It also deals with the constant pitfall so many organizers fall into--thinking that an election cycle represents the beginning and ending of a campaign. In other words, what would happen if those interested in third party candidates consider a 'campaign' to be 7 years, or 12 years, or 30 years long?

Support Obama, and Vote McKinney? Not a contradiction.
The women of color running for President & Vice President

By Amee Chew

October 2008

The Green Party Presidential ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente brings something special and unprecedented to U.S. politics. Not only are they the first all women-of-color ticket for President and Vice President with ballot access in most states.[1] These women take racial justice seriously, and have made strides to put gender at the center of a progressive agenda. For these two, it's more than skin deep.

They're the Presidential ticket that talks about amnesty for undocumented workers, that opposes guest worker programs as riddled with abuses, because they believe a just immigration reform means addressing the trade and economic policies fueling poverty and migration. They're the ticket that demands reparations in the form of federal investment in low-income families and communities of color, to end racial disparities in health, housing, education, and incarceration. They call for the right of return for Katrina survivors; an end to prisons for profit, to the War on Drugs. And they speak of reproductive justice – not just the right to abortion, but actual healthcare access; of freedom from coerced or uninformed medication and sterilization.

Nowhere do we see Nader, or white male Third-Party-politics-as-usual, bringing in these issues – this slice on life, or sensitivity. McKinney, for instance, points out that Social Security cuts will disproportionately harm women. The Green Party candidates offer to do us the public service of contesting Palin's brand of "feminism." Let's take them up on it.

Post extendido - Leer más 'Supporting mainstream, investing in third party'...

It's kinda a long video for a clip (79 minutes) but I can tell you right off the bat that a way to cut that down is to skip the first ten minutes of the introductory speaker.

Also, it's beautiful to see that in the first minutes of Clemente's speech, she brings up women of color and the Welfare Poets.

Newman’s entry titled, “on deleting palestine and other debate observations” first discusses the factual errors made by Biden, including his misuse of the word Arabic word “madrassa.”

Biden’s mistake #1: If you’re going to use an Arabic word, don’t you think you should learn what it means first?:

There have been 7,000 madrasses built along that border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we’re actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that’s where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually intelligence.

المدرسة, or madrassa, literally means school in English. Religious school, private school, public school: it does not matter. Like the word school in English, madrassa applies to all sorts of schools including Islamic religious schools. Oh, and as Fisk, thankfully, makes it clear that there are not 7,000 schools on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Newman then points out that other problems arose during the debate including Palin’s “fabrication.” One fabrication included Palin stating she was middle-class; Newman cites a The Independent article stating that Palin and her husband Todd are worth “at least $1.2m, including a $500,000 lakefront home, a Piper float-plane and two holiday getaways.”

Newman also ties in her current home, Palestine, stating that both candidates failed to mention the country during the 90-minute-debate; however, both repeatedly pointed out their love for Israel.

Can you imagine any country with a leader whose brain is bigger than the size of a pea lending its support for any state without reservations? Without question? Moreover, not only did we never hear the word Palestine mention. By not mentioning Palestine, Palestinian people, a Palestinian context many other things were deleted as well. Occupation. Illegal settlements. The 60th anniversary of an nakba. Palestinian political prisoners. Palestinian refugees. The siege on Gaza. The hyperbole Palin invokes with her reference to a so-called second holocaust and Israel as a “peace-seeking nation” is preposterous and shows the level of myth making involved in their Israel love-fest. Israel is a war-seeking nation and has been so since before its creation.

Newman further addresses Palin’s stance on Israel and her continuous use of the word “energy.”

I take Palin at her word, unfortunately, when she expresses her affection for a nation-state that practices state terrorism on a daily basis. At the same time when she mentioned her love of Israel (about six or seven times) for her American Jewish voting audience (most of whom, by the way, do not support the state of Israel unconditionally), she made it clear that she doesn’t really know or understand the issues at stake. Likewise, there were many moments when she clearly did not understand the words, the language, the question, the concept and in turn either ignored it or injected the word “energy” into her response. It seems that this energy crutch of hers was the only subject she seemed to feel comfortable with (of course, only in the context of “drill, baby, drill”). She used the word “energy” 29 times.

The post is completed with Newman addressing other issues including: the Iraq War and the number of casualties, Henry Kissinger, Afghanistan and Pakistan and essentially, her disappointment in both candidates.

Just as Palin (and Biden) seems to be woefully clueless when it comes to historical matters affecting our current realities…

In a later entry titled, “why i love rosa clemente,” Newman posts what Independent Vice Presidential Candidate Matt Gonzalez and Green Party Vice Presidential Candidate Rosa Clemente (also the vice presidential candidates of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, of whom she is supporting) stated in regards to Palestine.

just a taste of how that Israel love fest would have gone if vice presidential candidates rosa clemente and matt gonazalez had been included. here is what they have to say about palestine (yes! they actually are able to say that word and speak about it in an informed and moral way! imagine!). and there are many reasons why i love clemente: her position on the prison industrial complex, the military industrial complex, queer rights, the environment. you can watch the entire debate or read the transcript at democracy now!

MATT GONZALEZ: Well, I think, you know, both of these candidates pay lip service to the notion that we need a two-state solution. They don’t tell you any specifics around that. Do they support 1967 borders, for instance? Joe Biden did not repudiate Barack Obama’s earlier remark about Jerusalem belonging to Israel.

And I think their sort of over-the-top repeating of how much they love Israel—I think, in that, they lose an opportunity to support peace movements in and outside of Israel, joined by many Jews, both in this country and in Israel, that want to see an end to the violence in the region, that don’t believe, for instance, the way Palestinians are being treated is fair.

And I think when Joe Biden starts repudiating elections in the West Bank and elsewhere, you see that these guys are pretty much in step with the current administration. You know, they either—you either have to be a supporter of democracy and deal with the right of people to self-determine, or you repudiate that. And if you repudiate it, you’re going to go down a path that can be very dangerous.

AMY GOODMAN: Rosa Clemente?

ROSA CLEMENTE: Well, I mean, I think it’s not even a question of fairness. The Israeli government, every day, kills Palestinian people in their own homeland. I think it is about the right to self-determination, but it’s also—I think it’s more than a two-state solution.
Many Palestinian groups are calling for a one-state solution, and that’s how it should be.

And the United States, we need to stop sending any type of military aid to Israel. I think what’s going on in—what’s been happening in Palestine, you know, is an indication of forty years of complete terror amongst another group of people, aided by American tax dollars, you know.

And I think younger people, particularly through hip-hop, it’s been interesting that we can have cultural exchanges and actually have people in Palestine, like the hip-hop group DAM, that let us know what’s happening every day right there on the ground and that the issue for a lot of Palestinian people would be that they deserve their homeland back and that the right of return is fundamental to them as a people.

Although I’ve been following the Palin fiasco each day, I hadn’t planned on blogging about it. Mostly it’s been for my own personal daily dose of humor. I thought about it a bit when Rania began blogging about her last month. But now the anticipation of the vice presidential debate has pushed me over the edge. That and Tina Fey’s HI-larious spoof of Palin on Saturday Night Live. (If you have not watched this video, click on this link. It is unreal.)

I’ve been dying to see the debate tonight between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Mostly for its entertainment value. I’ve been subjected to these little “first person” opinion pieces on Al Jazeera where they let one American narrate why they support a particular candidate. This one features a woman who says she was a democrat, but now because Hillary Clinton is not a nominee she’s voting for McCain. Why? Because Palin is a woman. Since when does having a vagina make one more qualified to lead a country? (Let us not forget the dangerous policies of Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto to name a few women who made the world a worse place.) Feminism does not mean supporting a woman because she’s a woman. Feminism is an ideology that Americans like to water down to the lowest common denominator. Palin is no more a feminist than Clinton is; both have retrograde politics that actually serve to harm women. If you want to see a real feminist politician Cynthia McKinney and her vice presidential running mate Rosa Clemente are your candidates. Anyway here is American moron #1:

