Hot 100 Update

Forgive this small burst of excitement from me on such an insipid topic, but I want to report that we have our second song to assume the #1 position on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 2008. After three dreadful months (stretching back to late 2007) of enduring the charts being topped by Flo Rida's "(Shawty Got) Low," the curse was broken by Usher's comeback "Love In This Club" (featuring Yung Jeezy) (and what's up with these oh-so-original song titles?!?!) (but at least it wasn't "Love In Da Club"...) a couple weeks ago. Usher was a lock-cinch hit factory in 2004 when he took four different songs to the top. But I'm not sure he'll be able to pull that off - this new tune is no "Yeah!" (and winds up only spending two weeks at the pinnacle. Today, we got a surprise a newcomer by the name of Leona Lewis jumped up from #8 to #1. Her song "Bleeding Love" had already grabbed the top spot in the UK, where she's from. I'm hearing it for the first time tonight and not really quite getting what sets it apart from the other middle-of-the-road pop tunes out there, but it's at least a change of pace from listening to the thugs who want to do it on the flo' and out the do'...

Do The Right Thing

Do The Right Thing is simply one of the most pivotal, important, fascinating American films of the late 20th century. I'll start my review by stating that I think it's essential for anyone interested in getting a grasp on the state of race relations in urban America. Even though the film was shot 20 years ago this summer, it provides a tableau that I think continues to reveal important insights, and as film-making, I think it deserves the accolade of being considered a masterpiece. Watching the film carefully cannot help but stir up complicated thoughts and emotions that prove hard to resolve in just about any observer.

The story takes place over the span of one particularly hot summer day, on the space of a single block in Brooklyn, New York. In fact, it's not even a whole block, just one street corner to the next. On that street, people live and hang out and interact. A few of them work - Sal, the American-Italian owner (and his sons) of a pizzeria; his black delivery man, Mookie; the Korean owners of a fruit and vegetable stand; Mister Senor Love Daddy, a disc jockey whose window looks out on the street, providing his base for relaying observations of the human theater that passes before his eyes throughout the day, that are in turn broadcast to the neighborhood and provide a running commentary throughout the film. There are also a few policemen and firemen who show up later in the film. A lot of other characters just go about their lives, looking for ways to stay cool and refreshed, to fend off boredom, to find an outlet for the energy and emotions that the heat and life in general stirred up in them that day. Over the course of two hours, an endearing and convincing cast of characters interact with each other, bringing to life a number of archetypes that director Spike Lee and his crew want us to come to know and appreciate, even if, or especially if, we've never really encountered them in this way before.

I've watched this film probably four or five times over the years. That's more than I've watched just about any other film in my collection, it seems. (The Seventh Seal is pretty high up there as well.) I think my affection for what Spike Lee accomplished increased with each viewing. The first time I saw it was on its original release in 1989. I was drawn in by the controversy that it created - and rightly so. The film's climax is powerful, violent, incendiary in the most literal sense of that word. I won't spoil too much by saying that a riot breaks out, someone dies, property is destroyed. The violence is connected to racial tensions. A lot of people felt that Spike Lee was trying to foment such scenes in real life, but I think there's plenty of evidence in the film, and in the accompanying commentaries, that demonstrate this was not the case. (To get what I'm saying, you must get ahold of the Criterion Collection version of this film, not the cheapie mass-market edition - the special features are most excellent, informative and illuminating!) (And take a minute to read Roger Ebert's excellent essay on this film at the Criterion website too.) But at the time, I didn't really know much about Spike Lee except that he had an association with Michael Jordan and the Mars Blackmon Nike commercials. But I'd heard the Public Enemy rap theme that weaves throughout the film, "Fight The Power" and I thought it was pretty cool and exciting music at the time. It was a jolt of counter-cultural intensity in my own life at the time, which for the most part was preoccupied with the demands of raising a young family (our fourth child was born a few months after the film premiered in the summer of '89.) I hadn't really seen any movie like it, nothing rated R even, since 1983 when I became a Christian and settled into suburbanite conventionality, until I took the step of seeing this one, on the premise that I was interested in the film's insight into racial issues.

I was pretty electrified by the raw and gritty depiction of urban life, starting right off with a riveting and garish dance performance by Rosie Perez. Even today, with the dramatic increase of in-your-face popular entertainment, especially in the movies, this is still one of the most effective mood-setting openings of any film that comes to mind. Rosie is just so tuff, doing her aggressive, angular moves, a powerful young woman doing what she has to do to let us know that she is not to be trifled with. After a couple of minutes of that, we are ready to enter the Bed-Stuy neighborhood.

The first two-thirds of the film offers a series of little vignettes, just giving us a chance to get to know a number of the locals - and again, with repeat viewing, I got a dawning sense of the past experiences, the back-stories, that created them - whether they are older characters like Da Mayor or Mother Sister, Sal and his boys who drive in each day from their Italian neighborhoods, presumably many miles away, the teenagers roaming up and down the block, or the middle aged black men who sit on the sidewalk all day, blazing on passers-by and each other, day after day after day. On first viewing, the scenes might all just run together and though there's plenty of entertainment value in just absorbing each bit, it wasn't until I really got a chance to dig into the textures and details of each scene that Lee's artistry really emerged into full view.

Since I'm really averse to including spoilers in these write-ups, I want to avoid giving away too many details. I will say that the tense and tragic conclusion of the film is, to me, an essential aspect of what gives it such power. The destruction wasn't preordained, nor was it necessary, nor was it glorified. It just happened, because the anger, frustration, misunderstanding and refusal to engage with the Other became too explosive to contain - primarily because no other outlet was offered. This isn't a film about "black anger." It's really about the anger we all harbor inside and its destructive effects if it's not dealt with and released in a healthy way. What that outlet should or even could be is never provided to the audience, and it's up to us to contemplate what kind of change we could make, in ourselves, primarily, to create that necessary vent that would stop this kind of chaos from boiling over, either literally, in the form of race riots and similar acts of violence, or metaphorically, in the kind of fear and mistrust that keeps people of all ethnic backgrounds closed off, paranoid and resiliently clinging to their contempt and prejudice. "Do The Right Thing" is Spike Lee's challenge to all of us, and he respects his audience enough to trust us to wrestle internally, and relationally, to arrive at our own understanding of what that Right Thing finally is.

Hoop Dreams

I've been spending time the last couple days re-watching my DVD of Hoop Dreams, the celebrated documentary released in 1994 that chronicles the high school years of two young men, Arthur Agee and William Gates (no, not Bill Gates!) They grew up in inner city Chicago, near the infamous Cabrini Green housing projects. Both possessed sufficient basketball skills to attract the interest of a local talent scout, who wound up referring them both to a private suburban high school with a renowned varsity basketball program, the same school, in fact, that helped Isiah Thomas make the transition from that same tough Chicago ghetto to achieve superstardom in the NBA.

In the late 1980s, a crew of filmmakers had the idea of tracking the journey of these kids and what an amazing document they wound up producing. They had no idea at the time how the story would turn out. The results could hardly have been more compelling.

I recall hearing good things about the film back when it was first released. For awhile, it was the highest-grossing documentary film ever made, until Michael Moore came along and shattered records with his politically-charged sensations Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. My initial impression was that this was just a sports-themed film in mind, and given that I wasn't much of a hoops fan at the time, I never made a priority to check it out. I probably didn't pay as much attention to the reviews as I should have, but until fairly recently, I didn't give it much thought. Until I watched it, I didn't realize that the film was really about life, society, family, struggle, dedication, perseverance, character, forgiveness, reconciliation, patient endurance of setbacks and disruptions, and the pressures that shape and transform our lives in obvious and unconscious ways. Hoop Dreams is a masterful work of art that just happens to be based on the real-life experiences of non-fictional characters.

Make no mistake, basketball runs through the heart and soul of the film, but even if you are not a big fan of the sport, you will gain a new appreciation. My daughter is probably as uninterested in sports as anyone I know. She was not only drawn in by the story, she said she now has a better understanding of why people care so much about the game!

I found Hoop Dreams as suspenseful and unpredictable as any thriller flick you'd care to mention, - infinitely superior to the melodramatic and supposedly inspirational sports films Hollywood churns out so regularly. Though William and Arthur knew each other and became close friends throughout its years of production (running from before their freshman year until they begin playing college basketball) their stories take dramatically different turns early on as one stays in the private academy and the other is forced, due to family and financial problems, to return to a public high school in inner Chicago. The contrast in their experiences and how Arthur and William adapt to their respective circumstances creates superb drama and stirred in me such a strong sense of respect and admiration for what members of this community have to achieve just to survive and keep their lives and families reasonably intact.

As I write this, I'm also listening to the commentary track that features Arthur and William speaking as adults, looking back on their younger selves and filling us in on what else was going on in and around the scenes. Just a moment ago, William said that this film touched upon what's been going on in the inner city for generations - people who grew up in earlier decades identified with the struggles and experiences depicted on screen, and I imagine that in many ways, it mirrors what kids and families living in these same neighborhoods go through today. Not much has changed, of course. The poverty, the pressure to succeed when a fleeting opportunity comes one's way, the hopes invested by friends and families when a young man shows the promise of playing the game on a professional level... it's all portrayed so vividly, with such gracious warmth and humanity. The machinery and manipulations of organized athletics, the ordeal of getting gifted ballplayers to meet the minimum academic requirements... it's all here, a big slice of life, a mirror for us to gaze into, whatever our social demographic placement may be, whether or not we've suited up to play a competitive game, or raised a child to do so, ever in our lives. The film raises questions about our destiny, our sense of purpose, the quest or even possibility of justice on an existential level - in a way that is never preachy, never contrived, never tainted by a sense of dishonesty or artifice. Even though the film is long (nearly three hours) it flows by quickly. And it bears repeat viewing, especially to listen to the extra audio tracks (the other features the filmmakers' perspectives.)

