That O' Lady

I'm not a frequent crier -- even the saddest and most emotional films won't do. The few times I do cry, it's typically at something real -- okay so maybe a really really good documentary might but still unlikely. Michelle gave a good speech but not one that is in and of itself tear-inducing. It was emotional but not too cheesy, sincere, informative and well-spoken -- none of those things really lend themselves to tears. I think it was the person of Michelle Obama and the image of her on that stage. Say what you will about American dream but it's still (very) hard out there for colored folks of all sorts. I think as watching this black woman addressing a huge crowd and thinking about what the reality of her speech meant for America -- there are countless people out there who watched her who think the only thing that comes out of South Side of Chicago is future fodder for the prison system. To see this well put-together, accomplished and articulate black mother was moving, particularly in a time when the image America es of black women are either your loud-mouth ghetto girls (just turn on VH1), your angry black woman (Omarosa anyone) and your music video ho' . Black folks may have come a long way but the reality is that those educated, hard-working professional women, family-oriented (single and married) black women are not what the main stream media sells. We've got the outlier billionaire Oprah then the "New Yorks" of the world -- loud, crass who will debase themselves to any level for fame.

So yes -- I saw the speech and it moved for reasons of race and class. Of course, there were a lot of political points that this speech needed to achieve (paint herself and Obama as people who came from nothing and worked hard to get to where they were, show her love for America, show respect for Hillary, etc.) For the record, I think the speech did all that quite well but obviously that's not what I really took away from it. I can and will admit it: An Obama presidency would be a thrill. And not just because the Republicans are mortgaging our future and digging us into an inescapable fiscal hole. Nor is it only the possibility of health care moving beyond a priviledge for the wealthy among us. Or the fact that someone might finally focus on the education crisis and the abysmall separate and unequal public education system. All those things I want and pray for. But beyond that, not too sound like I've drank too much of the Kool-Aid, I will be proud to see Michelle Obama and family in the Vanity Fair first lady photo shoot. I am moved by the possibility that brown and black children (well boys) will for the first time see a bit of themselves in the president -- here's to hoping little girls of all colors get that chance soon, maybe in 8 years or so :)

...Things that matter more than the primaries (the global food shortage)

So every time I think I just can't do this blogging thing anymore, I get a bunch of comments on past entries and my big head starts to think: "well maybe I got something to say." What I don't have anything to say about is the fight to the finish that Hill & Barack are undertaking. I'm spent. I can't read any more about it. I've actually been avoiding the NYTimes, CNN and all manners of punditry crack that I used to love. I guess I'm not the only one tired, some of my favorite bloggers including Baratunde and AvBro are done too.

The reality is that there are actually several global crises that are being obscured by the race. One of the most important right now is the global food shortage. This week's Economist describes it as "the silent tsunami" on its cover:

Famine traditionally means mass starvation. The measures of today's crisis are misery and malnutrition. The middle classes in poor countries are giving up health care and cutting out meat so they can eat three meals a day. The middling poor, those on $2 a day, are pulling children from school and cutting back on vegetables so they can still afford rice. Those on $1 a day are cutting back on meat, vegetables and one or two meals, so they can afford one bowl. The desperate—those on 50 cents a day—face disaster.

Roughly a billion people live on $1 a day. If, on a conservative estimate, the cost of their food rises 20% (and in some places, it has risen a lot more), 100m people could be forced back to this level, the common measure of absolute poverty. In some countries, that would undo all the gains in poverty reduction they have made during the past decade of growth. Because food markets are in turmoil, civil strife is growing; and because trade and openness itself could be undermined, the food crisis of 2008 may become a challenge to globalisation.

And, as is often the case in these crises, Africa is being disproportionately affected. As noted above, the poorest of the world (those living on under $1 a day) will be worst affected and of course, sub-Saharan Africa has the largest proportion of its population living on under $1 a day. According to this article, even the wealthiest countries in Africa will be affected:

The United Nations' food agencies in Rome are now openly warning that food shortages threaten famine in the poorest African countries, among them Burkina Faso, Niger and Senegal. But what about the wealthier African countries? Is all well there?

For an answer, I asked my friend Yussuf Kajenje, a former journalist and father of three who lives in Tanzania, where he now works for one of the international food-development agencies. "Tanzania" and "food crisis" are rarely mentioned in the same sentence; the country is thought to have sufficient production and distribution capability to keep its population fed. Mr. Yussuf's suggests this analysis may be wrong. Tanzania is already suffering, he says.