Apparently, Katha Pollitt says that the debate will not be as lively as one could hope for given that McCain had the format changed to accommodate Palin’s inexperience:

The McCain campaign, tacitly acknowledging how out of her depth she’ll be no matter how many all-nighters she pulls, demanded – and, shockingly, got – special modifications to the VP debate format so that there would be no follow-up questions. After all, it wouldn’t be right to expect Palin to compete on normal terms with Joe Biden, who has the totally unfair advantage of being deeply versed in domestic and foreign policy and knowing how the world’s business is done. Lower standards for potential leaders of the world’s most powerful country, in the name of diversity. That’s what Republicans stand for now.

Is it not too much to expect that a person a heart beat away from the presidency speak the language of her country proficiently? On Palin’s linguistic deficiencies:

I began to notice the problem during Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson - not coincidentally, her first major unscripted foray into the public speaking realm. When Gibson asked her whether she agreed with the Bush doctrine - and then had to explain to her what it was – she replied: “If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.” Even to the untrained ear that sentence sounds awkward. “Legitimate and enough”? It can’t possibly be elitist to suggest that “legitimate and sufficient” would have come off as more literate.

That particular question in the Gibson interview was also horrifying to watch with respect to her inability to answer a simple question about U.S. policy. You can watch the interview and Palin’s incoherent bumbling about on Huffington Post. But the question of Pakistan struck me in ways that seem to differ from others. On the Huffington Post, for instance, and in other places people focus on her straying from McCain’s position on invading Pakistan. (I think this is why McCain had to chaperon Palin on a second Katie Couric interview later.) But what struck me was that Gibson had to ask her two or three times what Palin thought about invading Pakistan. Her answer was so completely incoherent that even Gibson finally said, “let me finish. I got lost in a blizzard of words there,” and then he asked her to give a simple yes or now answer. She didn’t. Or couldn’t. I’m thinking that she believes if she throws enough words around together in a big whirlwind she will be able to bullshit her way through an answer. And in spite of this: mish ma’oul! another American moron on Al Jazeera actually said “she’s articulate.” I kid you not.

For those of you who have not seen the interview with Katie Couric, here are a few highlights, accompanied by commentary from the Young Turks, which is also worth a chuckle. There are three videos. The first shows us that Palin doesn’t read any newspapers–and not only that: she cannot name any!:

The second one appears to show that Palin endorses Hamas victory when they were democratically elected in Palestine–not something I have trouble with, to be sure, but certainly something that puts her at odds with McCain not to mention most elected American officials:

The third one shows that she has no knowledge of any Supreme Court cases aside from Row v. Wade:

Perhaps average Americans can’t name Supreme Court cases either, but the point Palin is running for Vice President. Here is a starter kit for those “average” moronic Americans who want someone to lead them who is “just like them”:

For my British readers, let me explain something. Een mai cahntree, the supreme court has a particular aura and lore. One learns about the court as a schoolchild. A special tone of reverence often creeps into teacher’s voice. If nothing else one is taught pretty early and pretty thoroughly the following: Marbury v Madison (1803) set the precedent of judicial review; the Dred Scott decision (1857) upheld slavery; Plessy v Ferguson (1896) upheld segregation; and Brown v Board of Education (1954) ended it.

For the mildly curious American of Palin’s (and my) generation, round two of supreme court schooling might include United States v Nixon, in which the court unanimously ordered Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, which forced Nixon’s resignation; Baker v Carr, which established the principle of one person, one vote; University of California v Bakke, in which the court initially upheld affirmative action; and of course Roe v Wade.

I am not saying that every American knows or should know these eight decisions. Lord knows most Americans probably don’t know how many justices sit on the court (now that I think of it, probably a good question for Palin). But it seems to me not too much to ask that someone who might be the vice-president or even president of the United States should know them, and many more important court decisions.

