Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #3: You Don't Mean What You Say

Dear Sen. Obama,

I hope you are doing well today. I've heard reports that you are feeling particularly chipper.º

When you promised to accept federal public financing for your campaign, how is it that you so swiftly broke that pledge? Was it because $610,000,000 looked too good to pass up? Did you feel that the new direction America needed, the change we have been waiting for, is for someone to finally and literally buy the White House?

And when you describe yourself as inspired by a friend, one to whom you've given your loyalty, how is it that you can renounce him in his weakness, even though he was your pastor for 20 years?

And why is it that whenever someone attempts to hold you accountable for what you've clearly said and done, and NOT done, over the years, how come your constant rejoinder, offered reflexively, is that such things "are a distraction"? When, dear Senator, will such things ever get the attention they deserve?

Surely you did not mean it when you said recently that John McCain and Sarah Palin wanted to make "a virtue of selfishness." Tell me, please, that you understand -- you have been described as brilliant -- the difference between selfishness and greed; between healthy self-interest and venomous avarice and envy. Tell me, please, that you understand that selflessness is NEVER A MATTER OF LAW, of being FORCED to "give" charitably under threat of punishment. Please, I beg you, where's the hope in that? And how is it "patriotic" (your campaign's word) to pay higher taxes when taxes are a matter of law? Are you suggesting patriotism is also to be forced upon a people? What next?

Please, I am asking you to tell me that you are not blind to the fact that you are a millionaire; that even if you lose tomorrow, you will be fabulously wealthy, able to command obscene speaking and appearance fees all over the world. Tell me you've no selfish intent here; tell me that you did not keep your money from your own half brother and allegedly beloved aunt, both living in poverty, because you were waiting to have LAWS and TAX CODES break you free of your own stunning selfishness. Tell me that you see the difference between freedom and chains. I beg you, tell me that you are not so cynical that you think Americans don't see and hear that you think them dumb, avaricious and unpatriotic. (And you should tell me how it is you did not know your beloved aunt was in this country illegally. One wonders how she even got here then, if you have no idea.)

Surely you can see why I don't believe you mean what you say?

Here's the bottom line, Senator. I hear what you are saying, and you do mean it, but only insofar as you are counting on the envy of your followers: You are hoping they will not think too much; that they will only react to what is presented as "unfair" and "unjust," and hence you will have hooked them in to giving you their money and their votes. You derive power from the envy that clings to your promises. You foster an "us against them" mentality, the "selfless" against the "selfish." The good against the bad.

Amazingly, it seems maybe just less than half the country recognizes that your words do not have much selflessness in them. You preach selflesslessness for personal gain.

My feeling, Senator, is that you should go take care of your own,† freely and without threat of censure, seizure or penalty, and then come back to us with the news of this great new selflessness, the true patriotism and new direction, you and Sen. Biden describe so eloquently. In mere words.

Peace, and good luck.

ºSince first posting this letter, I have been informed that your grandmother died today. I apologize for the seemingly insensitive remark, but I did hear reports that you were feeling quite elated and confident. I am sorry that your mood has probably changed in light of your family's loss.

†But who am I? I fail at this miserably. But my failure is in freedom; I strain to love not by compulsion or threat of a nation's watchful eye. My hope is that love arises freely of its own in my will, my heart, my very soul. Love cannot be forced. It is never statutory. Love is freedom, and it is fed by freedom's patience and grace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

No Surprises At All: Bush and Co. Don't Deliver

Alas, alack, let us all rend our garments! George W. Bush, that evil-doer, has not suddenly found Osama bin Laden; he has not been holding that infamous terrorist hostage just so he could be "captured" at the perfect moment. Oil prices have not plunged to levels Americans once knew in the blissful 1960s; oil is not flowing like rivers down our streets. No crazy videotape from some rocky redoubt has been secreted away and aired on Fox News, sending tremors of fear down the American spine. No terrorist plot has been foiled in Detroit, no bombs detonated in Syracuse or Flagstaff. The terrorist threat level has not been raised.

The alleged fear-mongers and manipulators have abandoned us. They have let us down. They have proven their great incompetence, unable to bring forward the very evidence of their own great conspiracies. John McCain will not be saved by the immediate extradition of Osama bin Laden from his vacation home in Buenos Aires; Bush and Co. have nothing to present to surprise either October or November. They have no tricks up their sleeves, because they have no sleeves. They have no clothes.

(Rumor has it that Wesley Clark has been holding Osama bin Laden so he can present him as Barack Obama's trophy two days after the inauguration.)

On the eve of the "most important election in our lifetime," one message is clear: Bush can't get nothin' right.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

I Witness: McCain's 'Last' Town Hall Meeting

Yes. I was there. The message IS the medium, the proof in the picture: my self-portrait in front of Peterborough, NH's lovely town hall moments before John McCain would speak from its steps proves that I was crazy enough to endure rather cold weather for more than two hours just so I could witness what is possibly the end of a man's bid for the White House.

But permit me to backtrack a moment.

