it doesn’t matter whether or not they are counted- he will still be ahead) and there are rumblings that their a much lower level discussions being had about the Obama campaign paying the Clinton campaign’s debt.

But if she doesn’t leave soon, Senator Feinstein will be correct; there will be negative dividends. The spectre of a John McCain presidency should shake the Clintons and their supporters to their core and give everyone pause to think about how to come together. The country cannot afford a third Bush presidency.

My message to Mrs. Clinton is take a couple of weeks so you can find a greatful exit but after that you must go. As Maureen Dowd wrote so humorously on April 23rd, “Before they devour themselves once more, perhaps the Democrats will take a cue from Dr. Seuss’s ‘Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!’ (The writer once mischievously redid it for his friend Art Buchwald as ‘Richard M. Nixon Will You Please Go Now!’)”

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. … I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. … You can go in an old blue shoe.
Just go, go, GO!”

Let me tell ya a story ‘bout a gal that’s been the talk of the trailer park recently. She’s been seen slingin’ back beers and shots, runnin’ around in pick up trucks and has been huntin’ all her life ever since she was knee high to a grasshopper. Yup this gal even has a southern white accent tinged with a little Midwestern twang. Damn- you’d think that this good ‘ol girl came from the hills of West Virginia and daddy was a coal miner. I’m waitin’ for her to talk about bein’ raised in Butcher Holler and spending her childhood hoein’ the corn fields. Now, now- she’s a good gal- I bet she’s spent her whole life since droppin’ out of school at the local steel mill. She’s rough and tumble- scrappy!. She’s a no nonsense gal who won’t take any guff from her man. She comes home each night to the double wide, pops open a can of Bud, puts a Swanson’s TV dinner in the microwave for her and her man Bubba. She sits back on the recliner and tunes in to re-runs of “Married With Children” while Bubba cleans his rifles and nods off with a cheap cigar in his mouth dreamin’ about that gal he met at the gun show.

Damn? You know what? I think that this ‘ol gal- this regular blue collar gal is my idea of the ideal President. She knows about people! She’s not one of them Ivy League educated effete elite liberals. She gets us. Heck she’s one of us- she has machine grease running through her veins.

Well not machine grease- but some sort of grease. How has Hillary Rodham Clinton reinvented herself as the Queen of the Blue Collar Crowd? During the campaign in Pennsylvania she was a rootin’ tootin’ shootin’ Annie Oakley from Scranton. Now she seems to have accentuated her Midwest twang and her drawl seems much more pronounced each day- you’d swear she came up from the nearby trailer park. While Bill is on his Bubba tour (and he does have Bubba roots he can pull from), Hillary is running as the gal from the factory- not as much of a pansy as Rocky Balboa with testicular fortitude to spare. Meanwhile her husband, the former President, is having the time of his life on his Bubba tour of the back country of North Carolina.

Hillary’s father was a successful business owner and she grew up in the upper middle class suburb of Park Ridge Illinois. She went to Wellesley College- one of the elite “Seven Sisters” colleges and later to Yale Law School. Later she was a proferssor of law at the University of Arkansas, first lady of Arkansas, and a partner in the prestigious Rose Law firm. She served on three corporate boards – TCBY, Lafarge and Wal-Mart. Oh yeah – she had a stint as First Lady of the United States and then became a US Senator.

Yup- this gal feels my pain- she’s not part of that elite establishment! No she’s not she OWNS that elite establishment It is remarkable that this newly minted “good ‘ol gal” has reinvented herself so completely, The grating pundit- Chris Mathews- who thinks he is a one make spokesman for blue collar voters (while calling them that arrogant media term- “Lunch bucket Republicans” while living an inside the beltway life- said that Clinton is amazing- you’d think she grew up in Scranton and got her GED. Hardly! Her pedigree is elite- more elite than most and what’s wrong with being the smartest person in the room?

How soon we forget! The gal fightin’ for the regular guy is the same person who made culturally dismissive remarks about Tammy Wynette (“I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by her man”) and her outlook on marriage and about women staying home and baking cookies and having teas.

I hope we aren’t that dumb. This reinvention is political cynicsm and is a lie. Add the pandering about the gas tax and I just want to send her home singin’ the blues. Senator Clinton- I have a request. Don’t treat the American people like a bunch of dumb hicks and don’t pretend you are something you aren’t.

Recently the news media have concentrated their coverage on the needs, opinions and voting patterns of “lunch bucket” Democrats - a term the media use to condescendingly describe lower middle class older voters without college degrees. This voting block has also been the focus of endless pandering by Senators McCain and Clinton. Being able to bowl and slug back a shot and a beer seem to get more coverage than the number of American troops who died in April (the number is 52 in case you are interested).

Chris Matthews of “Hardball” on MSNBC lauded Senator Clinton at her prowess in re-inventing herself as a girl from Scranton with a GED as if that gave her higher credibility as a presidential candidate than her true pedigree- middle class Park Ridge Illinois, Wellsley and Yale Law. By the way-Matthews likes to view himself as a blue collar “regular guy” even though he attended a private high school, the elite Holy Cross College in Boston and, after a stint in the Peace Corps did graduate work at UNC Chapel Hill.

