Especially after reading this crap?

I used to volunteer in the NAACP’s Oakland Chapter. The President, Shannon Reeves, was a third-generation NAACP activist that rose to the helm at a really young age; I don’t think he was quite 25 years old when he got elected. Then, he turned from Democrat to Republican, and I thought the National Office was going to lose their minds.

But, the NAACP was supposed to be non-partisan. So, I didn’t really understand the National Office (read: Julian Bond) beef with Mr. Reeves.

Of course, when Mr. Reeves attended a RNC convention for the first time since switching parties, it could not have been humorous to be mistaken for the hotel bellhop and asked by those he was in attendance with at that convention, to fetch bags. As I recall, Reeves complained of discrimination, and I don’t remember if the NAACP did anything except to shrug their shoulders and tell Shannon he should have expected that kind of treatment from the Republicans.

Whether or not they agreed with Shannon’s political ideology, the fact is, the man was treated disrespectfully, and the NAACP should have raised hell, if, for nothing else, embarrassment quotient and additional early warning signs of the GOP’s bigotry.

However, in the years since, I’ve watched the NAACP proceed on a steady decline in effectiveness; infected by years of feeding on the corporate teat and blowing up on corporate largesse like Jabba the Hut. What have they really done in terms of protecting civil rights and fighting against discrimination? Can someone tell me?

You can’t fight, or bite, the hand that’s feeding you. Proud of me Julian Bond will not be, at this point, because I’ve personally seen if you go up against those giving you money, they will threaten to close their wallets if you don’t back off.

Which brings me to the point of this post. It appears that the very decree of bigotry and racism that the NAACP was established to protect, the members of the organization have no problem with engaging in it themselves.

Thus, by their own hand, they commit treason and cannot cry “foul” when it comes back to bite them in the ass.

I’m talking about the selection of the new President, Ben Jealous (what a name).

According to NNPA’s George Curry, it appears that some chicanery went down in the selection process of the new Pres. One set of rules was applied to one applicant, the Rev. Frederick D. Haynes of Dallas, Texas, and another set to Mr. Jealous.

Rev. Haynes was told if selected, he’d have to give up his pastorage of Friendship Baptist Church, an 8000-member church which he’s pastored for over 25 years. Now, keep in mind that the NAACP has had three Presidents who were also pastors of churches and were not asked to step down from their pastoral offices (Ben Chavis comes to mind here; he of the sexual-harassment-use-NAACP-dues-to-payola fame).

Rev. Haynes was also told he could not lobby or campaign for the position, either; especially out in San Francisco, where he has familial and pastoral roots. Haynes’ grandfather pastored Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, the largest Black church in the city, which is now pastored by Rev. Amos Brown, a NAACP Board Member who would know Freddie Haynes personally. Additionally, Haynes was contacted by a search firm and asked to apply for the position, so someone in the NAACP must have believed Freddie could do the job.

But, it also appears that the faction that wanted Freddie Haynes didn’t include Chairman Julian Bond. Uh-oh.

Ben Jealous, it seems, was Mr. Bond’s choice for the job. So it appears that there was a different set of rules put in place for him. Not only did Mr. Jealous get an audience with Rev. Brown; he also got an audience with former Mayor Willie Brown, another NAACP Board Member. Jealous was allowed to travel and outright campaign for the job which he later was given; while Freddie Haynes was put on a leash in his competition.

Now, I’m not harping on Mr. Jealous, because he’s not to blame here. The fact is that he was considered Julian Bond’s first and only choice to replace former Verizon Executive Bruce Gordon, and it appears that Bond ensured Jealous would get the nod. Now, if you remember, Gordon was hired to bring that corporate aura (and cash ducats) into the NAACP and energize it. But, as he related off camera in a sidebar at Tavis Smiley’s Negro Super Bowl (aka “State of the Black Union”) in Hampton, VA, last year, Mr. Gordon expressed frustration at not being allowed any autonomy in running the organization; as a former VP at Verizon, he was not used to having every decision he made vetted by a board of 63 Negroes telling him what to do and how he could get it done, if he could do it at all.

When have 63 Negroes agreed on anything? There’s a joke somewhere, but I’m damned if I can find it. Anyway, that Board basically rendered Gordon ineffective, and eventually told him to hit the road, Jack (sorry, Baratunde). Personally, I was skeptical of the fact they chose a corporate guy, and when he proceeded to act “corporate”, he got run out on a rail.