As a result of this supreme incompetence, even conservative columnists are now asking for Palin to bow out. Kathleen Parker writes:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity:

“Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

Apparently, Parker got a lot of flack for that column and responded in a second opinion piece on the subject:

Mrs. Palin’s fans say they like her specifically because she’s an outsider, not part of the Washington club. When she flubs during interviews, they identify with that, too. “You see the lack of polish, we applaud it,” one reader wrote.

Of course, there’s a difference between a lack of polish and a lack of coherence. Some of Mrs. Palin’s interview responses can’t even be critiqued on their merits because they’re so nonsensical. But even that is someone else’s fault, say Mrs. Palin’s supporters. The media make her uncomfortable.

Or it’s the fault of those slick politicos who are overmanaging her.

“Let Sarah be Sarah” has become the latest rallying cry among my colleagues on the right. She’ll be fine if we just leave her alone, they say. Between prayers, I might add.

This issue of who is a Washington insider or who is a political elite among the media and voters interviewed on television is disturbing. These are the American morons I keep finding on Al Jazeera. They say things like “I like her, she is a mom just like me.” No, she’s a moron just like you. Since when do we want someone who is “just like us” to be the head of state. She’s not running for prom queen. She’s running for the second most important office in the nation. Why is it that these moronic Americans think that to be coherent, intelligent, well-read is a deficiency when running for the White House? We’ve had eight years of that, do we really want 4 more?

There is a funny piece on Dissident Voice today by William Blum that labels this phenomenon “Palintology”:

What’s the proper term to use to categorize a person who is … blindly patriotic, jingoist, an evangelical Christian creationist, gun and hunting enthusiast, National Rifle Association supporter; denies the science behind global warming, with a philosophy of “dig, dig, dig”, and in foreign policy: “bomb”, “bomb”, “bomb”; untraveled, uneducated, ignorant, a devoted book-banner, racist, opposed to equal rights for gays, fanatically anti-abortion, anti-feminist, and has a 17-year-old daughter pregnant and unmarried?

The proper American term is “white trash”. Or, as the honorable governor of Alaska apparently prefers, “redneck” — “Rouge cou” is what she called a business she registered.

And what do you call the person if on top of all that she declares in the year 2008 that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 and that “a surge in Afghanistan also will lead us to victory there as it has proven to have done in Iraq”? The proper term is “scary” or perhaps “scary moron”.

And what do you think of this person when you learn that she believes that the war in Iraq is a “task that is from God”? I think this is actually a form of insanity. There are people in institutions all over the world charged with killing others, who insist that they were acting under God’s command.

And if the above is not enough to make you fall in love with the woman, consider that she believes that humans coexisted with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago; and have a look at a video of the vice-president/president-to-be undergoing an exorcism performed by a minister to free her body from “witches”.6 When we consider the flak that Barack Obama received because his minister is not in love with US foreign policy, imagine what Palin will get for having a minister who performs witch exorcism. Nothing.

Palin complained in her incoherent interview with Couric that she has never met a head of state, but she somehow thought this was a feather in her cap because she is a Washington outsider. This is also called a lack of experience–something people were saying about Obama until Palin came along. But with the United Nations General Assembly meeting last week she had the opportunity to meet foreign heads of state. After her meeting with Hamid Karzai, he told Al Jazeera that she was “capable.” Hmm…what does that tell us about Karzai?:

The Alaskan governor held brief meetings with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, and Alvaro Uribe, Colombia’s president, in New York on Tuesday.

“I found her a capable woman. She had the right questions on Afghanistan. She was concerned and she said how she can help,” Karzai said after the meeting at a Manhattan hotel.

Karzai and Palin discussed security problems in Afghanistan, including cross-border attacks from fighters in Pakistan and the need for more US troops in Afghanistan.

After Palin’s meeting with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, the two found themselves in quite an imbroglio:

Zadari’s greeting to the Alaskan governor at their meeting at the UN headquarters in New York - described as “overly-friendly” by the Christian Science Monitor - has earned him a fatwa from some of Pakistan’s radical Muslims.