I should emphasize though that this is indeed a global food crisis. What I find most unique about this crisis is that its being brought on by what might traditionally be considered a convergent of good factors:

• India & China: India and China, who are growing by leaps and bounds, could see their development severely slowed by lack of food. Of course, their growth is also part of the cause of the food crisis as richer Indians and Chinese demand more rice and meat.
  
• Western Energy Policy: Most of the world's staple crops-maize, wheat, rice-are produced in the developed countries. The richest countries are increasingly concerned about climate change and energy dependence on the Middle East and many of them are turning to bio-fuels. The potential for a new oil wealth in crops like corn are driving costs up. Thus, our desire to become more energy independent is now contributing to mass starvation.
  

I hope Americans will take a break from the election brouhaha to really put some thought into this crisis and our contribution to it. The increasing production of corn ethanol, whose energy benefits are still in doubt, is contributing to this crisis. The US could move to bio-fuels in ways that are less damaging to the food supply, e.g. purchasing sugar cane ethanol from Brazil.

In the same token, African countries need to move toward increasing local food production. In the past 40 years, the majority of African countries have become net food importers depending on the west for their staples...talk about a new colonialism! Whenever my dad and I talk about the motherland, he always goes on about how they grew everything in the 70s and now the lack of any sort of agricultural policy means we're spending $3billion buying food ($600M of it is buying wheat from the US).

Well folks, this is what's on my mind right now. Come back tomorrow for more things that matter more.

Head to Head

So yesterday's debate was, in my view, the best one the dems have had to date. I think it did a lot of important things: allowed the candidates to have the closest to a straight policy exchange as there has been in the campaign, forced Clinton & Obama to confront their thorny issues and allowed each candidate to show how they react under fire.

Of course, everyone tries to predict who "won" the debate. If you are a staunch supporter of either candidate, I'm not sure there was enough to change your mind. For those undecided (which admittedly I am not one), I can only make guesses as to who gave the better performance.

At the end of the day, I think the real winner was probably Tim Russet who brought down "Meet the Press" style smackdowns on the candidate. This was definitely not your local CNN/youtube/facebook mashup, friendly Anderson Cooper style debate. It was about the issues and I think the candidates true colors came out.

Overall, I think Hillary probably made the most mistakes. She antagonized the moderators by cutting them off after almost every question and insisting on extending each line of questioning. And her suggestion that they were Obama's lapdogs probably didn't win her any friends:

Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it.

It would seem that if she didn't mind getting the first questions, there'd be no reason to bring it up. I think this debate both supported and refuted Hillary's claim that the media favors Obama. One one hand, she did get the first question. But, that question also gave her the opportunity to set the tone for the debate and to have a 19 minute policy talk and talking policy is clearly her strength. Plus, both candidates were presented with really tough questions: Hillary on NAFTA, releasing her white house records and tax records and Obama on public financing and Louis Farrakhan's support. Plus, when Tim Russet presented his most blatantly "I'm trying to make you trip" question, Hillary jumped to answer even though he did not specifically direct it at her.

I think Hillary's decision to come out swinging in this debate has probably done more damage than good. Yes, it is unfair that men who behave this way are called passionate and bold while women are called another word starting with b. Nevertheless, the venom she had--for Obama, for the moderators, for everyone it seemed--was palpable. Even when Obama got his most difficult question of the night on Louis Farrakhan, Clinton couldn't pass on hitting him on that one too. Clinton certainly said and confirmed that she is in fact a "fighter" and now the big question will be whether America wants the next four years of politics to be the umpteenth round of Clinton v. Republicans

I think Obama accomplished two things in this debate: showed that he could conduct and comport himself as a president and showed that he could present policy decisions and a record to substantiate what he claims. I will admit that Obamamaniacs out there were probably jonesing for a "hope hit" but they didn't get tonight. Barack was all substance which is exactly what he needed to be at this point. I think, for those for whom his ability to bring people together, serve as a break from Washington as usual and inspire hope are the key deciders, they're already squarely in the Obama camp. The people he needed to talk to last night were the ones who still saw him as a wunderkind and substance-less upstart. Just the body language differences between Obama and Clinton showed that the former has grace under fire while the latter does not. Especially in what until now appeared to be his weakest point--foreign policy--Obama gave concrete examples to show that he has the judgment a commander in chief has. When asked about the possibility of going back into Iraq, Clinton rebuffed the question as hyperthetical and refused to answer while Obama delivered a great presidential response:

Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.

