Hillary to Bloggers: Chapter Closing on Republican Misrule

Closing a long chapter of "Republican misrule"

Hillary Clinton took some time out of an extremely busy campaign season to join a number of bloggers in a discussion about the way ahead here in this final stretch of the 2008 campaign as she and other Democrats work to win the White House and to expand Democratic majorities. I was appreciative to have been a party to that blogger's call. Senator Clinton's campaigned at more than 50 stops for fellow Democrats, including Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. She's traveled to numerous states, raising over $10 million for Democratic races. She said that she's become increasingly optimistic about Senators Obama and Biden winning on November 4th. She believes the choice for President couldn't be clearer. She suggested that last night's debate at Hofstra University
- closed the deal for Barack Obama;
- that John McCain had his last chance to make his case;
- that, in her opinion, the debates were Obama's 3-for-3 [and the Democrats 4-for-4 if you include the Biden-Palin debate];
- and that she suspects that soon we'll be seeing the closing a long chapter of "Republican misrule".

She stressed the importance of changing the direction of the nation - both in the political party of the winning candidate and in the values that the party embodies.

"Society's unfinished business..."

On Sexism and Racism in the 2008 Campaign

The blogger known as Alegre [Alegre's Corner], who'd made a bold move in the world of alternative political media when she led a mass exodus of Hillary [primary] supporters [in the form of a strike] from an increasingly partisan Obama-focused group at Daily Kos last March, asked Senator Clinton how the political playing field can be leveled for women in future campaigns. Alegre pointed out the blatant sexism that she'd seen on display in the news - not only by media pundits but even with certain fellow Democratic party members - during the 2008 primary season, much to the sadness of many women and men who could see the injustice clearly. [Note: I'd done a bit of my own artistic commentary during the primary season]. Senator Clinton graciously commented that she felt that the sexism [and racism] that were raised as concerns during the 2008 campaign were indicative of "society's unfinished business" and, after 2008, she'd like to see public statements in the media that better reflect our progressive values. She said this could be accomplished by having more citizen-watchdogs who would make an example of any perceived blatant or inappropriate sexist or racist public commentary. She mentioned this watchdog duty as a particularly positive and productive opportunity area for progressive bloggers. Senator Clinton promised to do what she could do to make our nation a more just and free place for all.

"Keep the marketplace of ideas vibrant."

Fox News and Alernative Media

Alegre's question had surrounded a form of political media that had obviously become boldly partisan and a subsequent question from a blogger from MyDD seemed to extend the topic of fairness in media. Senator Clinton was asked a question about Fox News - particularly about Matt Bai's upcoming article in this Sunday's NY Times magazine where Obama was quoted to have suggested that Fox News has cost him a few percentage points in the polls. Senator Clinton replied that Fox News is a reality that must be dealt with and that no one benefits from ignoring the reality of their reporting. She pointed out that there are, however, many alternative political news-reporting outlets available today - including the blogs. She said it was important to keep after them and that it is very important to "keep the marketplace of ideas vibrant."


Down-Ticket Races

When blogger Armando Llorens [aka Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left] asked Senator Clinton about 2008's down-ticket House and Senate races, she became especially animated in her reply. She named certain House seats that looked very hopeful for a number of Democratic candidates, including Dan Maffei in my own District 25 here in Syracuse, N.Y. Her chief goal, however, is to see that the current Senate majority is increased on November 4th. She'd like to see progressive bloggers "adopting" a Senate or House race or two of their choosing in the next few weeks - bloggers can write about the issues or sign up to get out in the field and help in local races or travel to battleground states of their choosing. HillPAC has a website called "HILLARY SENT ME" [mentioned in a recent WaPo/Dana Milbank story] where Hillary supporters can sign up and offer to help out with the work left to be done before November 4th.

Senator Clinton's October 1, 2008 remarks about the Homeowners Mortgage Enterprise [HOME] can be seen HERE.