When my wife and I chose at the last minute (practically) to attend the John McCain rally in gorgeous Peterborough, NH (where Thornton Wilder wrote "Our Town"), I decided, like a fool, to travel lightly: no cameras, no gear. If any of you have been to a major political event involving tight security and Secret Service, you know what I mean; and any of you who have worked in the press and have been "handled" by the campaign operatives know what I mean by "handling." Besides, I have brought my photo gear to work such events "outside" the press handlers' reach, and even then I have been hassled. Traveling without any potential hindrances sure made sense as I stood in my house planning my strategy.

But I was a fool for leaving my cameras home. Peterborough, after all, is essentially my home turf. I lived in that fine village for five years; my wife and I, though we live less than 10 miles away, run most of our errands there. It is the local hub. So what was I thinking when I jumped into an incredible queue without my cameras when there was so much pure political theater going on out on Grove Street (though there is a Main Street, Grove Street FEELS more like Peterborough's main street)? Obama supporters were set on the east side of Grove; they chanted and shouted and sang and, at times, harangued. Giant puppets paraded down the street; McCain supporters mostly stationed on the west side of Grove waved signs and sang "God bless America!" and did their own bit of preaching. Besides both teams chanting in unison "USA!", which was nice, some of both parties' representatives taunted each other; the badinage was quite humorous and delightful, at least to me. But I am getting ahead of myself for, you see, a friend of my wife's was queued up with my sweet bride; hearing my lament that I was stuck using my cell phone camera to record what was going on, she handed me (thanks Lauren!) her Nikon point-and-shoot (I am a Canon guy so Nikons are utterly backward). Assured that I had a spot saved in line, I took off with a dinky camera and did my best.

What sort of things did I see? [Images are not chronological; click on each one for larger view.]

Well, there was the frightening:

And the surreal:

(Apparently this moving parody of a red demon GOP elephant steered by the diminutive George W. Bush set atop its head and leading a disfigured John McCain was intended to make an effective point.)

And then there was the REALLY surreal:

There was a surprising visit by an old icon:

(Uncle Sam shouted -- you can guess which side he was on -- such inspirations as "No friends of Paris† in the White House!")

There was the predictable (it amazes me that a friend of mine, a self-described Marxist, would choose to pick a fight with this guy as I took this shot):

There was also the rather wordy (though this poor photographer nixed the punch line, which read "Keep the change").

And there was just the plain-Jane sort of stuff (cell phone picture):

But in the end, what I saw was really a slice of America, united in its division, divided in its unity: E Pluribus Unum all topsy-turvy.

______________________

You may be wondering what an award-winning photographer came up with for an image of Sen. John McCain. Well, I don't mind boasting: I got an incredible shot. It combines everything great about my talents with a borrowed camera; it shows you my deft skills as I handle even an unfamiliar camera while being jostled by cheering, jumping fans of John McCain. This IS the quintessential image, sharp, clear, precise, professional. It's clearly fit for a national journal's cover. In fact, it is so good it might even be prophetic.

Besides, what would you expect of a guy who has been "nothing but a hack" for all things McCain? Judge for yourself:

(Only seconds after taking this image, I did shake Mr. McCain's left hand with my own left hand. A secret leftist's handshake, you know.)

OK. So the image is itself part of the surreal, the fantastical, the ephemeral. But at least I've left a surprise for Lauren when she downloads her images (uh, sorry Lauren).

Peace.

†For the uninitiated, that would be "Paris Hilton."

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Emerging From The Dark, Blinking: The Purpose-Driven Blog

A cave. That's what I've been living in for weeks now. How else to explain my complete surprise at seeing John McCain and Barack Obama being interviewed last night on CNN and FoxNews, you know, BIG CABLE, by an evangelical pastor, I mean, "mega-pastor?"

All I've read of pastor Rick Warren's book, The Purpose-Driven Church, is the title. I've heard him speak for all of two minutes on the telly. I don't know a thing about him other than that he is the founder of what seemed to me a new evangelical fad. His book, and the para-church programs born of it, struck me -- and I admit I'm being superficial here -- as more of the same kitsch and gimmickry to which evangelicalism seems particularly prone. When I think of Rick Warren, I unfairly think of the Prayer of Jabez, bobble-head Jesus dolls and WWJD shoe laces. And I am always prone to cynical mutterings, like, "What about the Jesus-driven Church?" or the more philosophical "What about the Church-driven Church?" or, in light of certain prayer techniques, "What about the Prayer of our Lord?" But such questions get you nowhere; and they will certainly never get you the sort of broader cultural approval one can get standing between two presidential candidates.

I have not yet watched the "debate" or interview from Saddleback Church. I recorded it for later digestion; it's comfortably sealed in digital Tupperware just waiting for me to plunge in and get my fill. Of course, not having yet watched it, I will hold my tongue on its merits.

But last night, as I flipped over the news channels carrying the debate, I could not help ask the rather profane question, "Who the hell is Rick Warren?" Now don't get me wrong; this is more confession than polemic, so please know that I don't think the question a particularly thoughtful, moral or proper one. I would rather ask, if I was not prone to profanation, how it is that Rick Warren has climbed such heights that he is able to play James Lipton or Sir David Frost to two of the nation's most important men, historically and politically speaking. How does this happen? Yes, yes. I know that Mr. Warren's story is quite amazing; it is inspiring to learn of his many achievements and great generosity: his Wikipedia entry informs us that he "reverse tithes" at his church: due to the overwhelming success of his book, Mr. Warren has returned all of his many years' salary and gives 90 percent of his earnings to his church, leaving himself 10 percent on which to live. That is a decent and inspiring thing to do (and that is one fine book).