I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down

.
Perhaps Obama's only stumbling block for me was in dealing with the Louis Farrakhan question:



I like that he used his answer to draw connections between Jews and the Civil Rights movement but I do wish he had used stronger language in the beginning to avoid giving Hillary that chance to pounce.

Overall it was a great match up. Now to Texas & Ohio! (and i guess vermont and rhode island too)

Where's the BEEF Obama?

The Obama soldiers are mad and out to prove that our candidate is indeed substantive. Great post at the Daily Kos on Obama's senate record. Wish I could have done the dirty work myself but I didn't so I might just point my readers to it:
Obama's Senate Record

Pick Flick!

Okay I think I'm probably a little late to this one but this slate mashup is HILL-ARIOUS!

If you haven't seen the movie Election, watch it..it's great. Anyway, here's a clip courtesy of Slate.com that likens Hillary to the protagonist Tracy Flick. Anyone who has seen the film knows that Tracy will do anything--even rig the votes--to win but her desire to do so is rooted in her belief that she, and no one else deserves it. As the nerdy, hard working girl who has chaired every committee, she's incensed when the school election becomes " a popularity contest" and the good looking jock is poised to take away what she believes is hers.


If this election plays out like the movie did (and let's hope it doesn't), Tracy steals the election and rules with an iron hand. At the end of the school year though, she's the one left alone with nothing but her ill-gained accomplishment list to comfort her as everyone else celebrates with friends.

Like Tracy, Hillary doesn't really seem to believe in democracy. Guess what? The will of the people is most important--even if you believe that will is wrong.

THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A BIRTHRIGHT...

not for the Clintons, the Bushes or anyone else

Taste of your own medicine

Just saw this video and I wasn't sure whether to laugh or scream at the Hillary campaign:



Now, if we ignore the fact that what Hillary is calling "Karl Rove" tactics is actually a factual statement of her campaign, there's still the undeniable fact that this is Hillary Clinton disparaging negative campaign tactics. Where has she been in the last few months as all her minions went on the attack against Obama. Injecting race into the campaign? Accusing someone as being all talk and no substance? Or what about just last week when someone introducing Hillary on the stump had this to say:


I don't know Hill. Desperation is not becoming on a lady.

This shit is getting silly....

I guess Senator Clinton's people have been spending a lot of time "looking at the Youtube"

MS. BROWN: I think -- I think one of the points -- (interrupted by continued cheers, applause). I think one of the points that John King was alluding to in talking about some of Senator Clinton's comments is there has been a lot of attention lately on some of your speeches, that they're very similar to some of the speeches by your friend and supporter, Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts. And Senator Clinton's campaign has made a big issue of this. To be blunt, they've accused you of plagiarism.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MS. BROWN: How do you respond?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, the -- first of all, it's not a lot of speeches. There are two lines in speeches that I've been giving over the last couple of weeks. I've been campaigning now for the last two years. Deval is a national co-chairman of my campaign and suggested an argument that I share, that words are important, words matter, and the implication that they don't, I think, diminishes how important it is to speak to the American people directly about making America as good as its promise. And Barbara Jordan understood this as well as anybody.

Now, the notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who's one of my national co-chairs -- (laughter) -- who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think is silly. (Cheers, applause.)

And -- you know, but -- but -- but this is where we start getting into silly season in politics, and I think people start getting discouraged about it. (Cheers, applause.) They don't want -- what they want is, how are we going to create good jobs at good wages? How are we going to provide health care to the American people? How are we going to make sure that college is affordable?

So what I have been talking about in these speeches -- and I got to admit, some of them are pretty good -- (laughter, cheers, applause) -- what I've been talking about is not just hope and not just inspiration; it's a $4,000 tuition credit for every student every year -- (cheers, applause) -- in exchange for national service so that college becomes more affordable. I've been talking about making sure that we change our tax code so that working families actually get relief. I have been talking about making sure that we bring an end to this war in Iraq so that we can start bringing our troops home and invest money here in the United States. (Applause.)

And so just to finish up, these are very specific, concrete, detailed proposals, many of them which I've been working on for years now. Senator Clinton has a fine record.

So do I. And I'm happy to have a debate on the issues, but what we shouldn't be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time lifting the country up. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Clinton, is it the silly season?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition. (Applause.) And you know -- you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox. And I just don't think --

SEN. OBAMA: Oh, but that -- that's not what happened there --

SEN. CLINTON: No, but -- you know, but Barack, it is, because if -- you know, if you look -- (jeers from the audience) -- if you look -- if you look -- if you look at the YouTube of these videos, it does raise questions.