Now, you read about the fact that the “fix” was put in for Ben Jealous to replace Bruce Gordon and Freddie Haynes didn’t even know what hit him until the dust cleared. It’s also left a very nasty taste in Rev. Haynes’ mouth – it would leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth to realize you played by the rules and the competition was set up to win.

In my line of work, when you have the rules being changed in the game like that; when you hamstring one opponent when you allow the other free rein and access to power players, you call that what it is.

DISCRIMINATION. It’s not just for white folks to do against Blacks, or others of ethnicity. What is sad is that the one organization founded to combat racism, bigotry and discrimination, has now found it palatable to engage in it. Now, I don’t know if Ben Jealous is going to be his own man, or Julian Bond’s man, but the issue is clear – the fix was in. Does the old Civil Rights guard think we who are under 50 are stupid? Must they continue to insult our intelligence by calling this a fair selection when the selection process was rigged?

If they raised hell, filed lawsuits, challenged institutions hell-bent on keeping Black people out of the voting booth at a time when we had no Black elected officials, how can they justify the way Mr. Jealous was selected for the job? It is like grilling a perfect filet mignon steak with all the trimmings and serving it up on a garbage can lid. That’s how this selection of Mr. Jealous appears to me, and probably others in the NAACP who knows what this was about. Mr. Jealous may very well be an effective leader; but his leadership has been hampered and stained by the very way he was chosen for the job.

And done by none other than the supposed “vanguard” of the Civil Rights Movement.

First of the old civil rights guard that pissed off everyone was the selling out of Andy Young to Wal-Mart Corporate interests. Then it appears that Jesse Jackson, Sr., wants to diss the Blogsphere, which includes those of us who have had Jesse’s back for decades. Now, Julian Bond is engaging in discrimination and moving the goalposts to make sure his choice for replacing Bruce Gordon gets the nod.

If you’re going to act like a criminal, then why should I continue to look to your organization to fight for my rights, while you take my money in dues and do nothing but pontificate like Al Sharpton without the backup? Why should anyone take you seriously when your last major fight was getting Ronnie Raygun to designate the third Monday in January to Dr. Martin Luther King’s memory as a holiday, and all you’ve done since then is to get fat off corporations who pay money to have their names on the marquee as being a supporter of Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and Diversity, while they engage in discriminatory acts and break the law of the highest order?

What say you, NAACP? Shall we praise you in this? I think not, because at this point, I’m sick of the NAACP.

I just wonder if I’m the only one. Proud of me Yoda would not have been for writing this post, either.

Flava Flav Award

10 Jun 2008

Ashanti, for her Universal Crime Network website that has fictional descriptions of her music driving black people to kill each other. “Black Children Must Die?” That mess really isn’t funny or cute.  

Thanks to SG for passing me this article. Down at the bottom, it appears that some Members of the Congressional Black Caucus who supported Clinton are worried about the wrath of their pro-Obama constituents. God forbid folks like Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones have to take some responsibility for their own decisions to buck the will of their districts. You may recall Color of Change’s petition signed by 20,000 people to persuade superdelegates to vote with their district and some of these folks went on TV to complain that folks were asking questions about their judgment.

From the HuffPo article:

The most potentially sensitive matter in the negotiations may very well be about how to handle Clinton’s high-profile political supporters. According to a source with knowledge of the Clinton campaign’s machinations, there is concern among some members of Congress, particularly those in the Congressional Black Caucus, that Obama won’t aggressively support their reelection efforts because of their alliances with Clinton. A few black House members fear primary challenges.

“These members are already facing some heat for backing [Clinton],” said a source close to the New York Democrat’s campaign. “But that has been going on for a while. In some place in these negotiations between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, there will be a discussion of them providing not just economic help but moral support. That will be limited to the places where they have primaries.”

“I’m sure,” said the source, “that [Clinton] is saying, ‘Please do what you can to make sure that the people supporting me aren’t punished.”

So let’s get this straight so we’re all clear. The Congressional Black Caucus was strong in its support, coddling and protection of Dollar Bill Jefferson, the New Orleans area CBC member who was caught with $90,000 cash hidden in his freezer. Yet when it came to supporting the candidacy of a fellow CBC member — the only senator – among them — some CBC superdelegates decided to back another candidate. Loudly. In many cases, in direct opposition to their constituents’ overwhelming support for Obama.