I obviously would be thrown into the elite pile by the media (by the way- most of the media, like Matthews, are elite too). I come from a privileged background, I have a private school and Ivy League education, I read books and publications like “The New Yorker”, “The Nation”, The New Republic” and “The New York Times”, I watch news shows like “Meet the Press” and I have worked for years in public policy- focused on health care access and public health planning. What all of that translates into is that I am informed. And I don’t turn off the Republican debates or Bush speeches- I listen to the other side as well. I like to think that I can think!

But during this election cycle I feel more annoyed than usual about the elite label. Elite is never used with Conservative, although it is ironic that most of the wealthy and social elite in this country are Republicans who have a stake in policies and laws that protect their wealth and protects the growth of that wealth. Elite is always used with Liberals- people who feel that government has a roll to play in helping lift up the least of us; believe that there is a social contract at play where we all are responsible for the welfare of our fellow citizens; and support labor unions and the needs of average working people. I find that the height of irony. But there is a greater myth that I want to address.

Elite is often interchanged with alliterative labels like “Latte Liberals” and “Limousine Liberals”. These monikers conjure an image promoted by those on the right- that there are a bunch of out of touch wealthy people who condescendingly “know what’s best”.

They are really trying to say that the elite are people who are wealthier than you and have an educated smugness that is arrogant and are people to whom the “average” American cannot relate. Suddenly education and intelligence are bad things. I thought the average American aspired to have their children go to college and do better and I thought we wanted to give the message that education is a good thing.

Let’s assume that the “elite” are informed and educated – an assumption on which most of those who deride the “elite” agree. What on earth is wrong with educated and informed people? What is wrong with an electorate engaged in the issues rather than campaign imagery? What is wrong with people who don’t swallow sound bites and talking points whole cloth from either the White House or the Speaker of the House? Quite frankly – I want a president who is the smartest person in the room, someone much smarter than me, someone who has encyclopedic knowledge and who is capable of strong nuanced thinking. Do I want a president who is educated and smart, ergo “elite”? Damn straight!

But there is a something else attached to this “elite” myth. It makes it sound like those of us with good educations and hold liberal views are living in ivory towers or at least in gated communities. Not true.

Again- I use myself as an example. Cornell and Harvard educated- I spent the last part of my career in the non-profit sector working on issues I care about. My partner also works for a non-profit doing direct service with adults living with developmental disabilities. Folks working for non-profits are not known for making buckets of money. We both share “liberal” ideologies, we both read newspapers, listen to debates, and we both have good minds and good hearts. But we aren’t wealthy – we are in the middle class and our combined income is NOT in the 6 figure range. I am on a fixed income having been disabled with AIDS and Hepatitis C for nine years. We live on a budget and we are affected by higher prices on groceries and I am always worried about the vagaries of health care – its cost and quality. Presently I have good coverage- but given the precariousness of health coverage- that could change. If I lost coverage I would not be able to pay the nearly $12,000 per month that my medications cost on average. We occasionally indulge ourselves- but we travel less and we dine out less. Our lives are quiet, domestic and we struggle to decrease debt and stay a step ahead. Is that elite? I don’t consider myself elite; our lives sound like the majority of people in this country. I consider myself middle class with a good education.

So I ask the question, what’s wrong with smart people? Why are we derided as out of touch and our thoughts dismissed? If being educated means being dismissed by the nation then why do we view education as important? On the other hand if the people of this country believed strongly in education, we would invest more in education. But that would cost us more money and therefore taxes would be higher. Now I get it! Educated people are elite because educating us raises your taxes.

It seems that there have been too many milestones recently related to the war in Iraq. There was the fifth anniversary of the war on 19 March; the 4,000 death on Easter Sunday just 4 days later; and yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the most shameless spectacle ever seen in the history of the United States- President Bush declaring that the war in Iraq was essentially won and reconstruction was beginning on the deck of an aircraft carrier and under a banner that declared “Mission Accomplished”. He did this after he had his boyhood dream of being a fighter pilot fulfilled by flying onto the carrier in a fighter jet dressed in full fighter-pilot regalia. The president had his “Top Gun” moment. I have written extensively about this war and my piece written on the fifth anniversary summarizes those articles- Five Years in Iraq- A somber reflection

But as was true in the run up to the war, the President had an extremely effective accomplice- the press.

On May 1, 2003, Richard Perle advised, in a USA Today Op-Ed, “Relax, Celebrate Victory.” The same day, exactly five years ago, President Bush, dressed in a flight suit, landed on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major military operations in Iraq — with the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner arrayed behind him in the war’s greatest photo op.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a “hero” and boomed, “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.” He added: “Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple.” Mr. Matthews was shameless on his program yesterday where he was outraged by this “anniversary”.

PBS’ Gwen Ifill said Bush was “part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.” On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, “The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a — on a carrier landing.”

When Bush’s jet landed on an aircraft carrier, American casualties stood at 139 killed and 542 wounded.

Five years after President George W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier off San Diego, Iraq is in chaos, U.S. troops are mired in a sectarian war, and the entrenched conflict is dragging the nation into a recession.