Part of me, the really cynical, jaded, fallen, and ineluctably corrupted part of me, believes that Mr. Warren was just using his platform to introduce his preferred candidate, Barack Obama, to a broader evangelical audience. Cover for this motive, of course, was to involve Mr. McCain. Besides, having both men appear gives the event the necessary gravitas to garner broad media attention. (One telling irony is that Charles Krauthammer said after the event that it was perhaps the best sort of political debate he had ever seen; if it is, what does that say about BIG MEDIA, who usually host these big-ticket political events?) But, I admit, this is me only guessing.

I admit my cynicism is utterly unjustified, though I know two things: there is a push on in the Obama campaign to truly secure the evangelical vote (and he appears to have it, according to polls), and Mr. Obama has appeared at a forum at Mr. Warren's church before -- sans McCain -- all to great applause and approval (and no small controversy).

But enough. I must simply stop, wait, listen, learn. Besides. I am late for church.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

A Very Low Threshold

In this morning's New York Times op-ed by Bob Herbert titled "A Gift to the G.O.P.", in which Mr. Herbert chides the Democratic Party for its nasty infighting and protracted primary battles, we find this stunning statement:

But the Clinton and Obama partisans spent months fighting bitterly on the toxic terrain of misogyny, racism and religion. It can only make you wonder about the vaunted Democratic claims of moral superiority when it comes to tolerance. [emphasis added]

It should also make us wonder where Mr. Herbert has been for the past two decades (at least).

A line from an old film favorite, a true guilty pleasure, comes to mind: "Welcome to the party, pal!"

Welcome, indeed.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

In The Breakdown Lane: Seeing Red...And Feeling Blue

The beauty of being idealistic is that the idealist has not yet fallen into cynicism. Youth may be wasted on the young, but that is not the fault of those who happen to enjoy youth. And idealism may be youth’s beauty mark born of simple purity, but surely the ugly loss of ideals is rarely caused by the misdeeds of children. No, it is the adults who destroy innocence, who shatter ideals and scar beauty with subtle abuse. Cynicism is often handed down like a legacy, the last will and testament of what it means to be a ‘grown up.’

My sense as a middle-aged man observing the conflict between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that millions of Mr. Obama’s supporters are about to have their ideals smashed by the Clinton campaign. At best, at the end of all this, youth’s enthusiastic naïveté (which is not idealism’s sibling) will be chased with a bitter draught of gall.

How can the Clinton campaign, which has clearly misrepresented Mr. Obama -- the ever-gentle man -- expect to inspire that generation of voters who are just beginning to pay attention to politics? Do Mr. and Mrs. Clinton really believe they can ignore the damage they are inflicting on the youngest members of the electorate, that set who overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama in his bid to be the Democratic Party nominee? Or do they believe that, after winning the White House, they can heal the damage that is done? Maybe their forced remedy will come before the White House: perhaps they will offer Mr. Obama a job around the White House, like the vice-presidency or some high profile cabinet post. (He’d be a fool to take it.)

Or perhaps, like so many power-grabbing “me-first” go-getters, the Clintons just don’t care. Maybe this explains Mrs. Clinton’s very first campaign slogan: “I am in this to win.” Her transparency could not be more disgusting: she’s not in “this” to lead or serve America. She is in “to win.” Unfortunately, too few of us have the courage to remind ourselves -- and our neighbors -- of the ghastly truth that people who are “in to win” are generally the worst people in the neighborhood -- and the world.

I am no partisan in this fight, nor am I a supporter of any candidate. I am merely a witness to history, and the history I am witnessing makes me sick. Yesterday, while tuned to the Rush Limbaugh show on the car radio, I nearly cried as I listened to a clip of Mrs. Clinton’s grotesque misrepresentations of Mr. Obama’s statements; I felt like screaming as I heard her commit the fallacy of equivocation (among other things). If I was not a law-abiding citizen, I might have even stopped and exited my car so I could search for something to vandalize.

Largely, my sorrow was directed at the young voters I know who believe in a world that Mr. Obama also believes in, a world of decency and civility and even elegance. Mr. Obama’s vision is, in an ideal sense, a trans-partisan world where the ideals of civility and prudence and tolerance and understanding abound. But I was also angry for Mr. Obama, angry enough to shout to the world that he would be far better treated if he were a Republican; that he’d win his party’s nomination and even the presidency if he were a member of the Grand Old Party.

What do readers think would be the outcome of the GOP race for the nomination had Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell run for the nation’s highest office? I am sorry...call me a fool; I think either one of them would have been a shoe-in. No other candidates could have stood a chance against them.

I know: I am a fool.