So, they weren’t there for Obama. And now all is forgiven? Obama is supposed to bend over backward to help folks get re-elected who valued their own cozy insider relationships over and above the will of their district? Nah, son. I don’t think so. I say, if primary challengers emerge to some of these folks and their message is compelling to the voters, then let it roll. They all had the chance to do what Rep. John Lewis did which was switch his superdelegate vote based on his district’s support of Obama. It’s called democracy.

Many CBC Members have come out for Obama and that’s great. There are now 424 superdelegates for Obama. Here’s a list of the original 14 CBC superdelegate Clinton backers according to this BlackAmericaWeb article from mid-May and whether or not they switched in time to Obama (courtesy of the Superdelegate Transparency Project where info is available):

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio (agrees with voters in district: No)
Rep. Donald Payne of New Jersey (switched to Obama)
Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida
Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida
Del. Donna Christensen of the Virgin Islands
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri (agrees with voters in district: No)
Rep. Kendrick Meek of Florida
Rep. Maxine Waters of California (switched to Obama)
Rep. Diane Watson of California (agrees with voters in district: No)
Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York (agrees with voters in district: No)
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York (agrees with voters in district: No)
Rep. Laura Richardson of California (agrees with voters in district: No)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and
Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York (agrees with voters in district: No)

Those African-American Members of Congress who used their superdelegate vote in favor of a candidate who used racially divisive tactics and against the wishes of their districts? Well, I say if they are replaced by other candidates who better reflect their constituents, maybe that’s aiight. It’s up to the voters whether or not they will accept the Clinton backers’ begging and shuffling for forgiveness. I don’t think Obama should do them any favors since, like Joe Lieberman, chances are those favors might not be returned.

Evita’s comment was worthy of a post of its own, and I give her the Hat tip for the following post. If there were any white man worthy of telling his people unpleasant but truthful things, it’s Tim Wise.

An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who Are Threatening to Withhold Support from Obama in November
Your Whiteness is Showing


This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.

I know that it’s probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you–who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator–is raw, pure and justified.

That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don’t mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.

First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter’s policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton’s while the former’s clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women…

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women…

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama’s defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama’s sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women…

Your whiteness is showing.

When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point–the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny–you couldn’t be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation–the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity–you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what’s worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.

If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women–you know, the ones who aren’t white like you and most of your friends–but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here’s the first question: What the hell is that about?

And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please…

Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don’t kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn’t need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result–a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she’s progressive, and she’s a feminist. But that isn’t your threat is it? No. You’re not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton’s birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be…?

See, I told you your whiteness was showing.

And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate–Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line–and yet, apparently can’t bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal–this sudden line in the proverbial sand–other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year–and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point–but can’t bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you’ve supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?

See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they’ve had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman–hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so–but you won’t support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

Look, I couldn’t care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn’t be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks–so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.

But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don’t insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you’ve done so as a radical political act.

Tim Wise is the author of: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at:

Tue Jun 10, 07:02:00 AM 2008

Comment from CPL: if the above came from any person of color, we’d get labeled we’re being racist. But the fact it’s coming from Tim Wise, a highly respected white academic, I’m wondering what the white women will say, now that he’s essentially telling them that “getting their Ferraro on” by voting for John McCain in the General Election will not be a good idea if they ever wish to be taken seriously again.

We need to ask the Field Negro to give this brotha an Honorary Field Negro of the Year award, because that article is Field Negro Behavior, and he doesn’t do this periodically; he has been consistent for years.

The following was my favorite comment in Wise’s post – he knocked it out of the park:

And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please..



Looks like Scott McClellan’s book was a catharsis for him. He’s talking more than he did when he was Lil’ Bush’s Press Secretary. And, he’s agreed to testify to the House Judiciary Committee. Under OATH. It must be liberating not to be telling lies to the public as part of your job duties anymore.

However, I would feel better if the NOI were doing guard duty until Scotty is personally escorted to the Hill to start singing. In the meantime, I hope Scotty goes nowhere near a boat, plane, train, or anywhere “they” could get to him, if you know what I mean. This Administration is not a Presidential Administration; it’s a crime cartel and you know what “they” do to people who talk.

I got an email about these awards at Nominations are open for the Shining Star Award. They have mad categories, but I suppose we’d be best suited for:

  • Best Overall Political Blog (use
  • Best Example of Online Advocacy (Clinton Attacks Obama wiki at

That’s all folks.



The Brody File
EXCLUSIVE: Obama Campaign will Launch ‘Joshua Generation Project’
June 6, 2008

The Brody File has learned that in the next two weeks Barack Obama’s campaign will unveil a major new program to attract younger Evangelicals and Catholics to their campaign.

It’s called the “Joshua Generation Project.” The name is based on the biblical story of how Joshua’s generation led the Israelites into the Promised Land.

A source close to the Obama campaign tells The Brody File the following:

“The Joshua Generation project will be the Obama campaign’s outreach to young people of faith. There’s unprecedented energy and excitement for Obama among young evangelicals and Catholics. The Joshua Generation project will tap into that excitement and provide young people of faith opportunities to stand up for their values and move the campaign forward.”

The official rollout won’t be for another two weeks or so, but The Brody File has been told the activities will include house parties, blogging, concerts and more.

Rest of article at link above.

I have discussed the Obama/Evangelical Push in two previous posts:

Religious Right – Leaning Towards Obama?

Obama & The Right Wing: Is it All About Race, Or Not?

Last week, Mark DeMoss, who may be the most prominent public relations executive in the evangelical world, stated that he wouldn’t be surprised if Obama got 40% of the evangelical vote.


I’m not saying Obama would get that much, but does he really need that much in order to tilt this election? No.

Remember the original hypothesis about Obama and Religion was brought forth on

Now, we have Obama specifically outreaching to evangelicals. Evangelicals are to the GOP what Black folk are to the Democrats. What would happen if there was a Republican candidate that could get 40% of the Black vote? Exactly. That’s why this is so serious.

And, it is the reason for
a) the Muslim Smears
b) why The Right went apecrazy over Jeremiah Wright

Those were both attempts to marginalize Obama as a Christian.

Obama is trying to rework the electoral map. He’s going after voters in states that previously would have been ignored.

UPDATE: Found this at the, Swampland website

June 9, 2008 5:07
Evangelicals for Obama?

If this Barna poll of Evangelicals* is right, McCain has a LOT of work to do. From the poll’s synopsis:

But the big news in the faith realm is the sizeable defection from Republican circles of the much larger non-evangelical born again and the notional Christian segments. The non-evangelical born again adults constitute 37% of the likely voters in November, and the notional Christians are expected to be 39% of the likely voters. Among the non-evangelical born again adults, 52% supported President Bush in 2004; yet, only 38% are currently supporting Sen. McCain, while 48% are siding with Sen. Obama. Although notional Christians voted for John Kerry in 2004 by an 11-point margin, that gap has more than doubled to 26 points in this year’s election. Protestants and Catholics have moved toward the Democratic challenger in equal proportions since 2004.


…basically means being a horses’ ass royale. Never mind that any political value he purported to bring to the Democratic Party was really an illusion.

JJP readers may wonder why I’m writing about Herr Lieberman when, really, he’s in the toilet along with Harold “The Dark Sith” Ford, Jr., and the Tidy-Bowl Man. I’m writing this piece, because my colleague, Rikyrah, has made several entreaties that I take this on. I am a team player, after all.

At least the Tidy-Bowl Man, when last seen in commercials, was in a rowboat. Joe Lieberman doesn’t even have a life raft, and at the rate he’s pissing off the Democratic side of the Caucus in both Houses of Congress, I’m willing to wager that there are very few members that would pee on him if he caught fire. But, I’m digressing from the points I want to make about why Joe Lieberman’s tenure in the Democratic Side of the Senate needs to be brought to closure, and quickly.

Here’s some reasons why the man known as “Holy Joe” needs to be stripped of his committee assignments and shown the door:

(1) He lost the Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont. However, Connecticut being the state she is, allowed for Joe to come back as an Independent. That election also allowed ReThugs to turn their back on their own candidate and back Joe. Their backing should have served as a warning to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, that Lieberman couldn’t be trusted to keep his promise to caucus with the Democrats when he won re-election.

(2) On salient issues, such as Israel and the Iraq War, he has voted like a ReThug all the way, and chided fellow Democrats for not doing the same; going as far as to call them out on Fake Noise Network.

(3) On issues such as Supreme Court Nominees, he failed to filibuster Roberts and Alito; in fact, he supported their nominations, despite the fact that he voted against one of them (Alito). The issue was supporting a filibuster and cloture to prevent their nominations from coming to the floor for a vote. Doesn’t matter how you voted if you had the chance to prevent their nominations from coming to the floor for a vote and you didn’t try to stop it.

(4) He has been trying to paint Barack Obama as a Muslim, despite the furor over Obama’s membership in a decidedly Christian church (and Obama was forced to end his membership over the controversy). This was so bad, Obama had to drag Lieberman into a corner, twice, to tell the man to shut up with the slander or else he’s getting into that ass.

(5) He’s agreed to headline at the Republican National Convention this summer, a la Zell Miller. At least Zig-Zag Zell was planning to retire when he pulled that stunt back in 2004, because even in his rabid state, Miller knew he couldn’t return to the Senate after all but deserting the Democratic Party and becoming a Republican. Lieberman is indicating, by his actions, that he’s going to actively campaign against his own party’s Nominee. Under these circumstances, he should not be considered neither a Democrat, nor an Independent – his actions spell out G-O-P.

These stunts I’ve listed usually results in the stripping of Committee Chairmanships and party-line status. In other words, you’re neutered and have no real influence, credibility or power. This is how the ReThugs maintained their party unity; wayward members of the GOP were disciplined for defection and stripped of power for any break in unity. How do you think Tom DeLay got the nickname “The Hammer”?

He got that nickname for dropping the Hammer on any ReThug even smelling like he/she would be thinking independently of the party leaders’ agenda. It is also the reason Bush managed to railroad a crapload of bad legislation through Congress in eight years, and it is also the reason why Congress has managed to all but eliminate the concept of Checks and Balances. The passage of most of that legislation eliminated Congressional oversight and accountability, and abdicated responsibility to the Executive Branch of Government. Lieberman facilitated all, if not most of that, especially with that “Gang of 14″ nonsense involving alleged “bipartisanship” that resulted in Democratic members of Congress continually being screwed over. Especially in Supreme Court Nominees and the like.

Honestly, if your ideology matches that of your opposition party, you really need to join them and quit infecting your caucus beyond mere dissent. One would wonder why Zell Miller pulled his stunts, but when watching Lieberman act in similar fashion, I think I have the answer to his machinations.

When Lieberman found himself with a primary challenger in Ned Lamont, several Democrats, loyal to the party line, decided very early that they would wait and see who won the contest, and they would get behind the winner of the contest. Sounds fair and logical in many ways. But you must also understand in the scheme of things, since Lieberman was inflicted upon Al Gore as a running mate back in 2000, on his way to the VP nod, he made a few enemies on the Democratic side of both Houses of Congress, especially with his stance on Israel, his war hawkishness, and his “moral” stance on the Monica Lewinsky-Giving-the-POTUS-a Blow Job Scandal.

They saw a way to evict him from Congress and minimize AIPAC influence by supporting and actively campaigning for Ned Lamont. Some of Lamont’s supporters were CBC members and gave me laundry lists of their issues with Joe Lieberman. His connection to AIPAC in particular, resulted in several southern CBC members being challenged and defeated by Black candidates primarily financed with AIPAC money (see Davis, Artur; Majette, Denise;, and Johnson, Hank).

What they didn’t count on was the fact that Joe Lieberman would refuse to be gracious in defeat and leave the stage. They didn’t expect him to utilize that quirk in Connecticut election law that allows for a candidate to file to run simultaneously as both a Democrat, and in defeat, re-file to run as an Independent. When he won re-election, I remember getting a sinking feeling in my stomach, and instinctively knew that Lieberman was not going to be gracious in dealing with who he now perceived to be his enemies. In fact, that was the one time I almost wished Harold Ford had won his Senate campaign because it would have, in appearance, given the Democrats and Harry Reid another Democrat in the Senate to counteract and nullify any shyt Lieberman might try to pull.

I only had that thought for 30 seconds; then I remembered that it was HAROLD FORD, JR. I was thinking about, and, given his history of being a ReThug in Democrats’ clothing, there was no earthly reason to give that Senate seat to an African-American version of, ahem, JOE LIEBERMAN. All Ford’s victory would have done is to ensure Lieberman had back up when he began to wreak havoc on the Democratic Caucus in the Senate.

At most, I sensed he was going to pay back most of the Caucus for not supporting him against Lamont in the General election, by holding the Democratic Caucus hostage and threatening to vote with the ReThugs if he didn’t get his way.

He has done exactly that. And now, he believes that his position gives him license to continue holding Harry Reid and the Democratic Caucus hostage by continued threats to tie up the votes on important issues, and thereby allow Dick Cheney to come to the Floor and cast the tie-breaking vote – so he pulls all of the stunts I’ve listed, and a few I haven’t, as reasons to openly court the GOP without consequences and repercussions.

The main line is that Holy Joe’s actions should be fraught with consequences and repercussions. I don’t mean that the Democratic Caucus needs to wait to see how their majority in the Senate is going to pan out in the November elections. As it is, Lieberman has done far too much damage to be allowed to continue to caucus with the Democrats in the Senate. If there is worry about his voting with the GOP, Harry Reid knows of several parliamentary procedures that could tie things up until he gets the majority he needs to overrule any antics Lieberman pulls. In fact, Reid has already used one of those tactics to shut down the Senate three years ago.

Sometimes, one has to engage in strategies that deviate from the norm, but maintains the situation until it can be changed.

With the Democratic nomination of Barack Obama, the guard is changing, and if Lieberman doesn’t buy himself a clue, he’ll realize it when he becomes the Congressional equivalent of a homeless guy begging for change in front of Union Station after the November elections. It doesn’t matter if Obama wins or loses the general; the fact is that the Democrats are primed to be swept into greater majorities in the House and Senate on Obama’s coattails and momentum, which creates many problems for Lieberman dissing the people he has to work with.

The main problem with Lieberman is the problem all lunatics have when you have the same situation, apply the same solution, and hope for different outcomes. The only thing I will say is Lieberman better be glad he’s not the Senator from a state that allows for their elected officials to be recalled when they piss off their electorate.

He should ask Gray Davis about that.

From DailyKos:

I just received an email (as most of you probably did!) from Steve Hildebrand, deputy campaign manager for Obama, as follows:

Today, I am proud to announce that our presidential campaign will be the first in a generation to deploy and maintain staff in every single state.

The network of volunteers and the infrastructure built up during the historic primary season — on behalf of all the Democratic campaigns — have given us an enormous and unprecedented opportunity in the general election.

We need to register new voters and bring people back into the political process. We need to reach out to Independents and Republicans who know that our country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush’s disastrous policies.


I love it.

I honestly do.


and before I have a chance to post my thoughts on that, I am drawn to my colleague Rikyrah’s post about the flooding and potential “another Katrina” disaster, once again on El Presidente Boosh’s watch.

Let us stop asking what’s wrong with our Government. We KNOW what’s wrong with it. It is run and operated by individuals who were given their positions out of loyalty, being able to rig or steal elections, or all of the above. But, never, ever think it is because they were competent and possessed the required knowledge, skills and abilities.

Oh, and having a President who actually exhibited basic human characteristics of kindness, compassion and consideration for the plight of the downtrodden and suffering, would also be a very big help in responding to crisis like this.

If it’s not being reported in the media, that’s because we all know what a PR nightmare Katrina was, and continues to be for this Administration. Even in the wake of prompt responses to other natural disasters, Bush will never, ever be able to escape comparisons to his lack of action during Hurricane Katrina. This August 29, 2008, will be the third anniversary of the horror we either witnessed or personally experienced.

Three years of exile for many. Three years of abso-damn-lute silence from our Government and those who represent in both Houses of Congress.

Three years of rather than trying to return New Orleans’ people back home, this government engages in ensuring they are kept out.

Which probably explains why HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson “suddenly” developed a desire to “spend more time with his family” while facing a possible Federal indictment for using his position not to build affordable housing so Katrina victims can return home, but to engage in gangsta tactics with Housing officials in Philly.

While Democratic-Nominee Obama could get involved, let me remind you that Bush is still on the job and the issue of levies breaking and flooding communities is STILL his responsibility. And, as usual, the man appears to be asleep at the wheel…again. And he has an equally complicit media to help out in the cover-up.

That is, unless Anderson Cooper hightails it to Iowa in a speedboat and start reporting on CNN about this potential cry for help.

Baldwin Award

9 Jun 2008

Be careful about basking in the first pound because if this much attention got paid to the first pound, just wait until the wee Michelles decide they want to take swimming lessons or something and they start rocking cornrows. Just wait until everything that they do that may somehow be “ethnic” gets cooed over and psychoanalyzed. The “First Pound” is cute and all right now, but is every single thing that the Obamas do that is “different” get dissected , it is going to get really old really fast.