Indeed, the only people for whom “the mission” has been accomplished are the many companies with lucrative military contracts. They have raked in over $100 billion so far from the Iraq War, enabling them to earn record profits. With Bush intent on staying the course until he leaves the White House, Sen. John McCain voicing his approval for the United States to stay in Iraq for another 100 years, the Democratic candidates unwilling to call for a complete withdrawal of all troops and contractors, and Congress ready to approve another $100-200 billion for the war, it is up to the American people to demand an end to the war.

• Mission Accomplished? 4,056 U.S. Soldiers, Over a Million Iraqis Dead: The Iraq War has cost the lives of over 4,000 U.S. soldiers, over a million Iraqi civilians, and over a thousand contractors. Nearly 30,000 U.S. soldiers have been injured. A recent report estimates that over 320,000 soldiers have suffered traumatic brain injuries and estimated 300,000 soldiers will sustain post-traumatic stress disorder. These afflictions will haunt these men and women for the rest of their lives.

• Mission Accomplished? $520 Billion Squandered Over the past five years, Congress has provided over $520 billion dollars for the Iraq War. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University’s Linda Bilmes estimate the long-term cost of the war will top $3 trillion, once you include the interest and debt service payments from this borrowed money, and the costs of rebuilding the military after the war and providing for veterans’ long-term health care.

• Mission Accomplished? $100 Billion Spent on Contractors: The mission has indeed been accomplished for corporations with military contracts. Since the war began, they have reaped large profits, while producing substandard work, putting our nation’s soldiers at risk on the battlefield time and time again. Military contractors have opened fire on Iraqi civilians and reconstruction contractors’ work has been fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. While Congress has tried to mandate better oversight of companies such as Halliburton, CACI, Titan, and Bechtel, Bush has exempted contractors from any real accountability.

• Mission Accomplished? Fueling a Sectarian War: As the war has dragged on, the United States has tried many different approaches to bolstering security on the ground. Over the past five years, the United States has spent over $20 billion training the largely Shi’a Iraqi army and police, and also arming and training the Kurdish Peshmerga troops in Northern Iraq. But since the “surge” began, the U.S. has also been arming, training, and financing the largely Sunni “Awakening” councils. Further complicating the situation, the U.S. has backed the sectarian Iraqi government in their attacks on the forces loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, fueling the Shi’a-Shi’a conflict in Iraq’s South.

• Mission Accomplished? Majorities of Iraqis Want the U.S. to Withdraw: Since the war began, Iraqis have supported a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. This still holds true five years later, latest polling indicates nearly 40% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave immediately and less than 30% believe the United States is making Iraq safer.

• Mission Accomplished? No End in Sight: Over a year ago, Congress demanded that Bush produce a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, Bush decided to send more troops into the battlefield. In recent hearings, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker indicated that no plans were being made for withdrawing additional U.S. troops. More importantly, they didn’t offer any new plans for how they could stabilize Iraq, promote reconciliation, reduce costs, and protect Iraqi and U.S. lives on the ground in Iraq. Over the past five years it has become crystal clear, continuing the war and occupation of Iraq only leads to greater death and destruction.
Standing on the deck of a ship and declaring “Mission Accomplished” doesn’t make it so. Since Bush’s ill-timed and now easily lampooned speech, Iraqis are no better off, U.S. soldiers continue to be put in harm’s way for an ill-defined and poorly executed mission, and our presence is only fueling the violence on all sides.

As we mark this fifth anniversary and Congress begins to deliberate spending an additional $100-200 billion to continue the war, we need to ask our nation what mission can be accomplished? By “staying the course” we only prolong the inevitable, doing more harm to both Iraqis and ourselves as we plunge deeper into economic crisis.

With 70% of Americans opposed to the war, and large majorities supporting a timeline for withdrawal, it’s time to demand the same from Bush and Congress. The most important mission to accomplish now is political — it’s time for our leaders to stop the funding, bring the troops home, and pledge our long-term support to Iraq.

It’s true that the nation’s focus has moved from the war to the economy because Americans are more concerned with their wallets than a war; a war where they were told to go shopping as a way to support the troops. But it is clear that this entire fiasco was the biggest disaster in American foreign policy and one of the presidential candidates fully supports the war- John McCain. It is also clear that Hillary Clinton was one of the Senators that gave Mr. Bush the green light for this farce. Only Barack Obama, of the three candidates, decried the war from the beginning.

While Indiana and North Carolina squabble over a bogus gas tax holiday, let’s also remember what Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton hath wrought in Iraq.

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton have an ally in the press as Bush did in the run up to the war and on May 1, 2003. For the past week we have heard everything about Reverend Wright and nothing about the 52 troops who died in April.

This hasn’t been Mission Accomplished- it has become mission impossible and it will take someone who will change the landscape of our foreign policy and who has the willingness to engage in real diplomacy to extricate us from this quagmire.