Of course, I admit my native idealism is showing through here, as is my cynicism: both are in a battle, and I’d like to believe my idealism might finally win. But today I am stubbornly prone to aver that if Mr. Obama was indeed a Republican, he’d be president tomorrow if the election were held today. And I further admit that even this very essay may fuel cynicism in the young, and even the old. But my aim is for something higher than merely venting my irascibility or distemper...I do not want to suppress the human spirit. My aim is this audacious hope: I hope that idealism will finally have victory over the deeply cynical, mean-spirited and dire campaign that is being run by the Clintons.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Why Hillary?

Pundits and pollsters are perplexed. So am I. But I am neither pundit nor pollster. Politics is more a visceral rather than cerebral sport for me: I go with hunches and feelings and intuitions. And my hunches were wrong, dead wrong. I had Barack Obama easily winning New Hampshire, with John Edwards coming in second and Hillary Clinton stumbling in at third. All I can do is laugh at myself.

________________________

Why Hillary?

Since I am not a pundit of any professional stature, I will not bore you with lengthy expositions on theory. Instead, I will quickly offer several reasons I think Mrs. Clinton won.

1. The Vanity Vote (aka The Snob Factor)

New Hampshire voters are vain and they guard that vanity well: There is no way that New Hampshire voters will often permit themselves to like those folks from Iowa. Barack Obama's success in Iowa was his doom here. New Hampshire voters believe they are more perceptive, informed, discerning than other voters; they pride themselves in being deeply involved. In 1984, Iowans chose Walter Mondale, but NH chose Gary Hart. In 1988, Dick Gephardt took Iowa while Mike Dukakis took NH. In 1992, Iowa went with Tom Harkin as NH took Paul Tsongas. And though Al Gore and John Kerry won both states' early elections in 2000 and 2004, respectively, this year marks a return to the old trend. New Hampshire not only wants to preserve the image that its primary is truly unique, the state wants to maintain its image of fierce independence.

2. The 'Minority' Vote (aka The Nostalgic Feminist Vote)

On the 2008 Democratic ticket voters are asked to choose between two minorities, a black man and a woman. Since exit polls show that New Hampshire's gray-haired females voted for Mrs. Clinton, we can safely conclude that such voters believe it is 'Hillary's time.' New Hampshire voters apparently believe that the first minority to walk into the Oval Office as president should be a woman, and not a black man. No doubt Mr. Obama's youth worked against him here, as voters probably believe that his chance for the White House will come later; he cometh too soon. Now is the time for a woman.

Undeniably, voters believe Hillary hasn't a future chance at the White House: This time truly IS her time. And with a dearth of viable women candidates (who else?) coming up through the Democratic Party, Hillary's need trumps the African American dream, but only for a season.

Related to this almost nostalgic view of feminist aspirations, the Bill Clinton factor looms large in its own nostalgic way. When I reported yesterday that an amazing number of folks who attended a local Bill Clinton event on Monday exited with this on their lips -- "I wish I could vote for him again!" -- I failed to report that the vast majority of those who uttered those words were OLDER women. I, dope as I am, misunderstood their words: I was certain they realized that a vote for Hill was actually an impossibly nostalgic vote for Bill. No one who felt that way for him would vote for his wife, I assured myself; the swooning electorate had to realize that she and he are NOT identical.

No surprise. I was wrong.

3. The War Vote (aka The Commander-in-Chief in a Dress Vote)

Irrespective of how downplayed in the media the Iraq War has become, shrewd voters know that it remains the country's largest issue, at least its largest foreign policy issue. Voters also know that John McCain, who has a real shot at winning the Republican nomination, is a true hawk and is, in many ways, responsible for the "success" of the Iraq "surge" led by General David Petraeus. Hence, New Hampshire voters descried that any viable Democratic candidate could not be a flight-or-flight dove.

Hillary Clinton's win here is nothing short of a massive blow to the anti-war left. After all, it was the Clinton administration -- even after leaving office -- that issued dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's renegade ways and the threat he posed to national security. Mrs. Clinton was remarkably hawkish throughout the "run up" to war; she was not a protester but one of the principal supporters of the Iraq invasion. Her defenses of the Bush Doctrine even mollified the anxieties of many in the middle left of her party.

Of course, analytical Democrats have ALWAYS known that the invasion of Iraq was not merely cooked up by the Republican Bush; in 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change in Iraq, which became part-and-parcel integral to the Bush Doctrine. Analytical Democrats know that Iraq is a central foothold for American self-preservation in a hostile Middle East; and they know that ANY Republican success there will leave someone like John McCain in a very pretty and patriotic light; someone like Barack Obama -- who boasts of opposing the war even when he was a mere state senator in Illinois -- will be left in the worst possible light (the worst thing that can happen to Barack Obama's ambitions is for Iraq to go well). Voters know that Mrs. Clinton has maintained a conveniently ambiguous and politically expedient position that allows her to take credit for positive gains in the War on Terror.

In other words, Hillary Clinton's success in New Hampshire has everything to do with ensuring that the Democrats' nominee for president can defend American military involvement in the Middle East, particularly in the face of John McCain's strong military background and political successes. The only viable candidate on the Democratic ticket who can address the war issue in a responsible manner is -- without question -- Hillary Clinton. Unless Iraq turns into a glaringly obvious mess, which is quite possible, Hillary Clinton takes the nomination.

_______________________

I should add that there was also the "Pity Vote" based on Mrs. Clinton's apparent struggle as a woman to get a fair hearing; and the "Blame the Media" vote (the Pity Vote's little sister) managed by Bill Clinton, which included the suggestion that Barack Obama has been given a pass by the media -- enamored as they are with Obama's alleged "fairy tale" life narrative -- partly because he is black.

Again, just some hasty post-primary thoughts.

Peace.

Bill Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

O'bummer

To say that I am shocked by the result of tonight's Democratic Party primary in New Hampshire is undeniable. I have been walking around for the past few days predicting that Barack Obama would EASILY win in New Hampshire, and that John Edwards would come in second. Hillary Clinton, I predicted, would come in third. Tonight, while watching the precinct reports come in, my incredulity was so pointed I suspected voter fraud! Hillary Clinton wins? Are you kidding me?

Tonight I will go to bed with one fact to consider: I am terrible at prognostication. I shall leave off making predictions from now on. I've no right playing the prophet. No right at all.

(This night also raises further questions about the predictive value of exit polls. Of course, I noticed on Fox News that there was something of a prediction about the predictions: Fox News was citing in advance what the polls suggested without waiting till all the exit polls were tallied. Around 9:oo pm EST, Fox posted the final exit poll data; Clinton won by two points [or thereabouts]. Moreover, about midday I heard a radio report that some exit polls were showing Obama was winning by 10 percentage points or greater. Such reports could surely affect those voters heading to cast a ballot who have a bit of the love of the underdog in them, you know, they are sympathy voters. Yesterday Hillary "cried"; yesterday her husband declared that the media were being unfair; today it seemed she was getting beaten up. Could not a few voters have cast their votes Hillary's way simply so she would not be too badly beaten, too badly embarrassed?)

O'bummer, indeed.

By the way, Barack Obama's concession speech was the best of the night. My conviction is rather bland but not blandly held: Obama's concession speech was more inspiring -- and more interesting -- than ANY victory speech Hillary Clinton could ever deliver.

Just a few post-primary thoughts.

Peace to you,

Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On Media: Fun With Face Time

I have discussed this sort of thing before in my series of critical essays, The New York Times Drug Dealers. And now that we (Americans) are once again in the midst of the many great campaigns for the White House, I thought Contratimes readers might find today's post dealing with image not only different, but rather fun. Who knows?

Trust me when I say that all presidential campaigns are obsessed with one thing: image management. In the media-rich culture in which we live, news editors and photographers serve as midwives, delivering the fresh images each campaign hopes to use to nurture voter interest in their candidates. Irrespective of feigned "balance" in much image obstetrics, hardly a single journalist covering these campaigns is without partisan interest. Everyone, it seems, has a special interest.

Recently I attended a John Edwards event. I showed up with my photo gear; though I was dressed in yard-work rags, my cameras and lenses suggested to many in attendance that I was "media," despite the fact that I was and am merely an interested voter (I only shoot for myself now). My motives and status aside, the Edwards handlers continuously flagged me down: Who are you shooting for? Are you with the press? There's a ladder over there for a better view. At these events, such questions and advice come forth freely and in torrents -- image control is balanced with the highest possible visibility: show our candidate and show him (or her) well.

But as I shared in the essay to which I linked above, not everyone in the media is content with showing a candidate in the best light. I will allow you to explore that more philosophical dimension on your own. Today I merely want to treat you to the impressions created by a frame, a lens and a shutter curtain.

JOHN EDWARDS IN PETERBOROUGH, NH, AUG 23, 2007

When Mr. Edwards finally arrived at his meet-and-greet in a park at the confluence of the Contoocook and Nubanusit rivers in downtown Peterborough, I looked for a vantage that would give me a decent background for the presidential candidate. I wanted color; I wanted people, or signs, or a flag, or a lot or little of each. Indeed, I was able to find a flag, the one flag that was there; luckily, there was also a hint of racial diversity -- one black man and one hispanic woman -- standing in the crowd gathered beneath the Stars-and-Stripes. Unbeknownst to that small sample, they were backdrop; they did not know that I would edit and frame the scene -- a 360-degree world and ampitheater in the round -- to such a narrow slice. I wanted to convey patriotism (as did the handlers who hung the flag); I also wanted to show that Edwards was supported by a racially diverse crowd in what is considered lily-white New Hampshire. All this despite the fact that there was probably only one black man at the event, which boasted close to 500 supporters.

Unfortunately, the light was variable, often drab and low. Thus my lens and aperture choices resulted in very shallow depth-of-field: my backdrop, colorful as it is, is too blurred out to convey all that I was hoping.

Now, the fun. You'll see that John Edwards can look handsome, noble, good, kind, gentle. An editor might even pen a suitable headline: "Edwards Comfortable In NH". This picture proves that he's got the confidence and the looks to be president:


Not bad, really. Edwards looks fresh, solid, straight.

Of course, I could submit this image to an editor's desk:


The depth-of-field is a little better, though I don't like that Edwards' right hand is off-frame and that the flag has moved in the breeze. But surely he looks stronger and more assertive in this frame than in the one previous. Perhaps a headline writer could riff off the image: Edwards Unveils Bold Initiative In NH; Edwards Turns Tough On Campaign Trail; Edwards Determined In NH.

Of course, there are other impressions one can leave. The next picture gives us a sense of the whiff: Edwards' nose seems to have picked up a foul odor. How about "Edwards Smells Defeat In NH Primary"? (This image doesn't really work; it doesn't convey enough voter interest, as one person in the background is obviously interested in something other than John Edwards.)


Perhaps the following photograph lends itself to this headline: "Edwards Concerned Over Shrinking NH Poll Numbers". Perhaps.


But I could emphasize this sense of "My-advantage-over-Richardson-is-really-really-small" even more with an aggressive crop of the original frame.


Then there's the headline, "Edwards Soft-Pitches Plans On Iraq, Terror, Katrina":


When I look at the next image, surely I can believe this: "Edwards to NH's Poor: I Won't Leave You"; or, "Edwards To The Jobless: Help Is On The Way; or "Edwards Speaks To The Second America: I FEEL YOUR PAIN."


Personally, I find that, despite Edwards' strong left hand in the following image, his face suggests weakness, softness. There's even a pleading aspect to his countenance. No doubt it's a perfect facial expression should I want to imply such weakness, such need.


Maybe in a week or two we'll see this headline above the following image: "Edwards Feels The Heat: Moderate Dems Turning Elsewhere."


And just note how the next image could be used, especially since it is so close and tight, almost intimate: "Edwards Cool And In Control: Looking Good In NH."


Lastly, think what fun it would be to read this headline: "Singing A New Tune: Edwards' Croons, Women Voters Swoon."


I doubt this is the sort of image "Edwards in '08!" supporters wish to see. But I sure can hear him sing.

Look for my Bill Richardson images next time.

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Permission required for use of any and all photos posted herein.

Imus, Hate, Reparations And Public Profits: More To Think About

Please, forgive me as I play the fool. But there is so much about the Don Imus story that is important, it is hard to be silent.

As you know, I have already speculated that this Imus "scandal" is largely about presidential politics: key political figures running for the White House can only benefit if Imus is silenced; or, should he return, if he is finally and firmly marginalized as an irrelevant, racist crank. I have also posited that the gang mentality we have seen emerge in such a short time, one utterly deaf to Imus' actual remarks, has been fomented by interested political players behind the scenes. I have further admitted that I am merely speculating; but I am also inferring from the intensity of the furor and the speed of Imus' fall, that surely he did not merely get fired because 10 young women basketball players were offended. There were "bigger" players at work here, ones that even made Imus lose his usually cocky posture.

Now, here's something we all need to think about. Al Sharpton said of all this, in defense of his own noble role in bringing Imus to justice, that America needs to stop those who, using public airwaves, profit from peddling racism and sexism. Please note this with all due attention. Why? Because in the wake of the Imus outrage both MSNBC's and CBS's advertisers began to withdraw from Imus' show; in firing Imus, CBS was willing to forego the apparent $20 million a year he tossed into CBS's coffers. (Please, just for a moment, I want you to follow the money.)

The significant thing for us is that Imus was fired; both MSNBC and CBS agree in action that neither network can nor will profit from the racist, sexist sarcasm and satire of Mr. Imus. But in light of the fact that countless pro-firing commentators, some of whom are staffers of both MSNBC and CBS, keep pointing out that Imus has a long rap-sheet of prior offenses, the firing of Imus appears to be a tacit admission by these networks that they have been, for a long time, profiting from a racist, sexist crank. So, here's the rub: If it is wrong for these networks to continue to profit from a man who clearly has been acting inappropriately for perhaps decades, was it not wrong for them to profit from Imus in the past? If so, does this not then follow: That all the revenue earned by MSNBC and CBS from the Imus show is profit drawn from the purveying of racism and sexism on the public airwaves? Is not the profit already gained from Imus' show dirty, racist, sexist money?

Moreover, does it not then behoove CBS and MSNBC, contrite and deeply moral as they clearly are, to both make reparations, that they pay back the money garnered through racist and sexist programming to those who have been most victimized by such programming?

Alas! I do not see how this argument can be contradicted or denied: MSNBC and CBS must make reparations. Total and complete. For Al Sharpton and his colleagues have made their case, and the firing of Imus proves that the networks agree with that case.

But, let us pause for a moment. For I have one more thing to note, and it is this: If Al Sharpton and others do not seek reparations, if they do not seek damages from toxic and racist radio (and TV) the way some have sought damages from toxic tobacco, can we not infer that simply removing Imus' voice was the only thing some interested parties wanted? Can we not infer that no one seriously believes Imus has been a purveyor of racism and sexism, or that two networks profited from his evil? I don't see how we cannot: If Imus has been a racist and sexist for decades, then all (or most, or even some) of his profits are a result of peddling hate and bigotry. Hence, the profits associated with him have guilt all over them; they represent a debt to victims, not a dividend to shareholders. If no one goes after this money for reparations, then no one is really serious about the charges aimed at Mr. Imus.

