They Did What !

Bill and Hillary Clinton are proving a point I made early on in the political campaign. The nasty fighting and backbiting that was a constant during Clinton’s presidency, and has continued unabated throughout the Bush years, will continue into the next administration if Hillary is elected president.

If the people of America really want change the first step is to reject the kind of campaign the Clintons are running. They believed that Hillary was the inevitable Democratic candidate when they started campaigning. But the unexpected happened. Obama began overtaking her, and then he won Iowa. Both Clinton’s, true to their much touted experience, immediately began to fight dirty. After all, that’s the way the Washington insiders do it. Most of the dirty work has been done by Bill Clinton and other campaign workers, but don’t think for a moment that this imperial woman is not privy to and in agreement with everything that goes on in her campaign.

It was Bill Clinton who introduced the issue of race even though he has tried to lay it at Obama’s feet. Why? To change the perception of Obama as a candidate who happens to be black, to one of him as the “black candidate.” If you think that is unimportant just remember the effect of John Kennedy saying he was not a Catholic candidate but rather a candidate who happened to be Catholic. Much as some might deny it, semantics do matter. .

Whether we like it or not, we cannot underestimate the impact of race. Bush Sr. beat Dukakis in large part because of the way his campaign framed the Willie Horton issue. According to one political writer, Horton never went by the name "Willie" but was called that to get more racial mileage. An ad was run that included a menacing mug shot of the African-American Horton presenting him as “every suburban mother’s greatest fear.” The ad was run as an independent expenditure so the campaign could disclaim responsibility but such disclaimers are mere technicalities that fool no one.

If the Clintons can change the perception of Obama to the candidate who is "from the black community," it puts him in a box difficult to escape. It is divisive. It frames him as a "special interest" candidate, which is totally unfair to a man who clearly wants to serve the common good. That has been Obama’s express style, appealing across all the dividing lines, up to the point where the Clintons began race-baiting. This is not only despicable; it gives us a window into the future if the Clintons are back in power – a future of gridlock, culture wars and bitter partisanship.

It was and continues to be Bill Clinton who disparages Barack Obama not only with what he says but with his tone of voice and facial expressions as he twists Obama’s words. To those who are paying attention it is very revealing that the Clinton’s have to alter the meaning of Obama’s words and actions in order to have something negative to say about him. Sticking to the truth, never a Clinton strong point, in this case would leave them with no ammunition for an attack. And attacking is the M.O. for Washington insiders. Unable to beat Obama on the issues, losing ground in the face of his wide appeal across age, race, and gender lines, the Clintons reverted to type. Don’t forget who we are dealing with - the guy who didn’t inhale and didn’t have sex with that woman.

All the experience that Hillary repeatedly holds up as her strength is out there now to be seen for what it really is – experience in the political know-how of divisive, dishonest, and ugly behavior when things aren’t going her way. It is bad enough when the Republicans are swiftboating the Democrats. It is inexcusable when Democrats are doing it to other Democrats. Is that what we really want in our government for the next four to eight years?
.
We are demanding change and we need to recognize that the change has to start with us. We have to stop buying into the kind of dirty politics the Clinton’s are playing. The manipulation only works if we allow it to work. It is past time to let them know, loud and clear, that we have had enough; that we want a different kind of governance, one that unites people and serves the needs of our country.

Hillary Clinton is too much a part of the establishment to bring us that change. All of her experience is in playing the game the way it is played now. The Clintons are masters of electoral politics but they are not true leaders. Hillary is the candidate of the status quo at a time when we need a leader capable of consensus- building and problem- solving. Why would anyone think Hillary will suddenly start doing things differently? It’s sort of like the woman who marries a man thinking he will change. We all know how well that works.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There is a phrase (from Martin Luther King) quoted by Barack Obama in many of his speeches. He speaks of “the fierce urgency of now” - an apt description of what is needed today. A sense of urgency inspires people to act. Without action, we cannot stop this administration’s continuing assault on our Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. So the question is how to make people aware of “the fierce urgency of now.”

Perhaps a good place to start is with the gross misunderstandings of today. There seem to be many people who are unable to differentiate between partisan issues and American issues. Partisan issues such as taxes, spending, and social programs have always been viewed differently by Democrats and Republicans and that has helped to maintain a balance in our country. But American issues such as the Constitution, government checks and balances, and the freedoms inherent in our way of life, have traditionally been protected by both Democrats and Republicans. Today it is obvious that many politicians, of both parties, put loyalty to their party or their large contributors before loyalty to their country.

Sentimentality and feel good verbiage have replaced honest patriotism. While our country is being devoured from within, we alternate between waving flags and cowering in fear. Where is the outrage as Congress continues to allow Bush and Co. to unravel the very fabric of our society? What happened to the momentum exhibited in the 2006 election when we sent a message that we’d had enough? Why are we allowing business as usual to continue? Just look at what some of our so called representatives are doing.

Diane Feinstein: With her vote to confirm Mukasey on the grounds that he would be better than an acting AG appointed by Bush, went the responsibility to ensure that Mukasey does what he was confirmed to do - restore the creditability of the Department of Justice. So where was the outrage with Mukasey’s recent interference with the congressional investigation of the destruction of CIA tapes because they would hinder his investigation?