Back in January when I decided to endorse Barack Obama on this site and, more importantly, vote for him in the California primary- I was thrilled about Obama’s message but I also had some pride and some of my natural cynicism was lessened by the thought that this country had matured enough that it might have been able to bridge the racial divide and actually elect an African American for President. Beyond the policy issues and Obama’s positions with which I agree and the innate desire that Obama has to bring people together which I find compelling; there was the possibility that the United States had made great progress towards healing our great national birth defect- racism. Now I wonder if that is possible.

Between “Bitter-gate” and “Wright-gate”, Obama’s campaign is reeling. In my pieces: Pandering v. Nuance aka Clinton v. Obama and  Obama Elitist? Not! McCain and Clinton are the essence of the Power Elite  I have made it clear that my belief about the genesis of both of these campaign issues.

Obama clearly does not come from an elite background and while his words might have been better chosen I think it is true that the Republicans get lower middle class folks with no college education to vote against their economic interest by focusing on wedge issues such as abortion, gun control, gay marriage and immigration. I’ll state it starkly- the Republican party favors the über-wealthy and multinational corporations taking jobs out of the US and doesn’t give a damn about the average American. In order to get elected the Republicans trot out the golden oldies- God, guns and fear. Obama wasn’t being an elitist- he was being honest about a truth most folks don’t want to admit because they would have to admit that they had been duped. Why else would there still be a high percentage of Americans believing that Sadaam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?  Simple- Americans get duped but don’t like to admit it. 

It also seems obvious to me that many folks are judging the relationship between Reverend Wright and Senator Obama. I wouldn’t dare to judge the complications between a man and his pastor- the man who brought him to Jesus Christ. Like family- these relationships are complex. In today’s New York Times there was an article that outlined the difficulty that Obama had in severing his ties with Reverend Wright. I won’t reiterate what I wrote in my piece yesterday on this subject. Suffice it to say here that I fervently believe that when Reverend Wright is pointed to as an example of bad judgment that would portend how Obama would make decisions in the White House it is the wrong analogy and it doesn’t consider the complicated and personal nature of faith, pastor, congregant and church.

But why are these two stories sticking to Mr. Obama like glue? I think my cynical nature about the American people has returned- the reason these stories are sticking is race.

Obama’s background is not elite- but he has had the temerity to be an uppity Negro and hasn’t waited his turn.

And the racism inherent in the criticism about Obama and Wright is so obvious it would be humorous if it weren’t so profoundly sad.

First- there are Falwell and Robertson:

In an interview that took place on September 13, 2001 Jerry Falwell said God may have allowed what the nation deserved because of moral decay and said Americans should have an attitude of repentance before God and asking for God’s protection. He specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People for the American way as sharing in the blame. Pat Robertson responded with agreement.

Here is the exact transcript of that interview:

Falwell said, “What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.”

Robertson replied,”Well, Jerry, that’s my feeling. I think we’ve just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven’t begun to see what they can do to the major population.”

Falwell said, “The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I’ll hear from them for this, but throwing God…successfully with the help of the federal court system…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.”

Robertson said, “I totally concur, and the problem is we’ve adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system.”

So I guess that it is okay to say that the United States brought 9/11 on because of perceived immorality (as defined by Falwell and Robertson) but it is not okay to blame it on our foreign policies? Falwell and Robertson have been given a pass recently on the 9/11 remarks.

Second- there is Billy Graham

Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a “stranglehold” during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released in 2002 by the National Archives.

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life. “You believe that?” Nixon says after the “stranglehold” comment. “Yes, sir,” Graham says.

“Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

“No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something,” Graham replies.

Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they “swarm around me and are friendly to me.” But, he confides to Nixon, “They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”

Where is the outrage about the “Pastor to the Presidents” blatant anti-Semitism?

And finally- there is Pastor John Hagee

Reverend Hagee -a man whose support John McCain sought and received- has called the Roman Catholic Church the “Great Whore” and who said New Orleans brought Katrina upon itself because it was going to have a gay pride event.

All of these men of the cloth have made horrendous and offensive remarks, but the only one getting play is Reverend Wright. Where is the outrage about the remarks of Falwell, Robertson, Graham and Hagee?

I’ve scratched my head and the only answer I can come up with is race. Those men are white. Reverend Wright preaches a brand of religion that is a black liberation theology. This is a tradition that has long existed. True- Wright’s comments were out of line and bombastic, but so were Hagee’s Robertson’s and Falwell’s. Graham’s anti-Semitic sentiments were are all the more odious because they were not public comments or meant ever to be heard by the public.  Wright was speaking in a style that was already alien and therefore easier to ellicit outrage.

So Elitist-gate can be translated into the stark terms of a black man getting to big for his britches. And Wright-gate can capitalize on the most segregated hour in the country 11 AM on Sunday.

Race is a constant in our society. I certainly am not naïve enough to believe that an Obama presidency would magically erase the profound impact of race in American life, but I have believed that an Obama presidency would go a long way towards healing the rift.

I have consciously questioned how race affects my thinking and emotions. Do I get a little more cautious if I see a young black man walking in my direction on a sidewalk at night? - sadly I admit I do. When I meet someone what is the first thing I see- it is the color of their skin. My automatic response as an American is to view the world and society through the lens of race. I have to consciously hold back that automatic response because I know that this view is inherently unfair and wrong- but ingrained into the American psyche.

I have a dear group of friends- mostly women who are conservative Reaganites and I love these women dearly- but I fear that many of them have been swayed by wedge issues- such as immigration and most of them have been convinced to vote these issues as opposed to their economic interest.

Among this group of friends the anti-immigrant sentiment is palpable and I hate to admit it; but the prejudice inherent in the sentiment is obvious. Often times the email strings among my dear friends, which start off about some information (often misinformation) about immigration, devolve into ugly comments about phone trees that offer Spanish, about “English only” and only believing anti-immigrant propoganda even when faced with evidence to the contrary.  I’m sure that if you put a Latino who is a citizen and a white person who is here on an expired visa next to one another and ask my friends to identify the person in the US “illegally”, these well meaning friends would identify the Latino as the “illegal” every time.

What is most concerning about my friends’ views is that they are prejudiced without the consciousness of being prejudiced. It’s about illegal immigration, not about race or ethnicity and there is no admission that the underlying sentiment is prejudiced. Actually my friends would be offended if I told them that their comments are, in my estimation, prejudiced. Americans see life through a racial lens- the key towards racial and ethinic equality is for all Americans to admit this world view is part of our history and we need to acknowledge it before we are able to change it.

“Bitter-gate” and “Wright-gate” have given the American people exactly what they need- a reason not to vote for the black candidate without the guilt of acknowledging that race entered into their choice. Both of the scenarios that have evolved around Obama’s candidacy have racism at their core and they allow folks to feel comfortable in their racism.  It’s all neat and tidy.

Years ago the term “The Bradley Effect” was coined by researchers who study polling data after a black candidate, the former Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley, lost his bid to be California’s governor but the polling showed him ahead. In essence the Bradley effect is the skewing of polling data because people do not want to admit their vote against an African American. While racism prevails throughout our society, the worst name you can call someone is a racist (I guess there are a few that still proudly display their racism unapologetically).

The recent news coverage of the Wright episode and Senator Obama’s “elitist” remarks has given Americans cover and we can blithely go on our racist way without admitting our racist tendencies without having to look carefully at the issues or ourselves.  I still have hope that we have become a more enlightened electorate, but I am increasingly wondering if I that hope is naïve.

Senator Barack Obama’s unequivocal denouncement yesterday of Reverend Wright’s comments and performance was definitive and eloquent. But of course the question many have is “Why did he sit in the pew for 20 years?” Well folks- a lot of well respected people sat in those pews listening to Wright’s sermons for years. It isn’t like Mr. Obama was attending some voodoo ceremony where the pentagram was hanging. He saw a ministry that had a social commitment- he was part of a community of faith that offered ministries to “the least among us”. While Reverend Wright adheres to a “Black Liberation Theology” and every one knew that- it seems clear that part of that theology, the part that spoke to Obama, was outreach to the community and lifting up those with no hope. If one reads Obama’s books and listens to the man- you can see what it was about Trinity – its community work- that appealed to Obama. It was the sense of Christianity being tied to good works in the community that is what brought Obama to Christ and it was that part of Wright that appealed to Obama.

It is clear that Mr. Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright was complicated. He saw Wright as someone important in his life- and like all of us we have friends who are flawed and we look beyond those flaws to see the good that they do. Did Obama know that his pastor was controversial- sure, did he think that he was a nut case that had views that were so “out there”, no. Even if he had occasionally heard black liberation rhetoric from Wright- it was not pronounced enough to severe his ties. This was a spiritual and emotional relationship- it was complicated.

It says a lot about Mrs. Clinton that she said she would have left the pews of Trinity a long time ago. She either didn’t see or didn’t want to address that these relations are complicated and they are nuanced. No one is totally evil and no one is totally a saint. Mr. Obama was part of a community of faith that was doing good works in the straining neighborhood of Chicago’s south side. Mr. Wright was responsible for building that community of faith regardless of his most incendiary comments- his church has done amazing work.

If Mrs. Clinton sees the world so black and white- with such starkness- I think it tells me that she is not a person of good judgment. Diplomacy, the economy, the disaster where we find ourselves at the present time need someone who can appreciate the nuances and the finer points of these complicated problems. But Mrs. Clinton is a very smart woman- she knows what sort of complexities are involved- but she choses to pander.

Not only did she flippantly remark on a very personal and complicated relationship between a man and his pastor with a quick answer- she said what was politically expedient. She should know how complicated relationships are- she could have thrown Bill under the bus after his lie to her and the country about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but she chose not to. Relationships- especially relationships that are based on either intimacy in marriage or intimacy of faith- are complicated. She was pandering.

But that is just the beginning. Sure she threw the kitchen sink at Obama in Pennsylvania and it apparently worked- but now she is offering everything to the voters including that kitchen sink. Let’s take this gas tax holiday.

Mr. Obama is correct that this is a political stunt being played by both Senators Clinton and McCain. 3 months of gas at a few cents less per gallon that may add up to $30.00 per car over the course of the “holiday”. Yes, Mrs. Clinton says that she would pay for this with windfall tax money from the oil companies. But that strategy only works if she is elected president and she has a Congress that agrees with her. Should she be promoting a policy that would occur NOW without knowing for sure how it will be paid for in the future?