Alas, what an ugly door two networks have opened: either they have opened the door to a major lawsuit, or they have opened the door to speculation that this was all about silencing Imus so that he would not stand in the way of someone's bid for the White House. Yes, I believe it is that sort of huge either/or we are talking about here.

Unless, of course, this is all some big publicity stunt. If that is the case, we're all damned.

But, in the end, I admit that I am only speculating. As Imus might say of me, I am a "bald-headed stooge," a "weasel," a "crazy person."

No doubt I am bald, crazy, and a person.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg

God, Bootlegged

On Saturday morning, just before Barack Hussein Obama stepped out from behind the temple veil to reveal his plan to make each of us happier people, MSNBC's Chris Matthews ejaculated that Abraham Lincoln, the great statesman who once governed in Obama's home state, would be dancing for joy at the familiar site of Springfield, Illinois' capitol building; and how it now served as the backdrop to an "African American" announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States. Remember, Matthews gushed, this is where Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Moments later, deep into his own emancipation proclamation -- calling for an end to poverty, promising resolution in Iraq, and freeing us of our fearful dependence on foreign oil and its attendant destruction of the atmosphere -- Mr. Obama said (in bold) this in a list of wondrous deeds Americans have performed as ONE:

"In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream." [emphasis added]

Of course, the "King" referred to is Martin Luther King, the fallen and iconic civil rights leader.

Perhaps in this age where some do not respect the fences erected around us by the scribes of copyright laws, by the good manners of attribution and the love of one's neighbors' own genius, it is easy to honor the wrong men, the wrong women, even the wrong gods; or to steal for oneself the giftedness of others. Lakes steal from springs and rivers, and rivers abscond with lakes' blue riches, only to find poverty in the sea that robs from the sky as the sky steals back. So great leaders, apparently existing unto themselves where all greatness is apparently shared, are remembered for the great things they have said, even though they did not say them.

Abraham Lincoln may have said, "The house divided against itself cannot stand." And I may have said the same thing in a speech as vice-president of my high school senior class. But I was not quoting Lincoln, and Lincoln was not quoting himself: we were both quoting Jesus Christ the Plagiarized.

And then dear Mr. King, who surely gave the right attribution in his original speech, acknowledging his mentors' gifts to him and their own genius, never did say a thing about "justice rolling down." The Jewish prophet Amos did, a fact Mr. King learned as a Christian in Sunday School.

Clearly Mr. Obama and Chris Matthews have both missed out on these apparent trivialities. Who cares if religious language is stolen for political purposes; who cares if the fullness of genius was found in the prophets who uttered what the world most likely had never before heard? What matters is that it takes a certain amount of genius to plagiarize for political gain; to forget that true justice is rooted in the heart and language of God, and to take His honor for oneself.

(It matters not the source, but the outcome, if you but believe in "destiny.")

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Two Annunciations: MSNBC Supports Barack Hussein Obama, And He Is Not Black (or so says someone)

In a matter of minutes from now (30 minutes), Barack Hussein Obama, the handsome and well-spoken senator from Illinois, shall officially announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Assisting him in this proclamation, and no doubt a supporter of his candidacy, is MSNBC, the cable network featuring such notable political wisemen as Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann. My saying that MSNBC is assisting him is due entirely to the fact that MSNBC is hyping its "live coverage" of Mr. Obama's annunciation with undue alacrity at this moment: MSNBC is giddy about this man. Even Mr. Russert's words on an Imus in the Morning program, words replayed during Mr. Russert's testimony in court the other day -- in the Scooter Libby perjury trial -- are perfectly apt: It was "Christmas Eve" in the newsroom when Libby was indicted. No doubt it is Christmas morning today.

Alas, I have proven rather incompetent in my coverage of the Obama story. For I have not properly secured the facts, though, in this digital age of plastic facts, it is not likely that I could ever pin down any fact, for facts vanish in a flash-media second. But please note that on October 24, 2006, in an essay I wrote about Mr. Obama, I noted that his September 2005 essay posted on the Daily Kos, the influential, self-described leftist blog, had as a banner advertisement the following image:



Please note Mr. Obama's placement in this advertisement. Please note that this ad was present at Mr. Obama's Daily Kos essay months before Mr. Obama even announced his exploratory committee for the presidency. Please note that MSNBC not only placed an advertisement for itself on Mr. Obama's Daily Kos diary, but MSNBC placed Mr. Obama's image adjacent to President Bush's, suggesting, perhaps, that both men are in some sort of great struggle. To MSNBC, Obama is a contender, and this MONTHS before he was indeed a contender. Amazingly, MSNBC threw Mr. Obama's hat into the presidential ring before he had himself.

Or so it looks. Or so it feels.

Unfortunately, I only took a screen shot of the actual ad. I failed to take, and preserve, a screen shot of the ad on the actual Obama page. And as you can see, the ad has been removed from Mr. Obama's essay posted, as it was, on the world's largest blog, a blog entirely devoted to political and sociological liberalism.

But who cares, right? This is, after all, the deliverer we are talking about. The great hope. And in just a little less than an hour, there will be a star over the silent little town of Springfield, Illinois. You know, where Abraham Lincoln once lived.