I decided to make this blog entry last weekend, when the media storm regarding Barack Obama's church (Trinity Congregational) in Chicago, and his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was in full blaze. This was before Obama's speech on race in America that he delivered a few days ago. At this very moment, the film is showing Arthur and his family at church, and its (of course) a moving scene. Arthur's dad has just returned to the family after going through some hard times, giving his testimony, speaking and singing of the change that God had recently brought about in his life. Even though the connection between Obama and this film is mainly coincidental (the Chicago setting, primarily) I think that Hoop Dreams offers important perspective on the discussion that the recent controversy initiated, and could perhaps even work to alleviate the discomfort and anger that many outside of the African-American community might feel about Wright's inflammatory rhetoric. Without setting out to be a movie "about race" in an overtly self-conscious sense, the tensions in relations between blacks and whites in society run throughout the film. The little gulfs of suspicion and miscommunication that take place are poignant and packed with revelatory insight. Institutions like schools, churches, athletic leagues and the media each get drawn out for exposure and analysis, each one representing another layer of pressure, manipulation and structural distortion that has to be dealt with but which compounds the sense of mistrust, that one is being exploited for someone else's gain, experienced by so many black youth who receive continual messages to think and behave according to negative racial stereotypes. The trajectories that Arthur and William embark on and experience vividly depict the rapid changes and reversals, the tentative uncertainties and sometimes chillingly narrow escapes that, I get the sense, are not at all uncommon in the experience of those who grow up in poverty.

But in spite of the frequently oppressive circumstances and hardships they had to work through, I'm most impressed by the underlying resilience and optimism that runs throughout the film. Especially hearing the adult versions of Arthur and William, and reading the notes in the accompanying booklet that offer more details of what became of the people one gets to know over the course of a few hours of film - what an affirming, even joyful resolution to it all! Much more than any scripted happy ending, Hoop Dreams leads me to appreciate the vitality and genuineness of human relationships that remain strong under duress. This film is as inspiring as any in my collection.

Windows into the Black Experience in America: Intro

I'm going to put myself out on a limb here in these next few posts. This recent flare-up involving selected comments made by Barack Obama's former pastor served to crystallize, in my own imagination, some of my recent cultural interests and experiences into a more unified pursuit that I didn't really set out on and which in some ways seems very coincidental, but still meaningful. As anyone who reads this blog regularly probably knows, I have a pretty voracious appetite for media artifacts of all sorts - music, movies, books, popular trends and so on. What I want to share with you are just a few resources that help me get a deeper insight into what might have informed Rev. Jeremiah Wright's critical comments about the government and policies of the USA. I'm going to create four separate posts, or reviews, I guess they could be called:

1. The movie "Hoop Dreams"
2. The movie "Do The Right Thing"
3. The comic strip "The Boondocks"
4. The musical sub-genre known as "Deep Soul"

As a suburban middle class white guy, I have to acknowledge that I'm viewing and experiencing each resource from a perspective that fundamentally differs, but hopefully empathizes, with the vision of their creators. But I gratefully accept and respect these expressions and encourage anyone interested in joining with me, to consider what they have to say about the situation our society finds itself in today.

It might be a bit of time before I get each entry on the blog, but I want to let you know that I have this "series" in mind. I hope that in some small way it can stimulate readers to enlarge their sense of what it means to be a patriotic American engaged with the issues of our times.

Iraq War Protest in Grand Rapids: 5th Annual

For the fifth year in a row, I spent part of a chilly mid-March afternoon standing around a public place in Grand Rapids, Michigan, voicing my opposition to the US invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq. Each year, it seems, a different local group has taken on the task of organizing the rally and whatever kind of program they want to provide for those in attendance. This year's sponsor was a group called Activate!, which is actually the Grand Rapids chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society. The SDS, if you're rusty on the history of protest movements in the USA, was prominent in the mid-to-late 60s and basically peaked in the Columbia University riots of 1968 (does the name Mark Rudd ring a bell?) Anyway, today's SDS is more a tribute organization to those earlier activists, not a linear descendant organization since the original SDS dissolved before the 70s began.

As you'll see from the pictures, today's SDS is a youth-led movement bearing a strong punk-anarchist influence and sensibility. I was late to the rally, I must admit, so I can't describe what happened at the beginning or on the march that wound its way through downtown. I figure the Activate website will have reports and photos of their own before too long, and if they don't, then Media Mouse probably will.

When I got to the downtown park where the event was held, it was basically empty. They had obviously already gathered their forces and decided to go make themselves visible to the locals and others driving around downtown G.R., most of whom probably did not realize that this weekend marks the fifth anniversary of the original "shock and awe" campaign (the actual date was March 19, but that's a Wednesday this year, and Wednesdays make for lousy protest rallies. But I expect to be attending a vigil that night - the nice thing about vigils is that they don't pack up and wander off several blocks or further away from the late arrivals.)

So when I saw the park was empty, I drove around the various hotspots where one would expect to see a large black-clad mob banging drums, blowing horns and whistles and hoisting slogan-festooned signs and very large puppets into the air. Around the Van Andel Arena? Nope. Calder Plaza? Nope. Past the US Federal Building, the Court or City Hall? Nope. Veteran's Park? No, but there was a small cluster of guys there with large flags and signs that said things like "Freedom Isn't Free" (I agree with that) and "Support The Troops - WIN The War" (I don't think that it's possible to "win" the Iraq War - or another way of looking at it, we did win when Saddam Hussein was removed from power, so now let's bring home our troops...) Well, wherever the marchers had traveled, I must've missed them, so I headed back to Heartside Park figuring they would return there eventually.

I spotted the police cruisers tailing them before I saw the protesters themselvs. There were three cars driving alongside them, just behind the tail end of the throng, and a couple others pointed into the crowd at various intersections. And then another car sitting right on the perimeter of the paved area where the crowd re-gathered. Just keeping an eye on things and ensuring that everyone was safe, I'm sure.

I quickly parked and jumped out and got with the crowd, no signs for me this year, but maybe I'll come up with something for next Wednesday's vigil. The one speaker I did hear mentioned that two young people had actually been arrested and taken into custody. I heard later that their offense was stepping off the sidewalk, briefly walking in the street, maybe a few steps or so, never blocking traffic or impeding anyone, but that was enough to provoke action by the cops, who ran up and apprehended the young people (one male, one female, both in their teens or early 20s) even though they had both returned to the sidewalk by the time they were arrested and didn't seem to particularly expect that they would be the ones taken into custody. At least, that's how it was related to me. I've seen similar busts based on flimsy pretexts in previous years' rallies, so I'm not surprised to hear this news. Pretty uptight, if you ask me.

Anyway, the rally pretty much turned into a social gathering after that. I contented myself to take a few pictures and look for some familiar faces. I found them - a few members of the International Workers of the World (IWW, a.k.a. the Wobblies.) We struck up a conversation and as the crowd dispersed I joined them for a mid-afternoon beer and appetizer at the Black Rose Irish Pub which is in fully-decked-out GREEN mode as we're in St. Patrick's Day Weekend, you know. I had a good time there, making the case for Barack Obama for President to some radical activists who remain suspicious that he's just another "poster child" for the same conglomerate of big money corporate/military interests that have no intention of handing over their power and control over the country. I countered that argument, which I think has some merit, as much as I like Obama, by saying that at least with Barack, we have a person who's done genuine street-level activism and whose personal story and example really would break the mold of who a United States President "could" be. It was a satifsfying conversation for me to be a part of, maybe a nice warm-up for what's sounding like a June 3 "do-over" primary for the State of Michigan.

So that's my summary of the day. Here are the pictures.



This is a cute bunch of high schoolers who came out for the protest with their history teacher (off-camera) - I heard them talking about how they were going to post their pics on FaceBook after they got home from the demo. :o)



The woman in the blue jacket is Corrine Carey. She's been videotaping political demonstrations, teach-ins and other activist events for about as long as personal camcorders have been available. Here she is getting the views of a couple of young woman on tape, adding them to her collection, portions of which she shows on local public access TV here in Grand Rapids.



Kimon Kotos is one of those quixotic people who take on the difficult task of trying to unseat incumbent Congressmen in districts that vote along very predictable partisan lines. He's trying to take out Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who used to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence in the US House of Representatives, and served as a major apologist for the Bush administration's misleading hunt for WMD's in Iraq. He also was one of the people responsible for that website that featured "how to make nuclear weapons" written in Arabic before the NY Times discovered it, which led to it being pulled off the internet.



I like the sign, love the hair. Grand Rapids... what a cool city!

Obama: Wright or Wrong?

I'm going to weigh in on this controversy surrounding Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Or should I say "former pastor" since he is retired now, or retiring soon, from what I've read.

The storm was stirred up by old videos of sermons that Wright preached months and years ago, in which he uses some strong, heated and to many, rather alarming rhetoric regarding the U.S. role in the world, the effects of our government's foreign and domestic policies and how they contributed to the anti-American sentiment behind the 9/11 attacks. Pretty hot stuff. I haven't gone back to analyze the videos or the context nearly well enough to say I adequately understand what he said or why he said it. But I have a few notions to share here.

First is that it looks like Obama is trying to do what he can to effectively put the issue off to the side without having to completely toss Rev. Wright overboard. He used the words "vehemently disagree and strongly condemn" in regards to Wright's comments in today's article on the Huffington Post. Somewhere in the comments, I noted that imo this is a good start, but that he will probably need to issue some further statements on camera to reach people who will otherwise draw all the worst conclusions based on what they see and hear on newscasts or through word of mouth. His long and close association with Wright and Trinity UCC is going to raise a lot of anxieties in people who are unfamiliar with the black church, who are not used to seeing leading political figures associate with strong vocal critics of America's status quo, or both. Obama still has a great potential to bring diverse constituencies together, but he's going to have to calm the fears that have been stirred up, fairly or not, by his opponents.

This controversy reminds me again of just how fear-based and easily manipulated our culture has become. I think the underlying concern, especially for people who buy into the idea that Obama represents some kind of a covert threat, a "Manchurian candidate" if you will, is that he will work to actively undermine or sabotage the United States of America, if elected to the presidency. Those fears arise, I think, from accepting the belief that the USA is and has been justified in many of the practices that our government has endorsed over the past several decades. Particularly in the current situation, Bush's conduct in Iraq and the Middle East in general, the erosion of civil liberties, the short-sighted and destructive perspective on the environment and human rights concerns in many nations, and more, have all become part of the norm in many people's minds. When Rev. Wright gets worked up and brings his thundering rhetoric to deliver his opinions, he says things that cut strongly against the grain. He comes from a radical activist mindset, a point of view that in some ways I relate to, though not without some critical distance and self-critique on my own involvement and just where those sentiments are likely to lead if implemented into actual government policies. Wright has not had to worry about how his ideas would be enacted by an actual government - he does as many preachers do, in venting powerful emotions and envisioning what some might call a "prophetic" and others might call "deluded" scenarios. In that sense I don't think he's that much different than the right-wing Christian militants who envision battleground scenarios where the blood flows up the horses' bridles in the battle of Armageddon.

There are other aspects to Wright's rambunctious sermonizing that I could dig into, but the more pressing concern to me at this moment is watching how Obama responds to the realistic and legitimate concerns that have been raised about his church membership. I think he would do best to speak forthrightly and candidly on this topic, because I think the people who actually do find themselves in agreement with much of what Rev. Wright says deserve to be listened to and taken seriously. I'm personally very frustrated with the muzzling of dissent and critical opinion that conservative political and media forces have tried to impose on many topics, especially when it comes to the range of what can fairly be considered "mainstream." It still seems like Obama has to hold back a bit and it's too bad that the political competition may indeed have that inhibiting effect. Obviously, his own track record has shown that he does not intend to be the kind of firebrand that Rev. Wright has been. This is one of those situations where Obama has little choice but to react to circumstances - but he would do well to bring some new ideas and subjects to the forefront over these next few weeks. I think all of his supporters figured that Obama's association with the black church was going to become a big issue in the campaign. The degree to which the Clinton campaign, or those who temporarily labor on its behalf to derail Obama's effort, profits from the flap is kind of disturbing to contemplate, but that's the reality of the environment in which Barack and his supporters are trying to effect a larger social change. Those are the terms of the challenge, and its up to us to stay realistic and respond constructively.

FLICK Hillary! ;o)

I'll pass this one along in case you haven't seen it. Pretty funny, imo. It helps if you've seen the movie "Election" or at least know the main story line.

IGE Talks "Healthcare"

Before I went to see Into The Wild last night, I helped make another episode of our IGE Talks TV show/internet video program. You can see the February episode about Healthcare by clicking on this link. Eventually last night's episode, on the topic of teen pregnancy, which we titled "Babies Having Babies," will show up at the same link. I've never gotten into the habit of watching these shows but the more I do, the more I admire our quaint little homemade talking heads program.

IGE Talks

Into The Wild

I feel silly reviewing a movie that has just left the theater (in my region at least) and is now available on DVD, especially since this is one that's best seen on the big screen. But I finally went to see it last night, the very final showing before it was retired from the local second-run discount theater in town. I had been thinking about going to see it and I knew the deadline was coming up soon. Yesterday I noticed that it's final screening was set for 9:40 p.m. so it turned into a late night out at the movies for me since it's a 2 hour and 20 minute flick. But I'm really glad I did.