In his Op/Ed piece today in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote:

“This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country. When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.”

Then there are Mrs. Clinton’s hawkish comments about obliterating Iran if they would attack Israel or any of our friends in the region- creating, in her own mind, a sort of mid-East NATO. Obama said that in response to an attack against Israel (or any other US ally) by Iran, he would act “forcefully and swiftly”. Well, that’s a bit vague, but it’s certainly better than immediately saying “we will obliterate them!” We need a leader who will be forceful and swift, but we also need to know that Obama won’t immediately rush into military attacks or outright war like President Bush did.

Why on earth would Mrs. Clinton begin sabre rattling á la Cheney / Bush? It is probably the same reason she ended the Pennsylvania campaign with an add that featured Osama bin Laden- FEAR. Thanks Mrs. Clinton, I thought we were over that. Playing fear equals pandering in my estimation.

Clearly Mr. Obama is asking voters to think. The times demand hard thinking. Mr. Obama believes that voters will see through fear mongering and pandering on issues like gas taxes. Mr. Obama talk about ”us” making change- that we must work together to make change. This point of view challenges us to think and to look at the nuance in policy.

Mrs. Clinton is promising everything to everybody- like the “Forty Acres and a Mule” promise during the Civil War’s reconstruction. Her blantant stunt with the gas tax, her flippant comment about a personal relationship between Senator Obama and Reverend Wright that is as complex as her own with her philandering husband, and her fear mongering and hawk posturing with Iran point to a cynical sense of the electorate.

Senator Obama was racked over the coals for comments he made “It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

What Obama was saying is true- people use the spectre of destroying faith and guns, immigrants and jobs – gay marriage and gun control state initiatives, anti-immigration legislation, and blaming everything on NAFTA- to stoke the fears of voters. Republican have been very deft at using these wedge issues to manipulate voters from voting in their economic interest. He was exposing the cynisism of the current political system that expolits these issues and fears as a destraction and assumes the lowest common denominator among our electorate.

Clearly Mr. McCain is continuing this well tried tradition in the Republican party, but Mrs. Clinton is using the same tactics in the primary. Who is elitist? The person who is pandering or the person who exposes the pandering? I think the answer is clear.

I hope we don’t see any more debates between Senators Clinton and Obama. Maybe after more than 20 debates there is little substantive that can be explored- well at least be explored and garner ratings for ABC. Flag pins, Reverend Wright regurgitated, sniper fire, elitism, bitter Pennsylvanians and asking Obama about a relationship, that is tenuous at best, with a former member of the Weather Underground who was an active “domestic terrorist” when Barack Obama was about 8 years old and who is now a Professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Thank you Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for bringing Presidential debates to a new low!

At a moment when the American economy is in a recession, when the U.S. trade deficit is breaking records, when the vice president and the secretary of state stand accused of organizing torture parties in Washington, when the president has gotten us bogged down in two foreign quagmires, and when official gaming of globalization has stirred up food riots around the world, Gibson and Stephanopoulos led Senators Obama and Clinton into the last debate before the critical Pennsylvania primary trying to out-FOX one another.

Wednesday night’s moderators, who pummeled Obama for most of the night — almost made a viewer long for a long-winded intervention by the CNN’s self-absorbed but reasonably serious Wolf Blitzer. And the questions from viewers appeared to have been selected with the purpose of raising doubts about whether these people may be spending just a little too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh.

“In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia,” Huffington Post analyst Greg Mitchell wrote on the site Thursday. “They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

The absolute low point of a debate that rarely left the low road came when former Clinton aide Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his meetings with Bill Ayers, a 1960s Weather Underground radical who went on to become a college professor.

Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, have lived in the Hyde Park area in Chicago. So has Barack Obama. Ayers is one of numerous people, in the Chicago area, whom Barack Obama has run across. Obama has much closer relationships with numerous conservatives on the University of Chicago faculty, many of whom have given money to Obama’s campaign, and many of whom have talked to him at length and been at social occasions with him.

Gail Collins in her New York Times Op/Ed piece wrote: “I know it’s been a hard couple of weeks, people. You were all excited about this election and now you feel like someone who got all dressed up for a great event and wound up at a B-list party with a cash bar. You never want to hear the words “bitter” or “Bosnia” again. And the only political story that you’ve really enjoyed lately is the one about Cindy McCain’s list of favorite recipes being cribbed from The Food Network.

But as upset as many of us are who had to sit through the intolerable trerrible tabloid debate, Senator Barack Obama is making lemonade out of the lemons from last night.

At a town meeting today in North Carolina, where he arrived to campaign in advance of the May 6 primary, Mr. Obama seemed intent on seeking to quell any political fallout from the debate in Philadelphia. “That was the roll-out of the Republican campaign against me in November. That is what they will do,” Mr. Obama said. “They will try to focus on all these issues that don’t have anything to do with how you pay your bills at the end of the month.”