The Home Mortgage Crisis

A question was asked [by Armando] about Senator Clinton's call for a new Home Owners' Loan Corporation [HOLC] to assist Americans. She said she was quite surprised when John McCain announced his plan because, in some ways, it sounded eerily like her original idea (with the exception that, with McCain's plan, bankers and lenders would profit from their own irresponsible actions and her plan would not have that effect. A major missing factor in the recent federal bailout is the lack of direct assistance to homeowners who've seen their home values drop and those who've been affected by unabated foreclosures. Her plan would help stabilize the home markets and modify existing mortgages by creating a federal entity whose responsibility would primarily deal with home mortgages - stopping many foreclosures and providing an atmosphere for more stable mortgages. She said she was pleased to have heard Barack Obama's call for a 90 day foreclosure moratorium for homeowners who are acting in good faith.


Related Blogposts:


- BREAKING... Hillary takes a moment from campaigning for Obama-Biden and the Democrats to talk to progressive bloggers - Taylor Marsh

- Hillary's Call with Bloggers This Evening - Alegre's Corner

- Call with Hillary Clinton: Discussing HOLC and the Campaign - Talk Left

- Quote: "She was, as ever, dazzlingly brilliant on policy—and typically generous and funny." - Shakesville

Edwards CNN Debate:YouTube Reverend Lacked Full Truth

I was a bit confused by the premise of Reverend Longcrier's question addressed to John Edwards on the CNN/YouTube debate this evening. He stated that religion had been used to justify slavery when, in fact, the earliest campaign to end slavery in the United States was largely the work of a small number of Christians who opposed slavery on explicitly religious grounds and who, in their own time, were regularly condemned as fanatical zealots.

Perhaps Reverend Longcrier, who said religion was used to justify keeping the vote from women, didn't realize that it was the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) - with Frances Willard at its head in 1876 - who was a powerful force in the women's suffrage movement. Interestingly, one of the most vehement opponents to women's enfranchisement was the liquor lobby, which feared women might use the franchise to prohibit the sale of liquor.

In the framing of his YouTube question, Reverend Longcrier appeared to have mistaken John Edwards' personal faith for what Edwards had already explained to Wolf Blitzer about Presidential responsibility during the CNN Forum on Faith and Politics at George Washington University on June 4. At that time, Edwards stressed that the president of the United States should never use his personal belief system to impose that belief system on the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, as Marc Ambinder pointed out at the Atlantic, John Edwards "seemed on his game, although a noisy audience deprived him of the chance to impress a questioner on gay rights." Reverend Longcrier, who was in the audience during the debate, claimed not to have been satisfied by Edwards' answer and left me with the distinct impression that his own dissatisfaction was because of his own clumsily worded YouTube question. While CNN seemed happy to put such a controversial wedge question to Edwards on gay marriage, Reverend Longcrier's less than theologically/historicallly honest set-up of the question shortchanged everyone involved. On Cooper's live audience follow-up with the Reverend, Longcrier was given a brief chance to expand his question toward the more relevant issue he seemed to have wanted to lead into ...that is to say overall social justice and fairness issues. Alas, Anderson Cooper cut the Reverend off as quickly as he cut most of the candidates off tonight for the sake of fitting in as many YouTube videos as possible.

UPDATE:

Tip of the hat to Chris Johnson for this excerpt from the CNN debate transcript:

COOPER: This next question is for Senator Edwards.

QUESTION: I'm Reverend Reggie Longcrier. I'm the pastor of Exodus Mission and Outreach Church in Hickory, North Carolina.

Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.

So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?

(APPLAUSE)

EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally -- whether it's right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we're president of the United States. I do not believe that's right.

I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about -- standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that's something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States.

But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke -- my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.

COOPER: I should also point out that the reverend is actually in the audience tonight. Where is he? Right over here.

Reverend, do you feel he answered your question?

(APPLAUSE)

QUESTION: This question was just a catalyst that promoted some other things that wrapped around that particular question, especially when it comes to fair housing practices. Also...

COOPER: Do you think he answered the question, though?

QUESTION: Not like I would like to have heard it...

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: What did you not hear?