Joe Lieberman: It is hard to think of this Senator as anything but Israel’s representative in our government. He sides with anyone who is promoting something that benefits Israel and the interests of our country come in a poor second. No one should be surprised at his endorsement of McCain, the gung-ho Iraq war candidate.

John McCain: With a majority of Americans calling for our withdrawal from Iraq, McCain, while campaigning to represent the people of America as their president, supports ongoing occupation and permanent military bases in Iraq. He even claims that Americans aren’t opposed to this idea as long as we keep the body count low. What America does he think he is representing?

Nancy Pelosi: The biggest disappointment to date from the 2006 Democratic win is Pelosi. She was going to do this, she was going to do that, but as my grandmother used to say, she wound up doing wonders in her drawers. Pelosi caved and pulled an amendment that would have forced President Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran. Either Pelosi and other Democrats are buying into Bush’s lies about Iran just as they did about Iraq or they are under the ridiculous illusion that Bush will request such authorization. Jim Webb is more realistic. He stated:

[T]he President's "signing statement" accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Before discounting the idea that media consolidation is dangerous, remember that in every coup one of the first things to go is control of radio, television and independent newspapers. In the United States, a military takeover is unlikely. Here the takeover must be more subtle and done through things like consolidating media ownership.

Why is this important? Because those who own the media decide what we hear and see. As Robert Perry said:

“There is no more effective way to short-circuit democracy than to get large segments of the population to buy into a made-up reality, while keeping other citizens so uncertain of the truth that they are politically paralyzed.”

After three decades as a Washington journalist, Perry came to the conclusion that mass media was being used to convince the American populace that reality is something it isn’t. The distorted reality they are selling rewrites history, promotes fear, and ridicules those who try to point out the truth.

How do they do this? They use “false narrative” created by taking a kernel of truth and twisting and changing it to tell a different story. The twisted version is then circulated through the media, first by its authors and then by the mainstream “journalists” who repeat it over and over without checking its veracity. A journalist is supposed to be a person who gathers and disseminates information about current events, trends, issues and people. Once there was an entire industry of professional journalists who worked diligently to ferret out the facts, then offer a clear perspective on what they found. If they had an agenda, it was to oppose institutional secrecy and call public attention to abuses of power.

What changed? Media consolidation took root and began to grow. The owners of media outlets set policy just as any business owner does. But media is different from other businesses because it has the power to push its owners’ agendas in ways subtle and manipulative. And it changes the nature of journalism as journalists become employees first and reporters second, (if at all) making them complicit or afraid of losing their careers.

The results were: Information provided as a public service, was largely abandoned. Integrity in reporting ceased to matter. Profitability for media owners became the priority. Real news became a rareity and sensational speculation took its place. Sound analysis became passe and false narratives became the order of the day. A new reality was created in which the “truth” was whatever media owners said it was and what they said was based on what they wanted to achieve – destroy a career, elect a sympathetic candidate, or even start a war.

Al Gore is an example of how false narrative is used and its damaging and lasting effects. Not particularly a Gore fan, it still took only light research to understand that much of the public’s perception of Gore is based on false information which has painted him as a traitor, a liar, and a lunatic.

The traitor label surfaced during the run up to the 2000 election: The basis for this false narrative was the 1999 Cox report stemming from a Republican-controlled congressional investigation of China’s thefts of significant nuclear secrets. The investigation actually showed that the worst of the national security breaches took place during the Reagan-Bush administration. But the report overview “gave the impression” that Clinton-Gore were responsible. National news media ran with this mix of misrepresentation and outright lies. Republican backed campaign ads continued and reinforced the false narratives and sent millions of Americans to the voting booth in November 2000 believing that Gore was linked to Chinese nuclear spying.

The “Liar” label started with an unimportant issue in 1977: Gore said he believed he and his wife had served as models for the lead characters in the sentimental bestseller and movie, Love Story. The author, Erich Segal, said the preppy hockey-playing male lead, was indeed modeled after Gore and Gore's Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones but the female lead, Jenny, was not modeled after Tipper Gore. [NYT, Dec. 14, 1997] Even though Segal confirmed that Gore was, at least partly, the inspiration for the lead character, the media continually misstated the facts saying that Segal had denied Gore was the model. The news media reported it as if Gore had willfully lied and the seed was planted for the perception that Gore told self-aggrandizing lies. This misinformation was not corrected even by those journalists who recognized it was misleading.

The “Liar” label was further enhanced with the “created the internet” false narrative in 1999: Gore's statement may have been poorly phrased, but its intent was clear: he was trying to say that he worked in Congress to help develop the Internet. Gore was the leader in Congress on efforts that helped to create the Internet that we know today. Vinton Cerf, often called "the father of the Internet," and futurist Newt Gingrich, have both publicly vouched for Gore's role in helping to shepherd the Internet to life. The media asserted that Gore claimed he had invented the Internet, that he was the “father of the Internet.” They ignored the first part of what he said which put his statement in the context of his congressional service. While condemning Gore's words as exaggeration, the media itself indulged in gross exaggerations.