Into The Wild just came out on DVD this week and I'm thinking that it's a title that will be on my gift list for future occasions... if I don't just go out and get it myself. My connection with the movie veered back and forth a bit throughout but was firmly cemented as a big +++ in the final reel. My fear was that Alexander Supertramp was going to be too idealized but I thought the filmmakers (director Sean Penn deserves lots of credit I believe) pulled it off in the end. The scenery, story and cinematography were excellent through and through - my big hangup hinged on the characterization but I was not disappointed with the resolution, as sad as it was.

I could relate in many ways to the lead character, since I did my own bit of tramping across the country back in 1982. My trajectory was east, not west and north, but I was amused to see that Alexander visited the port of San Pedro, which is exactly where my epic journey began en route to Austin TX and finally Houston, before I got on the bus that took me back to my hometown of Grand Rapids MI. I also shared Alexander's (not his real name btw but that's what I'll call him and remember him by) love of literature and occasional bouts of pretentiousness, though it's been a long time since I had the guts and sense of freedom to put myself out there like he did. And I have a family and career to show for it. He took the other side of the bargain and remained true to his spirit. I respect that.

Anyway, I am now going to check out the DVD, see what kind of features it has, and I hope there's a deluxe-o double disc edition available because this is the kind of movie I'd like to get deeper into - look at the outtakes, the story behind the film, all the "making of" featurettes, etc. I haven't seen "There Will Be Blood" or "No Country For Old Men" or the other Oscar Best Picture nominees, but I think that Into The Wild seems to have been grossly overlooked and underrepresented. To me it feels like an important film that will make a big impression on many who saw it and got into it - but maybe it's just a bit too countercultural for Hollywood? I dunno...
Highly recommended and I'm eager to discuss it in more depth with anyone else who's seen it (Bilbo, I'm calling your name here!)

John McCain's "Nutjob" Problem

While I've seen some emails and others raise suspicions over Barack Obama's supposed links to Louis Farrakhan, who he notably "rejected and denounced" in a debate a couple weeks ago, relatively little seems to be said about John McCain's eagerly received endorsement by Texas evangelist John Hagee, who seems almost eager in his anticipation of a massive bloodbath in the Middle East in the relatively near future. This video juxtaposes McCain's recent appearance with Hagee with some of Hagee's own statements (just a sampling, there's a lot more where that came from) about the Catholic Church, the modern nation of Israel and the real reason behind New Orleans' devastation by Hurricane Katrina. Give it a few minutes of your time and think about whether or not rhetoric like Hagee's deserves to be regarded with the same political toxicity as Farrakhan's. If not... why not?

From Semi-Super Tuesday to Deal-With-It Wednesday

Here's some quotes from email dialog I had elsewhere this morning in the aftermath of last night's primaries. Quotes from others are in italics.

McCain is the big winner, and both Clinton and Obama are the losers. I predict McCain will be the next President of the US. He's going to start running for presidency starting today while Obama and Clinton waste the next few months and many millions of dollars fighting each other. Congratulations to the Republican Party.

I think a more realistic assessment is that McCain's chances are slightly improved. But you shouldn't ignore the fact that the voter turnout for the Democrats has been exponentially larger than that for the Republicans, even when the GOP had numerous candidates in a wide-open race. I still don't think that McCain will be able to escape the shadow of Bush altogether, and he sounds more Bush-like as he proceeds. I read that he was even talking about privatizing Social Security the other day. McCain gets a lot of free pass in the media these days but I think its premature to hand him the presidency simply because he's got his nomination sealed up.The more determining factor in all this is how the Democrats wind up resolving this intensely close competition. It's going to be a test of leadership for both of these would-be presidents to put their ambitions aside when it comes to bowing out gracefully and with the best interests of the nation in mind.

If Sen. Obama already this early said that he will incorporate Republicans in his administration, like Sen. Hagel and Sen. Lugar; then I think that needs to be brought up for voting in the Convention. He said that only after he has won all of these states where he has won. If as some are suggesting, Sen. Obama feels inclined to name a semi-Republican like Sen. Lieberman (I doubt it but that's the word) (because the word is that Lieberman is Obama's mentor in the Senate) for his vice-presidency; that needs to get established soon and if not it should get approved beforehand by the delegates at the Convention. Either the Democrats will govern as Democrats or else they will have a high probability of complete Mediocristan ensuing. We need honesty, complete honesty from Sen. Obama now. He must establish who he is in terms of progressiveness, centrist, blue-dog, what? Then he needs to win the nomination of the Party when all Democrats are well aware and with open eyes on what they will be getting for president.