QUESTION: I didn't quite get -- some people were moving around, and I didn't quite get all of his answer. I just heard...

COOPER: All right, there's 30 seconds more. Why is it OK to quite religious beliefs when talking about why you don't support something? That's essentially what's his question.

EDWARDS: It's not. I mean, I've been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?

The honest answer to that is I don't. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I'm president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

I have commented at these posts:

QUEERTY

Bible Bending

Your ho-hum brand of everyday filth

I am very happy for John Edwards this week. Why? Simply said, he's showing who he is by not taking anyone's crap in the political world.

Let me give you just a few examples:





1. He put potty mouth Ann Coulter in her [very low and deserved] place.

Andrew Sullivan - [Read the whole thing. I thought it was great commentary.]

Coulter's defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word faggot is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn't. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word "faggot" is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a "faggot" by his straight peers. This, Ms Coulter, is real social policing by speech. And that's what she was doing: trying to delegitimize and feminize a man by calling him a faggot. It happens every day. It's how insecure or bigoted straight men police their world to keep the homos out.

2. The Edwards campaign was given media attention because of Coulter's nastiness. Thanks, Coulter. I can't believe I'm saying it, but for once I appreciate your making a complete ass of yourself and all the Republican hypocrites who laugh at your ho-hum brand of everyday filth that only the smallest percentage of humans would find amusing.




Robert Scheer [Huffington Post] -

Thank you, Ann Coulter, for boosting the principled but media-neglected presidential candidacy of John Edwards.

Like many others, upon hearing that she had used an address at a major conservative convention to call Edwards a "faggot," I quickly clicked to his home page to see his campaign's reaction--and was happily diverted to more substantive stuff, such as his firm support of universal healthcare and an end to the war in Iraq.

No wonder Coulter hates him: Edwards is a Democrat who believes in the progressive heritage of his party and is not afraid to tell the world.

3. At Beliefnet.com and the Huffington Post, David Kuo interviewed Senator Edwards about his faith and how it effects his political views and actions. I found Sen. Edwards' replies to be honest and refreshing - not at all divisive or religiously triumphal.

...when I went away to college, I drifted away from my faith. Even after Elizabeth and I got married, I had drifted away. It isn't that we didn't exercise faith. We would go to church, but it was not the sort of dominant day-to-day living faith that it is for me today. And in 1996, on a day I'll never forget, my 16 year old son died. And the days after that, when I was trying to survive and Elizabeth's trying to survive, my faith came roaring back and has stayed with me since that time, and helped me deal with the personal challenges we've had. Not only the death of my son, but some of the politics and the difficulty of that on our family. Elizabeth's breast cancer. All the things that we've seen, which is not that unusual for families. [..]

[..] Does your concern for the poor come mostly from your own background, or does it come from your faith?

Edwards: Both. It comes from both.

My own personal experience has been that I came from a very poor background when I was young. But, by the time I was in middle school/high school, we were solidly in the middle class. And now I've had everything you could ever have financially in this country. And so, I feel some responsibility myself to help and give back, to give that opportunity to lots of people who I don't think have it today. That's part of it. And it also comes from my faith. If you took every reference to taking care of the least of these out of the Bible, there would be a pretty skinny Bible. And I think I as a Christian, and we as a nation, have a moral responsibility to do something about this. [..]

4. John Edwards told us that he wasn't interested in any opportunity to participate in a Democrats debate in Nevada to be chaired and aired on the Fox News network. I couldn't be happier for him and for all of us who know what Fox represents.

Confucius [as channelled through Iddybud] say -

"For refusing to be toy of Fox
John Edwards he totally rocks."

Fox, obviously out for blood, is sporting this headline - What Would Jesus Do With John Edwards' Mansion? - with a story by Brit Hume. It's funny. Hume (and Fox) regularly boast their own support for traditional American capitalist values, yet they feel compelled to mention that Edwards has "drawn fire from some for his new $6 million, 28,000 square-foot mansion in North Carolina." So compelled was Hume and Fox that they made a snarky headline out of it.