Benazir Bhutto’s widower tells Alaska’s first woman that she is “even more gorgeous in life” and says he can see why “America is crazy about you”. But what really got radical clerics backs up was his comment that he might hug the Moose-hunting governor if his aide insists hard enough.

For Palin, the incident appears to have confirmed jokes that her meet-and-greet sessions with world leaders at the UN were “speed dating” diplomacy.

But Zadari faces much harsher condemnation for his conduct. His remarks managed to unite both hardline Islamic leaders and Pakistani feminists in condemnation.

One radical Muslim prayer leader said the president shamed the nation with his “indecent gestures, filthy remarks, and repeated praise of a non-Muslim lady wearing a short skirt.” Meanwhile, Tahira Abdullah, a member of Pakistan’s Women’s Action Forum, criticised the president for failing to show decorum and behave like a “mourning widower”.

Of course, no visit to the UN would be complete without an American politician fawning of a leader from the Zionist state:

President Shimon Peres met Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin Thursday and the two exchanged some warm words. Peres was on hand to deliver a speech at an international conference organized by former United States President Bill Clinton.

Upon meeting the Israeli president Palin told him she has wanted to meet him and get to know him for years. She added that the only flag in her office, aside from the American flag, is the Israeli flag, stressing that she wants Israelis to know that she’s been a longtime friend of the Jewish state, and will remain such.

The outrage meter is not high here. It’s obligatory. I’m sure she believes it. I’m sure she’s as Zionist as the rest of them. But then again, aside from Nader and McKinney, what candidate isn’t? But like all right-wing evangelical Christians in the U.S., that enduring support for the Zionist state is usually coupled with anti-Semitism. Apparently, her church in Alaska is host to various anti-Semitic speakers:

Imagine, for a moment, that Obama had a similar record. Imagine that he joined a preacher onstage right after that preacher had spoken about “Israelite” control of the financial sector. Imagine that he had won his first local election against a man with a Jewish-sounding last name amid suggestions that his opponent wasn’t really a Christian. Imagine that he had sat in church this summer and listened without protest to a sermon blaming Israel’s agonies on the country’s adherence to Judaism. All this would likely have resulted in something near hysteria among both the professional media and the demagogues of talk radio.

Yet on Palin, the self-appointed defenders of American Jewry have been fairly quiet. That’s because, when it comes to the chosen people, those on the left are held to very different standards than those on the right. Palin, like many right-wing evangelicals, is wildly hawkish on Israel, and in American politics, that’s seen as synonymous with friendliness toward the Jewish people. Yet as Pat Robertson and many others have proven, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is not incompatible with fanatical Zionism. Palin would, in all likelihood, be an ally of that messianic fringe of the Jewish community determined to thwart any possibility of peace with the Middle East. That doesn’t mean her candidacy shouldn’t give other American Jews real reason to worry.

Of course, everyone who is supporting Palin is waving their feminist flags (though if I could control the feminist club they would never be allowed in in the first place). Gloria Steinem puts it this way:

Here’s the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing — the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party — are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women — and to many men too — who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the “white-male-only” sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.

On the whole what this election is showing us is that it’s all about racism and white privilege as Tim Wise reminds us in his piece “This Is Your Nation on White Privilege”:

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you dangerously naive and immature.

White privilege is being able to say that you hate “gooks” and “will always hate them,” and yet, you aren’t a racist because, ya know, you were a POW, so you’re entitled to your hatred, while being black and noting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the “lesser adversities” faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Bill Maher called Palin a bimbo on his show “Real Time” last week. It’s an interesting discussion of Palin with Ralph Nader as one of the guests. Nader takes offense at Maher’s characterization of Palin as a “bimbo.” Nader says it’s sexist; Maher says it’s not and names off men he’d call a bimbo too. Just a point of correction, here, though: a bibmo is a specifically gendered word: “an attractive but empty-headed young woman, esp. one perceived as a willing sex object.” That’s the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition. Empty-headed, yes. Sex object, god, I hope not.