This is all shaping up to be a perfect little fairy tale, the kind America just loves to tell itself.

MY SKIN IS CLEAR (I think)

Curiously related to all of this mythmaking, and jarring our senses, is this essay ("Colorblind") about Mr. Obama (and race in America in general). It is published on Salon. com, and it is written by a "black" woman, Debra J. Dickerson. Perhaps you saw Ms. Dickerson on "The Colbert Report" earlier this week (in a brilliant interview). Ms. Dickerson's thesis, in case you did not know, is that Mr. Obama is NOT BLACK. I kid you not. His mother, apparently, is a white woman from Kansas, while his dad is from Kenya. That Ms. Dickerson defines blackness in political terms is astonishing: to be black in America means, strictly, to be a direct descendant of former African slaves. During Ms. Dickerson's interview with the thoroughly enjoyable Mr. Colbert, she said that Mr. Obama would be better served if he defined himself -- and I am NOT MAKING THIS UP -- as an African African-American. But he is definitely NOT black.

That this woman, who wrote the book, The End of Blackness, is ruining the great idea of a man with dark skin announcing his presidency from Abraham Lincoln's hometown, you know, the town of that great president who clearly made the first great step for the emancipation of slaves so they could become -- eventually -- candidates for President, is a fact too interesting to let pass unnoticed.

But I ask you: if being black is a political-linguistic term denoting only those who are descendants of actual African slaves imported to America, does it NOT FOLLOW that "white" is equally political, denoting only those who have descended from white slaveholders who imported African slaves to America? I think it does. And if that is the case, then, since there were no slaveholders in my ancestral gene pool, I am not white.

There you go then.

I am not white, and Barack Obama, should he become president, will not be America's first black President.

Go figure.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

A Newbie Attitude

It is a very messianic thing to be. One might wonder whether any deliverer would dare to be anything but; for to be something other than a bridge-builder -- a uniter -- is to be something less than a messiah. Messiahs bring people together; they are conciliatory, appeasing; they understand compromise and concession.

But this is not the least a messiah can do. A messiah can also reveal his or her salvific message once every four years or so, at least in America. He (or she) can remind us all -- once again -- what life can truly become -- if we but believe, if we but thrill in the audacity of hope.

Barack Hussein Obama has lifted his head from his pillow and in the silence of the night, he has heard a call, a voice, the voice of the people; and he has responded. His message? He wishes to bring together that which has been torn asunder; to mend the torn veil; to build on those things which unite rather than divide. In other words, he wants to deliver a message of hope, of optimism in the power of the human will when it works in collective concert. Mr. Obama believes that it is not the enormity of the issues before us, but the smallness of our politics in addressing those issues that has failed us all. Such issues can be rendered small, no doubt, by a politics that is larger than anyone has heretofore dreamed possible. It is all about a brighter vision in a darkness deceptively dark: things are not as black as they seem. Nor are they as white. For such simple distinctions betray us when confronting dire challenges: our tried yet failed policies based on categories of good and evil, light and dark, black and white, north and south, have proven themselves tired, myopic, weak; senescent.

And now, in the juvenescence of the year, in the season of Janus (the two-faced deity that guards against war), Barack Obama is a great light in the deep and lonely solstice of Northern Hemispheric politics. He is the newcomer with the right attitude, speaking new beatitudes. His name means blessed. He brings a message.

Two things, really. First, the message Mr. Obama brings is utterly old and not the least bit spry or sprightly. It is what we have heard in the United States from leaders ad infinitum: we have long been given empty promises that there shall be no more empty promises. We are promised an end to partisan bickering, to gridlock, to more of the same. We are promised the "setting of a new tone in Washington," of "forging a new direction for America," of coming together to "take America back" and building anew a "government for the people by the people." We are promised an end to rancor and discord; we are promised unity in a United States on the threshold of disunion. It is time to cease the fearmongering, the backbiting; the good-old-boy backroom favoritism; the special interest plundering of American goodwill and industriousness.

In short, we have heard all of this before, said the same way, at the same time of year, and even for the same reasons.

But what we have not heard enough is that a real messiah -- perfectly presented in the Christ of the Christian faith -- is the only religious figure in history who built a religion on the self-revelation that He came to divide, not unite; to separate, not combine; to winnow out, and not to blend; to cleave asunder and not to mend. Jesus the Christ is indeed exactly the sort of politician we need to hear from, though not on the airwaves or from the podium, or on the breakfast news shows or a podcast from the Jesus 2008 website. We need to hear from Him in our hearts, if for no other reason than to stop this insanity.

The messiah has already come, and He will come again. But He is not a politician from Illinois, or a president from South Africa, or a megalomaniac from Venezuela. He is not a man with a gun, nor is a he man with a Texas swagger. Nor is he a man with a soft, bipartisan voice.

"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ... The poor you shall always have with you. ... I have come to set brother against sister. ... You have no part in me unless ..." This is what a deliverer says; these are the words of a real leader, a real revolutionary. He does not coddle his base, or stroke the hair of those eager to pronounce him god.

Just a few thoughts in this season of Hosanna Politics.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.