With a wide smile, and a sarcastic tone, Mr. Obama sought to brush aside criticism about his performance in what he said was the 21st debate of the presidential nominating fight.  “I will tell you, it does not get much more fun than these debates. They are inspiring events,” Mr. Obama quipped.

Obama said, “Last night, I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people. It took us 45 minutes! Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care. Forty-five minutes before we heard about Iraq,” he continued. “Forty-five — 45 — minutes before we heard about jobs. Forty-five minutes before we heard about gas prices.”

He told the audience that he intended to let the criticism roll off of him. As he spoke, he made a dramatic gesture of wiping off his sleeves and dusting off his dark suit.  “That’s what you got to do,” he said, drawing loud applause from the audience. “That’s what you’ve got to do. But understand this, that is also precisely why I’m running for president – to change that kind of politics.”

After Mr. Obama’s opening remarks, a woman in the audience asked how he intended to forcefully challenge Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.  “It’s a little hard to do with a fellow Democrat. I’m trying to show some restraint. I won’t have as much restraint with the Republicans,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “That’s the debate that I am really looking forward to. I am confident that that’s the debate the American people are going to want to have. What they are going to figure out is who is the person who can lead this country and actually solve problems,” he added. “We’ve been going through this politics – tit for tat silliness – for decades now.”

Well, Senator Obama- I’ll take my lead from you and ignore the idiocy of last night’s debate. But truly this debacle was not just an insult to Senator Obama (and to some extent Senator Clinton) it was an insult to the American people. Maybe I am part of that undefined “elite” but I hope my fellow citizens are more intelligent than falling for the garbage that passed for issues last night. I hope that the American people learn from mistakes- those mistakes are George W. Bush first term and George W. Bush second term. It is possible we only made one mistake since in 2000 Al Gore actually won the popular vote.

Let’s get out of the muck and mire, the tit-for-tat, the gotcha politics and take this election seriously. There are serious issues in this country and in the world. Having a debate on tabloid stories is demeaning, demoralizing and just plain wrong.

Senator Obama’s recent comments about the frustration that many middle class Americans feel were poorly worded, especially in the world of 24 hour news cycles, repetitive loops, pundits bloviating ad nauseum and where cynicism reigns supreme. 

But the sentiments are right on target. Many Americans feel that their government, their issues and their lives have been long forgotten by the power elites in Washington.  Both Senators Clinton and McCain qualify, in spades, as members of the inside the beltway power elite.  Mr. McCain has been in Congress since 1982 and Mrs. Clinton has been in the power elite since 1992 when her husband was elected President.  Let’s see that is twenty six years of inside the beltway mentality for McCain and sixteen years of the same mentality for Mrs. Clinton. 

Where do these centimillionaires come off claiming that Mr. Obama is elitist?  It is indeed baffling that Mr. McCain with his multiple homes and a wife worth $100 million and Mrs. Clinton who has been entrenched in the upper echelons of the Democratic party for as long as some new voters have been alive would call a man of mixed race with a single mother as elitist. Mr. McCain is the son of an Admiral who, I am sure, used family ties to enter the Naval Academy where he graduated 3rd from the bottom. Mrs. Clinton grew up in the upper middle class suburb of Park Ridge IL and went to the prestigious women’s college- Wellsley.

Mr. Obama entered a California liberal arts college before transfering to Columbia University and later became the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review.  You can bet your bottom dollar none of that academic success came with the ease of a well-off middle class girl going to Wellsley or that of a well connected midshipman. Neither Senator Clinton or Senator McCain has a clue as to what it means to wonder whether or not government has left them behind. It is quite plausible-if not likely- that the black son of a white mother who was for the most part a single mom may have more of sense of how government can disappoint.  

Let’s look at the ENTIRE quote- not just those incendiary sentences. 

I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government…. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism….

But the truth is … our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

….[Y]ou can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

Robert Kennedy said rather similar things four decades ago when he challenged many rural Indiana voters. As I recall, RFK did pretty well when the votes were counted.

The faux outrage expressed by Senators McCain and Clinton calls to mind the emotional torment suffered 16 years ago by then-Senator, now McCain backer, Al D’Amato. Ordinarily known for his salty demeaner, D’Amato pretended to cry when his hapless opponent Robert Abrams made a clumsy remark that could be construed as anti-Italian.

Barack Obama spent years of his life organizing out-of-work steelworkers on the south side of Chicago - people just like those who live in Allentown or Erie or Pittsburgh or the Monongehela Valley in western Pennsylvania. He stood shoulder to shoulder with them, sat at their kitchen tables, spent hours in their church basements.

He didn’t do those things as a famous candidate, but as a community organizer being paid $8,000 a year by a coalition of churches. You don’t build a resume or a client list organizing unemployed steel workers. You do it because you respect the people and you care about justice.

In fact, the trademark of Barack Obama’s campaign for president is the honest, respectful way he talks to everyone — and stands up for everyday Americans.

Senator Obama has given voice to the frustration of millions of Americans.  It is the height of cynicsm for either Senator Clinton or Senator McCain to feign being stunned and flabbergasted that Barack Obama would imply that Pennsylvanians are bitter over, say, thirty years of economic decline in their local communities.  The fact that they are parsing Mr. Obama’s words in order to manipulate the very people who are angry to feel disrespected is disgusting and is the “politics as usual” that Senator Obama has shunned.