From what I've read, Lieberman has already endorsed McCain. And I think that Dick Durbin is more Obama's mentor than Lieberman. If Lieberman is such an Obama fan, why does he not come out to support him? These assertions puzzle me and I'd appreciate sources if you can provide. You advance this idea that Obama may govern as some kind of center-right Democrat... what's your basis for this? My impression is that he's more progressive/liberal than Hillary Clinton if one measures in such terms so it puzzles me to read this. He seems more favored by most of the progressive websites than Clinton for what that's worth. (probably not much in your assessment since you seem to operate on the belief that Obama is a fraud who's successfully deceiving a lot of people.) But Clinton did win the two big states last night. Doesn't this encourage you in some way since you support her and would presumably rather see her as the nominee?

Lieberman ran for the vice-presidency of the Democratic party in the 2000 elections. Soon after that, his Republican blood showed him as siding with Republicans. He later defected from the Democratic party. He now endorses McCain. I can appreciate his honesty.

Al Gore chose him because he helped secure the Jewish vote that might have been attracted to Bush's strong pro-Israel stance and also because he brought a little "family values" credibility to counter the notion that Al Gore was a crazy liberal on the wrong side of the culture wars. This move was calculated to offset the moral tarnish that Bill Clinton's affair with M. Lewinsky left on Democratic aspirations to succeed him as president. Remember Al and Tipper's flying lip lock kiss and all that too. Personally I think it was a poor decision on Gore's part, just one of numerous over-cooked ideas that smothered him and made him more repulsive to a lot of his natural supporters than he needed to be.

I guess in some ways he is to the Democrats as McCain was to the Republicans before he started sucking up to the Bush legacy as he's done in recent months to secure the nomination. Hagel has now taken McCain's place as the GOP rebel/pariah (of course there's also Ron Paul but he's different too...)

But that rapid change in colors from a person that ran for Vice-President shows that what is in the blood, does not show that easily on fist impressions. And Sen. Obama is still providing us with first impressions.

I think that Lieberman was on his path to conservatism well before the 2000 VP nomination but his movement in that direction was exacerbated by the Iraq war and the netroots campaign by Ned Lamont to unseat Joe-mentum, which basically forced Lieberman out of the Democratic Party in order to retain his power in the Senate.

I agree that Obama is providing us with first impressions but I like what he presents better than what I see from Hillary or McCain. And I think Obama would be more responsive to my concenrs than either of his rivals would be, based on what I hear from their campaigns anyway.

I saw him in a clip advancing the idea that he will be appointing Sen. Hagel and Sen. Lugar to positions in his administration. Why? I guess mainly to disarm McCain when McCain posses as a centrist. Obama will say, if you are a centrist, I am too. Look. I will appoint Republicans in my administration. That's more than what you will do. And that may seem okay.

You're the only person I've seen refer to this. Not saying you're inaccurate, just that it hasn't gotten much play in the discussions I've been tracking on internet and TV. I'd like to see/hear the quote. Bill Clinton named Republicans to his cabinet. Do you think that Hillary would not do that for some reason? Is appoint Republicans inherently a bad thing?

But since Sen. Obama has so little experience in national government, I think 'you' could expect that if he appoints Republicans in his cabinet, then he will be influenced by them. Or is he, a junior, in terms of experience, going to show them the way? No. Sen. Obama is like a butterfly. He goes from flower to flower picking up their scent with each passing.

Again it seems that each candidate does his or her own version of metamorphosis along the way. I think Obama has energy and potential. Yesterday's results and the apparent success of Hillary's attacks on his qualifications will almost certainly change his campaign because it's obvious now that he won't be sweeping to the nomination on a cloud of bliss and good vibrations as seemed to be the case even a couple weeks ago. :o) Now he will have to show his mettle as a political strategist and a counter-puncher and in the process either he will falter and crumble or he will regroup from this and emerge a bit tougher and resilient from the effort. While I would like to see my preferred candidate enjoy a smooth glide to the nomination and a whole-hearted embrace by the American public, he's not there yet, neither are a big chunk of the voters so he's going to have to show something new and maybe even surprising.

But the same goes for Clinton and McCain. I don't share Kal's dread that everything is just going to fall McCain's way because he's a flawed candidate with significant hurdles to climb himself. 35% of the voters in OH and TX went for Huckabee even though it was more or less pointless for them to do so in terms of the actual nomination. McCain doesn't generate enthusiasm anywhere near the level that either Clinton or Obama will once this is all settled. The biggest problem for the Democrats will be to avoid alienating one-half or the other of their voters from this spring. Of course the competition is intense right now and even emotional but at some point the serious decision will have to be faced - do we really want to give McCain the privilege of cementing all of Bush's blunders and crimes into place as some kind of honorable legacy? I hope not. McCain is still afraid to come out and say what he would do differently than Bush and I just can't see how that's going to really resonate with a lot of people whose lives are not better off now than they were eight years ago.

The leadership that we seek.

The leadership that we fail to get.

True or false?