Gina McCauley, on the dap heard round the world.

Pat Buchanan Award

9 Jun 2008

“A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently.”

E.D. Hill, Fox News Anchor, discussing Barack and Michelle giving each other dap on the night Obama won the Democratic Primary.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and here at JJP we’ve decided to borrow (with all due admiration) Andrew Sullivan’s idea of giving awards for certain types of commentary. Naturally ours will have their own unique flava, and these are the categories we’ve decided on so far:

The Cosby Award: For saying unpleasant things that people need to hear.

The Crabby McCrab Award: For making statements fueled by irrational hate and envy that tear down other black folks.

The Shirley Chisolm Award: For poignant statements that confront sexism and prejudice against women of all races*.

The Pat Buchanan Award: For unconscionably racist commentary.

The Sharpton Award: For making unfounded accusations of racism.

The Flava Flav Award: For embarrassing black folks everywhere through hopelessly ignorant behavior.

The Baldwin Award: For saying something we all knew was true, but couldn’t figure out how to say.

We don’t have a system yet where we can set up voting, so instead of having nominees we’re just going to give them out. But that’ll change as soon as we get our site revamp going.

*changed, because I think Rep. Chisolm would want it that way. 

First black folks do it.

Then everyone starts doing it.

Any questions?

Hat tip

From DailyKos:

Darrell in Iowa writes:

I am in Mason City. Our levees broke Sunday morning. Flood stage is 7 foot and waters are now at 19 feet. Hundreds of homes and businesses are underwater. The City’s water plant was flooded and the entire city of 30,000 is without potable water. A couple of hours ago the main electric substation flooded and failed and much of the city is without power. People remain in flooded homes. Early tonight I saw people wandering the streets not knowing where to go. There are entrie areas of the city with NO emergency personnel on hand.

NOBODY from the outside has come to help. Our local first responders are exhausted and overwhelmed. Small rural towns downstream tonight are being devasted. Levees everywhere are failing. Calls for help in these small towns have been unmet. Portions of our local guard are in Iraq.

The homeland has been left unprotected and people are suffering horribly.

And more of the story:

June 7, 2008 – Saturday

The Dike broke and flooding is Horrible

A quick post to let everyone know we are safe. I am at my parents house in Mason City, Iowa. The flooding rivers have now past a 75 year old record and will crest several feet higher later tonight. A few hours ago the dike on the main river broke. The City water plant is under water and soon this city of 30,000 people will be without drinking water. By this afternoon the last remaining bridge to the area we are in will be under water stranding about 10,000 people. We are high enough we won’t flood although we will be cut off. I have the boat standing by in the back yard in case we need it. More later as I have time…need to see what I can do to help friends whose houses are under water.

Oh damn, thought the rain had stopped but it is starting again.

1:40 pm update….The rain continues to fall heavily and waters are rising fast again. The flood stage on the main river is 7 feet. We are now at 18 feeting and rising. The City is telling people we will be without water for at least two days and possibly all week. There must now be concern about contamination because people are being told not to use city water supply. I made it to the store before the bridge was closed and a semi load of water had just come in…as fast as it could be unloaded people were grabbing it. Its like chaos at the grocery stores. We are being told to expect much worse. I am in my RV, but need to soon abandon it. The water is about a foot deep around it and thats just urban flooding…its nowhere near a river.

10:00 pm update – I just got back a half hour ago from my brothers business where they are sand bagging. The rain has finally stopped and although on TV they report water is not longer rising…that’s not what is happening. The street I took two hours to get out of our neighborhood is now under water. I was one of the last vehicles to get through the bumper deep water before it was closed. We are now completely isolated and cut off from the rest of the City.

Images are HERE

I’ve been watching cable, haven’t seen anything on tv about this. I thought we said ‘never again’ after Katrina. Make a call, send emails, email the networks and ask them why they aren’t on this story.

Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell

Special Contributors: James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Adam Luna, Kamala Harris

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats


Advertise here!

Obamacare – Get Some


Peep ‘Em

I Am A Community Organizer (300x243)

Community Activity

Black Behind Coverage/Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog which does not represent the views of the authors' employers, clients nor vendors.

Ain’t Like All The Rest

Jack and Jill Politics is not affiliated with Jack and Jill of America, Jack and Jill Magazine, "Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill to Fetch a Pail of Water" nor any of the other Jack and Jills out there on the Google. Just so's you know.