If they in fact believe their own press than they are completely out of touch with the anger and the disillusionment among many Americans- that is why the message of change is so appealing.  Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, both of whom epitomize the power elite in Washington, are either completely out of touch or are playing purely cynical politics.  You can decide for yourself which it is. 

Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered 40 years ago today just after 6pm as he stood on a balcony of the Lorraine motel in Memphis, Tennessee. A single rifle bullet hit him in the jaw, then severed his spinal cord. James Earl Ray, a white man, was convicted of the killing and sentenced to 99 years.

King made a famous denunciation of America’s war in Vietnam exactly a year before his murder, before a crowd of 3,000 in the Riverside Church in Manhattan. He described Vietnam’s destruction at the hands of “deadly Western arrogance”, insisting that “we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor… taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8,000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”

Within hours of King’s murder, rioting broke out in 80 cities across the country. Dozens of people, mostly black, were killed. On April 6 the Oakland police cornered the Black Panther leadership and when one of the young leaders, Bobby Hutton, emerged with his shirt off and his hands up, shot him dead.

In contrast to Bobby Hutton, the Panthers and above all Malcolm X, slain in 1965, white liberal opinion has hailed King as a man who chose to work non-violently within the system. Near the end, King himself was haunted by a sense of failure. In his last months he was booed at a mass meeting in Chicago and, as he lay sleepless that night, he knew why: “I had urged them [his fellow blacks] to have faith in America and in white society… They were now booing because they felt we were unable to deliver on our promises… They were now hostile because they were watching the dream they had so readily accepted turn into a nightmare.”

As the journalist Andrew Kopkind wrote shortly after King’s assassination, “That he failed to change the system that brutalizes his race is a profound relief to the white majority. As a reward they have now elevated his minor successes into major triumphs.” The night before he was shot, King said in a speech to the striking garbage workers of Memphis: “But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land.”

Forty years on, history has not vindicated King. America is still disfigured by racial injustice. Militant black leadership has all but disappeared.

To black radicals, the sedate homilies of Barack Obama are to the fierce demands for justice of Malcolm X and of King - in his more radical moments - as muzak is to Beethoven. Obama is caught, even as King was. The moment whites fear (admittedly with scant cause) he might raise the political temperature; he’s savaged with every bludgeon of convenience, starting with the robust sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose sin is to have reminded whites that there are black Americans who are really angry.
“God damn America,” roared Wright, to white America’s consternation and fury. King was just as rough at the Riverside Church in the speech that so terrified the white elites: “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.”

Pundits and others are trying to posit that their obsession with Reverend Wright because they see him his comments as “Anti-American”. Well, maybe Reverend Wright was following the example of Martin Luther King Jr.- speaking out of the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today- the government of the United States.

Is it “anti-American” to speak out and be angry with your government? Do you have to engage in jingoist flag waving to be a “true American”? Is it wrong to discuss some of the problems that infect our society as a result of our nation’s original sin- slavery? Is it “anti-American” to damn America when our government makes a colossal error or swaggers with Bush style hubris? Does being angry with your country mean that you don’t love your country? That’s what Reverends King and Wright did.

It saddens me that Senator Obama’s loyalty to his pastor- a man he speaks out fervently when he is outraged by our nation’s behavior and a man who served it honorably as a United States marine- is being used as a veiled racist wedge by some- both in the Democratic and Republican parties.

I have hope that we can move further towards Dr. King’s mountain top. I hope we can see his dream. In 1967 Dr. King eloquently challenged the nation and its role of violence in the world. He was the same man that spoke these words:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

A man who dreams these dreams for our nation and a man who can be incensed by the nation when its policies are wrong headed, dangerous and are not centered on equality and peace is a man that truly loves his country. Maybe if someone sits back for a moment and looks at Reverend Wright- his life, his work AND his words- they will see a man that loves his country with honesty, not with blind nationalism.

Senator Obama hasn’t done the politically expedient thing and disavowed a man who was complicated but clearly loves his country enough to speak about it with passion when he angry with its actions and serve it honorably- both within the community of Chicago and as a man inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 challenge to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” Wright gave up his student deferment, left college and joined the United States Marine Corps.

I wouldn’t have walked out of that church either.

In February 2008, Senator Barack Obama wrote an “Open Letter to the LGBT Community”. Penned weeks before the Senator’s historic speech on race, the open letter is as eloquent and nuanced as that speech and he thoughtfully addresses the issues of discrimination faced by LGBT Americans as he did with the issue of the racial divide in America. Senator Obama doesn’t just offer platitudinal promises to the LGBT community, but talks honestly about the uphill battle it will take to achieve equal rights- how difficult it could be to change the hearts and minds of many Americans.

He also addresses with remarkable understanding how stigma often tied to homophobia is a factor that must be addressed in order to steam the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

There is little I can add to the reason why the LGBT community should support Senator Obama than to quote the eloquence of the Senator’s own words as written in his letter to the LGBT Community.

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation.

In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention.

I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country.

To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.