You think that Obama should be openly entertaining the idea of a joint ticket? I don't think the situation calls for that quite yet but I think this long drawn out competition actually increases the likelihood that it will end up that way. And I think it would be a pretty good outcome considering the alternative bitter scenarios that are easy to imagine. Obama still has the delegate lead so he's going to deal from a position of strength. That's a leadership quality. When it makes sense for him to either name Hillary as his running mate, or accept her offer to be his, or choose someone else if he gets to do so, he'll do it. But I agree, it's premature to put him on the spot and expect him to answer that question. I don't know if Hillary brought that subject up or if she was responding to a question, but she's in second place right now so her answer has a different quality to it in that context.

A couple weeks ago I led an in-service training on effective facilitation. Facilitation is not just 'running meetings' but rather, bringing groups into consensus. It's not always the response called for in resolving conflicts. Sometimes the executive has to set the terms and make the decision. A effective leader should know when and how to do both.

Times of Testing

I seem to have run into a rough spot when it comes to keeping this blog as current and fresh as I'd like it to be. The main reason that I haven't been writing much here lately is that my moods and thoughts have been darker and more negative than I'm comfortable posting here. I've been internalizing a lot or dealing with it in more personal, private ways. A few of my relationships have been strained and it just hasn't felt that good being me in my world for the past week or two. But that may be about as much detail as I'm going to go into here... sorry if you're curious to hear more but I'm just not really about blabbing that level of emotion in this space, for what it's worth. I think that's a good thing overall. :o)

The good thing is that I feel like I've pulled out of the slump a bit and my perspective is improving as I put last week behind me. I still have some things to work through and some connections that I need to strengthen, some commitments that I need to clarify. What gives me some confidence about facing all that is that I sense more energy to do what I think needs to be done. Late last week I wasn't feeling it.

But on this topic of "times of testing," I do want to consider the situation our national political scene is in at the moment. Today, of course, is another big voting drama as the ballots will be counted in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont. A lot is at stake and what makes for such great suspense is that there's been a palpable shift of momentum, it seems, in the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. After a month or so of nothing but upswing on Obama's behalf, it feels like the negative attacks and questioning of his credibility has dented the armor a bit and at least in the minds of some, maybe burst his bubble. It's pretty remarkable to me to see how quickly that shift has occurred but I have been watching the news and the political talk shows before and after work and here and there over the weekend and I think the tone change is pretty much undeniable. Hillary seemed kind of unfocused and faltering up until about the middle of last week, and now she's gathering steam. In the meantime, Obama's great upswell of unification and popular acclaim now seems to have hit some kind of an upper limit as the chorus of skeptics found its voice to question his credibility, seriousness and qualifications for the job that a lot of others enthusiastically want him to have.

As an Obama supporter, I want to see him do well in Ohio and Texas - it would be wonderful to see him take both states and emerge as the presumptive nominee after tonight, but I also have to say that I will be quite surprised if it comes to him that smoothly. My hunch right now is that he will narrowly win Texas and lose by 4-5 percentage points in Ohio, and that they will split Vermont (for Obama) and Rhode Island (for Clinton.) My only basis for this prediction is the polls I've read, but one topic I haven't read much about is how the unprecedented early voting turnout might have affected the final results. And then there is the matter of how the delegates will be awarded based on the results. It seems unlikely that a huge shift in Clinton's favor will happen, but the narrative could change dramatically anyway if the public and pundits buy into the idea that the race has been re-set even if both candidates wind up in a draw tonight. A clear win for Hillary would of course be even more of an upsetter to the trends that have emerged from the previous "11 in a row" wins for Obama.

So the question then becomes, is this a bad thing or a good thing? I see very few who think this is a good thing for the Democratic Party - the conventional wisdom is that it would be best to wrap up the nomination fight, focus on McCain, rally the troops, etc. And the longer any candidate goes without "sealing the deal," of course that keeps alive the possibility that he or she will eventually be defeated in the process. Of course, it makes a lot of sense that Obama's campaign and the party would fare better with a quick resolution versus an uncertain and extended ordeal. However, I think there is some good to be found in the circumstances of having to keep on struggling, debating, dealing with attacks and uncertainties, if that should be Senator Obama's lot. As a "movement leader," this is the kind of thing that he and those who support him will need to work through in the event that the power and clout we seek is actually given to us, and taken away from those who have been (imo) abusing it for so long. It could be just what's needed to inject a dose of reality into the picture for those who have been caught up in "Obama-mania" or in some way surprised by just how "easy" success has come to him and his campaign as it caught fire over the past few months.

I'm obviously looking for some silver linings here, and depending on what actually results after the dust settles tonight, all this pondering could appear quite misdirected by tomorrow morning. But relating the tension and uncertainty faced by the Obama campaign to my own situation (as alluded to in the opening paragraph) gives me helpful perspective in my personal campaign for "change I can believe in." :o)