In November 1999 the Love Canal controversy added delusional to the liar label : Gore speaking to a group of high school students in Concord, N.H. gave the example of a high school girl from Toone, Tennessee, a town with toxic waste problems, who in the late 1970s, brought the issue to the attention of Gore's congressional office. Gore called for a congressional investigation and a hearing including other sites such as a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. The context of Gore's comment was clear. What sparked his interest in the toxic-waste issue was the situation in Toone – “that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."

The media pattern of distortion went into high gear putting a false quote into Gore's mouth and then went from there to questioning his sanity. Taking his statement completely out of context and even rewording it, in the space of one day, the quote went from “that was the one that started it all” to “I was the one who started it all.” The offense of the media in this case is so egregious it boggles the mind. Newspapers, TV commentators and pundits went after Gore with a vengeance. The Washington Post, especially political writer Ceci Connolly, New York Times, New York Post, The Buffalo News, Washington Times, George Stephanopoulos, and Cokie Roberts, all went after him. Chris Matthews, on Hardball, holds the dubious honor of leading the pack with twelve percent of all the statements regarding Gore’s exaggeration, and seventeen percent of the statements about Gore’s ties to scandal coming from his show alone. These sources were either knowingly dishonest or they are too incompetent to ever be believed again.

This kiss of death on Gore’s honesty actually proves not his dishonesty but that of the media, showing them to be unprofessional and undeserving of trust. Even after the quote was acknowledged to be wrong, the words continued to be repeated, again becoming part of Gore's record. And this false quote was used to recycle the other situations in which Gore allegedly exaggerated his role or, as some writers put it, told "bold-faced lies."

Why did they go after Gore so unmercifully? No real answer has ever been determined. Some say it was “Clinton payback” some say it was to elect Bush, others simply attribute it to dislike of Gore who was perceived as uncooperative with the press. Regardless of why, the important thing to recognize is the damage the media can and did do without regard for the truth or any sense of duty to the public. About fifty percent of Americans said that Gore's tendency to lie or exaggerate would make them "less likely" to vote for him. A “tendency” created by the media!

How can we make informed decisions as voters if the media presents honest and sincere candidates as dishonest and delusional? The National press showed disdain and contempt for Gore during the 2000 election campaign. As Eric Pooley stated, “The press… engaged in stunning misconduct” trashing Gore. The reporters’ behavior showed a complete lack of respect for the simple standards of professional conduct and it also exposed their refusal to own up to their own attitudes and conduct. Those who used the power of the media to denigrate Gore as well as those who aided and abetted them are a poor representation of what once was America’s free press and an industry of professionals.

If we allow today’s parody of a free press to continue, if we support newspapers and TV shows filled with inconsequential celebrity scandals and manipulative political half truths then we surrender our beliefs and opinions to the dictates of corporate owned media.

If we want a free press we will have to fight to get it back.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 05:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

There is a public benefit, non-profit organization in California called IF. It is made up of people “seeking hopeful alternatives to the violence, greed and destructiveness of our world.” This group has worked together for over 30 years supporting people who are working to build that better world. To quote from founder, Bill Cane:

"We began to connect with circles of people who were giving life and hope to each other—and hope to us! We have been taught that the past and the present create the future—that trends and statistical projections tell us where the world is going. But that simply is not true. The future is created by people who go against trends and projections and begin to form creative circles—by people who begin to live out a new story before that story becomes history."

“Integrity” is usually pictured as personal. “That person has integrity,” we say, meaning that he or she has values and lives according to them despite the costs involved. But for some people, integrity has grown beyond the personal to include the trees and the oceans, the way nations relate to each other, and the very fabric of life on earth. Such people feel overwhelmed and lonely at times, but they are the ones who are capable of sowing seeds for an integral culture. Their work is done in a cloud of uncertainty and often without institutional support or approval. Our purpose is simple. We wish to further the sense of integrities which is taking shape in our time, and we wish to communicate the stories of people who are struggling to live their lives in an integral fashion. ~ Bill Cane

Each time Integrities arrives I read it from cover to cover. Its pages offer inspiration, hope for the future, and a renewed sense that not only can something be done to improve our world, but something is being done. Give this gift of encouragement to yourself and others. You may subscribe to Integrities for $15 per year through their website at: IF.org . Three or more gift subscriptions cost only $10 each. Donations in excess of that amount are tax-deductible and will help IF's efforts to:

• provide land for houses for poor families in Guatemala


• support women's soup kitchens in Peru


• collaborate with IF/WHEN in supporting low income housing, living wage initiative and human rights locally


• assist social work programs in Peru


• give a voice to grass roots leaders who speak for the poor of the world


• support Phil McManus' crucial work thorughout Latin America


• facilitate networks of ecology, justice and peace.

May 2008 be a year of action - of looking within and reaching out - to make our world a place where all people have access to food for the body and for the soul; where peace and justice take precedence over greed; and where values are an illustration of the way we live, not weapons used against those who think differently. May 2008 be the first year of the rest of our lives.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 06:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)