Seeing the forest for the trees...

Thought I'd posted this already...



Okay folks, this is the closest I could find to some real "dog whistling."  But you know what?  It works exactly the same with people!

As the owner coaxes the response he wants from the pup with his, "Okay, ready?" -- I couldn't help but notice how creepily his method is mimicked by both political parties through the MSM.  They say, "Okay, ready MSM?  Whistle just like we showed you, and all their heads will turn (away from the important stuff)."  All that hullabaloo about Romney's "47%," secret fundraiser comments not long ago certainly bears that out.

What cracks me the hell up about the Changeling's supporters though, is the utter hypocrisy with which they got bent about what Romney said -- when the Changeling did the exact same thing, in the exact same, high-roller, secret fundraiser setting!

You may not remember, but I'll bet those "bitter Pennsylvanians" sure do!  I wrote a post about Mayhill Flower's, then-explosive audio of said, little get-together in San Francisco, back in 2008, but the audio has been mysteriously removed (the transcript is still there, but hearing it drip from the Changeling's lips at the time, was so -- Romney-esque)!

At any rate, here's Bill Moyers explaining how nothing about elitism's dog whistles and money-talk has changed much (except maybe it's getting a little tanner and a lot more invasive):




Hate to disappoint you Mr. Moyers, but no matter how many signs citizens put out all over this land declaring the opposite, many if not most, do see the forest for the trees.  They know beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that our democracy is, has been and likely will always be, for sale.

Related:
- Best democracy money can buy

Who will be the Last Democrat Standing?

I hope this will be the last debate between these two because I'm way past ready to see who the last Democrat standing will be. I do have to say, I didn't expect Rev. Wright and the "bitters" right out of the gate, though I did expect it at some point seeing as ABC was the network that first released the Rev. Wright clips. I don't think Sen. Obama was expecting it either - at least not like that. I saw the mirror crack a few times. First, when Gibson asked him about the "bitters," though it gave him an opportunity to clean it up a bit. And again, as he stuck to his story about not ever hearing those particular, now-famous soundbites. But when it was Sen. Clinton's turn to comment on both of those topics, his jaw was so tight I thought I heard his teeth grinding. He "misspoke," saying first, he'd disowned him. But when Stephanopoulos pounced, saying, "Disowned him?" - he immediately corrected and said he'd disowned "his comments" not him. It was evident he was flustered, his irritation palpable. He doesn't wear irritation very well. Neither do I. But then again, I'm not running for president. As I've said before, I'm not an Obama supporter, but I felt a little for him tonight given the circumstances. He tried to find the middle ground between, tearing each other to shreds and smarmy, not lobbing nearly as many grenades at Sen. Clinton as she did at him on the media-labeled, "character" issues. It was a smart move considering he was vulnerable, having just laid Rev. Wright's comments to rest and still smarting from the "bitters." It didn't work very well though. The questions were nothing new, particularly in light of a lot of other, more substantive issues that could have been raised. Their conversations on issues to date have been limited, pretty much to the same few. The only difference tonight though, was on the answers given on a question that's been asked before - whether each thought the other was electable. They both answered yes, which is a departure, particularly for Senator Clinton. Through that uncomfortable first 45 - 50 minutes, a strange thing happened. I heard myself saying, "Leave that shit alone Hill, he's not bothering you." My mother hen kicked in! For a fleeting moment I saw, as I've seen on a couple occasions, this little bi-racial boy trying real hard to find a place to fit in and I felt the need to protect him. It's a personal connection I feel, unrelated in any way to this race. Since I don't do polls, I believe only Tuesday will tell whether this debate hurt Sen. Obama as much as his die hard supporters currently think. But he did a good job trying to put his views out there without losing total control. For a very long time in this country, that line is one lots of Blacks have felt an absolute necessity to walk in order to really succeed - can't be viewed as the Angry Black Man/Woman. It's a road I too thought was important - when I was younger. But over time, I found that wasn't my truth because there's a lot in this life about which to be mad as hell. I don't particularly care anymore how I am viewed in that regard and as Robert Frost said in these few lines of the last stanza of his "Road Not Taken":

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference."

It's an empowering thing that I wish the senator from Illinois would consider. But I know he won't. Despite all of his accomplishments, he needs this ultimate validation, not just from this country, but the world.

An "Elitist" State of Mind

This latest uproar about Sen. Obama's words has been both interesting and problematic - for him and for me. Here's the link to the whole thing: Obama Exclusive (Audio): On V.P And Foreign Policy, Courting the Working Class, and Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians When I heard him say what he said, I bristled. But my response had more to do with where he said what he said and how he said it, than what he said.

Frankly, I believe he's right, given the tin ear and blind eye government has turned to a lot of people's concerns. Plenty of people are bitter and cynical and deal with it in a variety of ways! But why did he wait until he left those - "bitter" Pennsylvania voters - to speak before a decidedly non-working-class San Francisco fundraiser, to say what he said? Couldn't he find any of his prolific, "I feel your pain words" to share with the "bitters" directly?

Was it because no one on the Pennsylvania campaign trail ever raised the issues of joblessness or dissatisfaction with government to date? Or, was it that he felt more comfortable saying what he did to this particular group? Being the great orator that he is, I don't believe he misspoke when he said, "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

What I heard were the words of one who feels so socially and educationally superior he would not deign to deal with bitterness in such a manner. What I heard was the elitism about which so many are up-in-arms. And before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, I do not feel he always has to be perfect in his delivery. He is, after all, human. But what I DO expect and look for as he speaks, is as much honesty as he can muster as a politician and consistency in his message.  When I listened to the actual audio, I heard some of the former and less of the latter.

Something about the introduction by Sheila Jackson Lee immediately gave me pause though I'm not sure why. I'd like to have actually seen the group to whom he spoke, because I got the feeling he was among people with whom he felt comfortable enough to speak unfettered. Much like the "two-ness" W.E.B. DuBois wrote about in his "Souls of Black Folks," this conversation is reminiscent of those some Black folks had, and still have, when there are either no whites around, or no whites around who are like-minded (Latinos can be substituted for, or included with, "whites" in that statement as they were also a group in front of whom most Blacks wore the "mask" back in the day).

Some of us dispensed with that kind of dual-personality disorder as the times changed which required it (or we just grew to know ourselves better). Some of us have not. The media continuously stated, it was a "closed" fundraiser. That fact, along with the price of admission, was also very telling -- after all, what working-class person can spend a grand or more for one night of mingling? Let's be clear, this was not a "regular fella" fundraising event.

Now, is every person with a lot of money elitist? Not necessarily. I know a couple people with a few pennies to rub together who are not. For me, elitism rears its ugly head when people believe the having, which gives them more access, somehow makes them superior to those who have-not. I believe the senator from Illinois has an elitist state of mind and I'm not mad at him for it. I just wish he'd be whoever he is and let the people decide if they want to vote for that person or not.

(P.S. A word to the wise for Sen. Clinton: He's laid a golden egg at the right time and the right place for you. Don't wear this gift out by harping on it. Take the gift, say your piece, don't brandish any more weapons, don't throw back any more shots with beer - just move on. If you keep throwing it in his face and bringing it up ad nauseam, it WILL backfire on you!) Correction: The introduction was made by Rep. Barbara Lee not Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee