Saturday, September 20, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
My Loss.
Mystories just post a comment on my last post and it just occurred to me I hadnt told my blog readers ... I lost my dear father on thursday, the 8th of May, 2008.
At times like this, I find myself without words - so I leave it like that.
I have been shown more than enough love in the past few days and for that I am grateful.
Chude.
At times like this, I find myself without words - so I leave it like that.
I have been shown more than enough love in the past few days and for that I am grateful.
Chude.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Fair is Fair...
Fair is Fair
By Geoff Garin
Friday, April 25, 2008; Page A23
What's wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.
The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief strategist, appeared with me on "Meet the Press." He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring "the changes necessary" to Washington, and his answer was "no." This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race -- including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as "the master of a broken system."
So let me get this straight.
On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.
Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?
I am not making any bones about the fact that our campaign has pointed out what we believe are legitimate differences between Clinton and Obama on important issues. We have spoken out when we thought the Obama campaign made false distinctions, such as when it ran advertising in Pennsylvania on standing up to oil companies, particularly when Clinton was the one who did stand up to the oil companies by voting against the Bush-Cheney energy bill. And we believed it was appropriate to debate Obama's comments about working people in small towns, because they expressed a view of small-town Americans with which Hillary Clinton strongly disagrees.
But throughout that debate, Clinton deliberately focused on the content of Obama's comments without making sweeping statements about his character.
It's an important distinction. The Obama campaign has chosen from its inception not to treat Clinton with the same respect. In fact, the Obama campaign has made an unprecedented assault on her character -- not her positions, but her character -- saying one thing about raising the tone of political discourse but acting quite differently in its treatment of Clinton.
Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, held a conference call with reporters and called Hillary "one of the most secretive politicians in America today" -- a striking personal charge in the era of Dick Cheney.
Axelrod described Clinton as having "a special interest obsession."
Obama himself has joined the character assault from time to time, saying, for example, that Clinton "doesn't have the sense that things need to change in Washington" -- a patently false and demeaning observation.
In the Philadelphia debate last week, Obama incorrectly said that his campaign addressed Hillary's misstatements on Bosnia only when asked to by reporters. In fact, Obama's campaign has organized several conference calls on the topic, including one this past weekend in which the featured speaker said that Clinton lacks "the moral authority to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day" (a statement the Obama campaign thankfully repudiated after we called it on it). Even though many reporters participated in those calls, Obama's misstatement in Philadelphia was almost completely ignored.
The bottom line is that one campaign really has engaged in a mean-spirited, unfair character attack on the other candidate -- but it has been Obama's campaign, not ours. You would be hard-pressed to find significant analogues from our candidate, our senior campaign officials or our advertising to the direct personal statements that the Obama campaign has made about Clinton.
The problem is that the Obama campaign holds itself to a different standard than the one to which it holds us -- and sometimes the media do, too.
Hillary Clinton is a strong and determined person, and she will continue to discuss real solutions to America's problems and the need for strong leadership to implement those solutions -- even if she must play by a different set of rules than Barack Obama. But wouldn't it be better if in this campaign what's good for the goose were also good for the gander? After all, in America, fair is supposed to be fair.
(c) Washington Post
By Geoff Garin
Friday, April 25, 2008; Page A23
What's wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.
The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief strategist, appeared with me on "Meet the Press." He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring "the changes necessary" to Washington, and his answer was "no." This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race -- including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as "the master of a broken system."
So let me get this straight.
On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.
Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?
I am not making any bones about the fact that our campaign has pointed out what we believe are legitimate differences between Clinton and Obama on important issues. We have spoken out when we thought the Obama campaign made false distinctions, such as when it ran advertising in Pennsylvania on standing up to oil companies, particularly when Clinton was the one who did stand up to the oil companies by voting against the Bush-Cheney energy bill. And we believed it was appropriate to debate Obama's comments about working people in small towns, because they expressed a view of small-town Americans with which Hillary Clinton strongly disagrees.
But throughout that debate, Clinton deliberately focused on the content of Obama's comments without making sweeping statements about his character.
It's an important distinction. The Obama campaign has chosen from its inception not to treat Clinton with the same respect. In fact, the Obama campaign has made an unprecedented assault on her character -- not her positions, but her character -- saying one thing about raising the tone of political discourse but acting quite differently in its treatment of Clinton.
Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, held a conference call with reporters and called Hillary "one of the most secretive politicians in America today" -- a striking personal charge in the era of Dick Cheney.
Axelrod described Clinton as having "a special interest obsession."
Obama himself has joined the character assault from time to time, saying, for example, that Clinton "doesn't have the sense that things need to change in Washington" -- a patently false and demeaning observation.
In the Philadelphia debate last week, Obama incorrectly said that his campaign addressed Hillary's misstatements on Bosnia only when asked to by reporters. In fact, Obama's campaign has organized several conference calls on the topic, including one this past weekend in which the featured speaker said that Clinton lacks "the moral authority to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day" (a statement the Obama campaign thankfully repudiated after we called it on it). Even though many reporters participated in those calls, Obama's misstatement in Philadelphia was almost completely ignored.
The bottom line is that one campaign really has engaged in a mean-spirited, unfair character attack on the other candidate -- but it has been Obama's campaign, not ours. You would be hard-pressed to find significant analogues from our candidate, our senior campaign officials or our advertising to the direct personal statements that the Obama campaign has made about Clinton.
The problem is that the Obama campaign holds itself to a different standard than the one to which it holds us -- and sometimes the media do, too.
Hillary Clinton is a strong and determined person, and she will continue to discuss real solutions to America's problems and the need for strong leadership to implement those solutions -- even if she must play by a different set of rules than Barack Obama. But wouldn't it be better if in this campaign what's good for the goose were also good for the gander? After all, in America, fair is supposed to be fair.
(c) Washington Post
Monday, April 14, 2008
Why Hillary is All About Women
Why Hillary Clinton Is All About Women
By Chude Jideonwo
Published in The Guardian, Sunday 13th April, 2008
It started as a relatively innocuous question on a TV show recently. The guests were discussing the new Nigerian music industry, and someone casually asked about the dearth of bright young women dominating the scene. Someone else immediately identified it as a gender issue, and I immediately thought that sounded ridiculous.
But then another guest followed the thought through: women are generally expected to conform to certain images, and women in music are not exempt. It would seem that our expectation from the female artiste is a certain sense of mystery, of being here but not completely in our face. Agree with her or not, the evidences abound - look at the successful women in music, Asa and TY Bello for instance; they have to maintain that sense of mystery. When females like Sasha or Kenny St. Brown decide to burst through that limitation, they get on our nerves. The one female artiste who has escaped this limitation is Weird MC ...ah, but that one dresses like a man!
In another TV show discussing the American elections, someone had mentioned that Hillary Clinton's losses were perhaps tied to sexism, and here I agreed, but only to a larger, more inclusive extent. The fact is, no one is going to the polls thinking, "I won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman". The world has learnt to act and think politically correct enough not to do a silly thing like that.
The problem, however, is the sexism that has constantly been Hillary's foe for many years. The sexism that she faces, just like the female artistes, is a more enduring, subtle, yet potent sexism. People are not reacting to her now because she is a woman; it is a culmination of all the reaction to her as a different kind of woman in the public space.
People forget that the reason why Hillary is a "polarising figure", as Obama doesn't tire of gleefully pointing out, is because of her novelty at the time that she arrived in the public consciousness - a strong wife who refused to "sit at home and bake cookies"; who fought as hard as the men, gave as good as she got, and shocked many American men into a new appreciation for women. What kind of a First Lady was this? They couldn't believe it; they had never seen anything like this before! And so they fought back at her with everything, caricatured her; titled her "bitch", demonised her, but she bounced back each time.
That's the reason Hillary is to America what Thatcher is to the world. And that's why people have hatreds for her that have caked over the years. Why do people accuse her of dishonesty, for instance, and hold her to it when she is no more or no less dishonest than the average politician? It is simply because they cannot come to terms with a woman who can play the game as good as the rest of the men. She proved that there's no inferiority lurking anywhere; that the pantsuits can fit the goose and the gander.
More importantly, as the most activist First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, the first to move from the White House into elected office, she cleared the way for many women and is doing so now. Even if she does not win the Democratic primaries, because of the imperfections of her candidacy (that is, the fear of the Clinton-Bush dynasty; the oft-analysed missteps of her campaign, her prominence as a so-called "Washington insider") or the phenomenal Obama momentum, the next women coming up won't have to deal with the issues that she has. Just as Jesse Jackson, flawed as his own candidacy was in the 80s, cleared up some of those issues for Barack Obama.
LET us look at the way women have been defined over time using one strong example - Margaret Thatcher. She certainly did more than enough to present an alternative, strong, effective image of the female. And how did the world react to her, starting with the British press? She was quickly stereotyped and continues to be stereotyped as an extreme; as the Dragon Lady.
That is the kind of thing that limits and restricts women; there's no win-win; you are going to be seen as extreme: you are either too emotional, or too "tough". When the governor of New Orleans messed up big time after the floods, she was mercilessly caricatured as the clueless grandmother, a gender specific put-down. But when a George Bush screws up, he is only seen as a dullard, no gender colourations.
That is why I laugh when my female friends say they see no pressing reason to identify with Hillary. It is because they do not understand. Because they think the battle has been won. Indeed, any minority - black, women, Hispanics, Niger Deltans - that thinks the battle for "emancipation" is won, is basically fooling himself or herself. Any battle that starts with you at a disadvantage can hardly end. You are in a race with competition that had a head start many years before you and you think you should stop being vigilant at any point?
That is why it is gratifying that, state after state, a majority of women are flocking to vote for Hillary, especially women above 50 who know what it was like, and know why this is important. Blacks have a more overwhelming understanding of what is at stake, and that is why they have swallowed their reservations about Obama, and are flocking to his side. They understand.
The fact is that women have significant perception handicaps. The world still has certain images, deny as much as it does, about how the woman should be. A question will suffice: have you ever seen a woman display the charisma that Obama has on the national stage anywhere? Bhutto? Ghandi? Sirleaf? Even Thatcher? The female is a different specie. That charisma, that attractive cockiness, the boyish charm; that same quality of Bill Clinton's that we now adore in Barrack Obama is something that has been associated with men for ages. Whilst it is not something women are incapable of, it is not something that has come naturally - for decades.
When people say Hillary doesn't give as inspiring a speech as Obama, they miss the point that Hillary has been a better speaker than any other presidential candidate in recent history apart from, perhaps, John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Obama. She was definitely a better speaker than Bill Richardson, or John Kerry, or Mitt Romney, or Rudy Gulliani, or for that matter, Al Gore. More than that, she is a much better speaker, much better with crowds than any woman politician on the national stage that America has seen. Because she is almost "manni-sh" in disposition, she has been able to project that charisma and attractive charm that we only associate with men, making her able to compete with the ultimate alpha male that Obama is.
Still she is a woman, so she still has that perception limitation. Females are better in intimate communication, just like Hillary works better in town hall meetings; notably, Obama does poorly in those settings. But people look at that basic difference between masculine and feminine appeal, and based on that stereotype deepened by years of masculine prominence, conclude she is not inspiring. Yet someone says sexism is not affecting her negatively?
When Obama was given the national stage to give the 2004 speech for the Democratic Party, he more than rose up to the occasion, delivering an unremarkable speech with more-than-remarkable aplomb, but just last year, his supporter, Governor Kathless Selibbus, was given the same opportunity to respond to George Bush's State of the Union address, an astute and popular politician that she is, the consensus was that she looked uncomfortable on stage and on TV. That is the gap.
And it is not the only one. Why is it okay for a man to call a woman "bitch" as a joke on mainstream television in America, but a white man cannot do the same and call a black man a "nigger"? Why was there no outrage, only mirth, when men came to a Hillary rally crying "Iron my shirt!" but Rush Limbaugh had to apologise when a caller compared Obama to a monkey? Because... women are still fair game.
When Hillary shows different sides to her - angry, sarcastic, etc. - columnists refer to her as unstable, but when Obama does same, he is seen as cool.
It is simply a difference in behavioural patterns, and the reactions are just a deepening of existing stereotypes. We are so used to men dominating public space that we do not know how to deal with the female in the same space yet. It is not our fault but it is still sexism.
In fact, women (American women) have Hillary to thank for clearing the way for them. What they do not realise is that her continued history being strong, being tough, fighting and winning battles, being constantly elegant and admirable, she has made it clear that women can stay the course, women can stand the distance, women can do it all - and she is doing it on the biggest stage possible.
Men have this sorted for them, at least in America. Before Obama, there was Martin Luther; and then there was Jesse Jackson, to a much lesser extent of course. Before Hillary there was ... who? All the powerful American women - Jackie Kennedy, Barbara Bush, Oprah Winfrey - have more or less risen only because they still maintained the traditional female roles. Oprah is powerful because ... she spoon-feeds America! Condoleezza Rice is that other woman, who, if she stays on the national stage for some more quality years like Hillary, will make the point clearly.
How much of a surprise is it that powerful, successful women are the last to get married in any situation? Look around. How is it that strong, successful powerful men have no qualms settling down, and women who are successful, strong and powerful still find that a stretch? And you say women are free?
Is it surprising that the one ethnic group that flocks to Hillary - Hispanics - are those from a culture that has seen strong women and political wives over time?
Why were the men in an Ohio plant surprised and impressed to their bones when Hillary woke up at 4pm just before the day's primaries to campaign? Because they certainly did not expect such strength from a woman. And for each battle that she wins, for every hurdle that she crosses there, in the full glare of the world media through the CNN, the BBC, Fox News, Al Jazeera, Yahoo! News and the rest, she remains a poster child for the issues and challenges that women face in many parts of the world. And which they should not. At least, not in 2008.
So, please let us all feel free as proud black people to identify with Obama, and to support him with our hearts, because we too have fought battles of our own. But let no one even seek either to undermine the relentless challenges that the first woman to win a primary in America is facing solely because of her gender, and let us not even seek to understate the significance of each victory that she has won despite these stereotypes. Because the famed feminist, Gloria Stern, was absolutely right when she spoke up: gender is still the most restricting force, not just in America, but in many parts of the world. And my sympathies lie with any woman, or girl, who does not know this yet.
By Chude Jideonwo
Published in The Guardian, Sunday 13th April, 2008
It started as a relatively innocuous question on a TV show recently. The guests were discussing the new Nigerian music industry, and someone casually asked about the dearth of bright young women dominating the scene. Someone else immediately identified it as a gender issue, and I immediately thought that sounded ridiculous.
But then another guest followed the thought through: women are generally expected to conform to certain images, and women in music are not exempt. It would seem that our expectation from the female artiste is a certain sense of mystery, of being here but not completely in our face. Agree with her or not, the evidences abound - look at the successful women in music, Asa and TY Bello for instance; they have to maintain that sense of mystery. When females like Sasha or Kenny St. Brown decide to burst through that limitation, they get on our nerves. The one female artiste who has escaped this limitation is Weird MC ...ah, but that one dresses like a man!
In another TV show discussing the American elections, someone had mentioned that Hillary Clinton's losses were perhaps tied to sexism, and here I agreed, but only to a larger, more inclusive extent. The fact is, no one is going to the polls thinking, "I won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman". The world has learnt to act and think politically correct enough not to do a silly thing like that.
The problem, however, is the sexism that has constantly been Hillary's foe for many years. The sexism that she faces, just like the female artistes, is a more enduring, subtle, yet potent sexism. People are not reacting to her now because she is a woman; it is a culmination of all the reaction to her as a different kind of woman in the public space.
People forget that the reason why Hillary is a "polarising figure", as Obama doesn't tire of gleefully pointing out, is because of her novelty at the time that she arrived in the public consciousness - a strong wife who refused to "sit at home and bake cookies"; who fought as hard as the men, gave as good as she got, and shocked many American men into a new appreciation for women. What kind of a First Lady was this? They couldn't believe it; they had never seen anything like this before! And so they fought back at her with everything, caricatured her; titled her "bitch", demonised her, but she bounced back each time.
That's the reason Hillary is to America what Thatcher is to the world. And that's why people have hatreds for her that have caked over the years. Why do people accuse her of dishonesty, for instance, and hold her to it when she is no more or no less dishonest than the average politician? It is simply because they cannot come to terms with a woman who can play the game as good as the rest of the men. She proved that there's no inferiority lurking anywhere; that the pantsuits can fit the goose and the gander.
More importantly, as the most activist First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, the first to move from the White House into elected office, she cleared the way for many women and is doing so now. Even if she does not win the Democratic primaries, because of the imperfections of her candidacy (that is, the fear of the Clinton-Bush dynasty; the oft-analysed missteps of her campaign, her prominence as a so-called "Washington insider") or the phenomenal Obama momentum, the next women coming up won't have to deal with the issues that she has. Just as Jesse Jackson, flawed as his own candidacy was in the 80s, cleared up some of those issues for Barack Obama.
LET us look at the way women have been defined over time using one strong example - Margaret Thatcher. She certainly did more than enough to present an alternative, strong, effective image of the female. And how did the world react to her, starting with the British press? She was quickly stereotyped and continues to be stereotyped as an extreme; as the Dragon Lady.
That is the kind of thing that limits and restricts women; there's no win-win; you are going to be seen as extreme: you are either too emotional, or too "tough". When the governor of New Orleans messed up big time after the floods, she was mercilessly caricatured as the clueless grandmother, a gender specific put-down. But when a George Bush screws up, he is only seen as a dullard, no gender colourations.
That is why I laugh when my female friends say they see no pressing reason to identify with Hillary. It is because they do not understand. Because they think the battle has been won. Indeed, any minority - black, women, Hispanics, Niger Deltans - that thinks the battle for "emancipation" is won, is basically fooling himself or herself. Any battle that starts with you at a disadvantage can hardly end. You are in a race with competition that had a head start many years before you and you think you should stop being vigilant at any point?
That is why it is gratifying that, state after state, a majority of women are flocking to vote for Hillary, especially women above 50 who know what it was like, and know why this is important. Blacks have a more overwhelming understanding of what is at stake, and that is why they have swallowed their reservations about Obama, and are flocking to his side. They understand.
The fact is that women have significant perception handicaps. The world still has certain images, deny as much as it does, about how the woman should be. A question will suffice: have you ever seen a woman display the charisma that Obama has on the national stage anywhere? Bhutto? Ghandi? Sirleaf? Even Thatcher? The female is a different specie. That charisma, that attractive cockiness, the boyish charm; that same quality of Bill Clinton's that we now adore in Barrack Obama is something that has been associated with men for ages. Whilst it is not something women are incapable of, it is not something that has come naturally - for decades.
When people say Hillary doesn't give as inspiring a speech as Obama, they miss the point that Hillary has been a better speaker than any other presidential candidate in recent history apart from, perhaps, John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Obama. She was definitely a better speaker than Bill Richardson, or John Kerry, or Mitt Romney, or Rudy Gulliani, or for that matter, Al Gore. More than that, she is a much better speaker, much better with crowds than any woman politician on the national stage that America has seen. Because she is almost "manni-sh" in disposition, she has been able to project that charisma and attractive charm that we only associate with men, making her able to compete with the ultimate alpha male that Obama is.
Still she is a woman, so she still has that perception limitation. Females are better in intimate communication, just like Hillary works better in town hall meetings; notably, Obama does poorly in those settings. But people look at that basic difference between masculine and feminine appeal, and based on that stereotype deepened by years of masculine prominence, conclude she is not inspiring. Yet someone says sexism is not affecting her negatively?
When Obama was given the national stage to give the 2004 speech for the Democratic Party, he more than rose up to the occasion, delivering an unremarkable speech with more-than-remarkable aplomb, but just last year, his supporter, Governor Kathless Selibbus, was given the same opportunity to respond to George Bush's State of the Union address, an astute and popular politician that she is, the consensus was that she looked uncomfortable on stage and on TV. That is the gap.
And it is not the only one. Why is it okay for a man to call a woman "bitch" as a joke on mainstream television in America, but a white man cannot do the same and call a black man a "nigger"? Why was there no outrage, only mirth, when men came to a Hillary rally crying "Iron my shirt!" but Rush Limbaugh had to apologise when a caller compared Obama to a monkey? Because... women are still fair game.
When Hillary shows different sides to her - angry, sarcastic, etc. - columnists refer to her as unstable, but when Obama does same, he is seen as cool.
It is simply a difference in behavioural patterns, and the reactions are just a deepening of existing stereotypes. We are so used to men dominating public space that we do not know how to deal with the female in the same space yet. It is not our fault but it is still sexism.
In fact, women (American women) have Hillary to thank for clearing the way for them. What they do not realise is that her continued history being strong, being tough, fighting and winning battles, being constantly elegant and admirable, she has made it clear that women can stay the course, women can stand the distance, women can do it all - and she is doing it on the biggest stage possible.
Men have this sorted for them, at least in America. Before Obama, there was Martin Luther; and then there was Jesse Jackson, to a much lesser extent of course. Before Hillary there was ... who? All the powerful American women - Jackie Kennedy, Barbara Bush, Oprah Winfrey - have more or less risen only because they still maintained the traditional female roles. Oprah is powerful because ... she spoon-feeds America! Condoleezza Rice is that other woman, who, if she stays on the national stage for some more quality years like Hillary, will make the point clearly.
How much of a surprise is it that powerful, successful women are the last to get married in any situation? Look around. How is it that strong, successful powerful men have no qualms settling down, and women who are successful, strong and powerful still find that a stretch? And you say women are free?
Is it surprising that the one ethnic group that flocks to Hillary - Hispanics - are those from a culture that has seen strong women and political wives over time?
Why were the men in an Ohio plant surprised and impressed to their bones when Hillary woke up at 4pm just before the day's primaries to campaign? Because they certainly did not expect such strength from a woman. And for each battle that she wins, for every hurdle that she crosses there, in the full glare of the world media through the CNN, the BBC, Fox News, Al Jazeera, Yahoo! News and the rest, she remains a poster child for the issues and challenges that women face in many parts of the world. And which they should not. At least, not in 2008.
So, please let us all feel free as proud black people to identify with Obama, and to support him with our hearts, because we too have fought battles of our own. But let no one even seek either to undermine the relentless challenges that the first woman to win a primary in America is facing solely because of her gender, and let us not even seek to understate the significance of each victory that she has won despite these stereotypes. Because the famed feminist, Gloria Stern, was absolutely right when she spoke up: gender is still the most restricting force, not just in America, but in many parts of the world. And my sympathies lie with any woman, or girl, who does not know this yet.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The TFA Winners Afterparty!
.JPG)
+addressing+guests+at+Erin-Ijesha.JPG)
.JPG)
The Future.. Awards Winners After-Party At the Miccom Golf Resorts - when we got winners, nominees, judges, press, volunteers and friends of the awards for a weekend getaway... as usual, apart from anything to do with Hillary Clinton I dont want to attempt to string together any thoughts, so will just let the pictures speak. What I did was take a picture from each separate thing that happened...
Me? Right now I am in Port Harcourt en route Abuja. No rest for the wicked! By the way, The Apprentice africa starts in 10 days, so check the website out, anmd continue to give ypour feedback!
Eyes Still on the Dem Primaries, of course!
On the little matter of the Obama-Hillary run: this only will I say until March 4th; Weeping may last for two weeks, but Ohio and Texas come in March!!
That said; a 'comment-er', Ola, on my last post had this on-point comments about the 'freshness' and 'trandescending vision' of the 'change' candidate, Obama:
Hi Chude,
I'm another Nigerian who gets the 'Are You Crazy?'stare for preferring Hillary to Barack.Undoubtedly, Barack is a fine young man with immense charisma and a political talents but I still remain sceptial about the 'substance behind the style'.I have a problem with the change and unity message as no one has been able to tell me what the change is from or to? Is the process of governance going to change? are the rules of proceeedings in the US congress going to change? Is the deliberate, thorough and often slow process of legistlation going to change? I assure you talk about UNITING everyone will end the day he gets into office when he has to take a position on approving or vetoing a bill on some hot-button issue which splits america right down the middle. By the way-he is far left on abortion and that automatically guarantees him hatred form almost half of America(See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121 as an example, maybe a partisan one, of how divided the country will remain) His careful and nuanced positions going by his Illinois senate record will not work then. His lofty goals of unity and change are simply not SMART (Simple, measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-Bound)-unite america, change washington? What does that mean exactly?
Beyond that, I have been quite disappointed about how quickly the black community hung the Racist label on Bill clinton-so much for his friendship with African-Americans. The media also has been rather easy on Obama-almost unintelligently so-there are hard tough questions-based on Obama's previous record that haven't been asked. It would be naive of the Democrats to prop Obama up against John McCain-the GOP attack machine will simply tear him apart-unfortunately the liberal label will hang even better on him than it did John Kerry and Michael Dukakis. . I can just imagine Karl rove begging to be let in on the action. John kerry's was the flip-flopper label-Obama's will be soft on crime (illinois voting record opposing a ban on an early release for sex offenders), soft on dictators and America's enemies(comments about meeting unconditionally with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba etc), soft on drugs(his documented use of crack and his alleged support for de-criminalsing marijuana(http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/NATION/896961936/1001)-they'd certainly accuse him of being to the extreme left on the abortion issue. These attacks may not always be accurate or entirely truthful but they have worked over and over again and you can be sure the GOP will use them again. Have you even noticed how some conservative pundits have been emphasising his middle name? These are all the tricks they'll play and I think it's a stong argument that they (the GOP
)have thrown their best at Hillary and will have no more tricks against her left in their hat. Besides, I have listened to her again and again and there's just this passion and resolve to her about tackling America's problems that just get me.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
What's my own with Hillary, eh?
One of my 'well-wishers', well aware of my obsession (as many across the nation are, since I never shy away from gratuitously dropping her nme of our show every week!) with the American elections and especially Hillary Clinton, pointed me to this a piebe by Funmi Iyanda on the American elections - on the 21st of February.
Lemme quickly say thought that my interest in the Democratic primaries (and suddenly the Republicans, since McCain became frontrunner) is simply a hobby. Yes, what America does will affect teh world dramatically, and whoever is at the 'bully pulpit' tyhat the Presidency is will be defining the rest of the world, including Africa, but that is not why I am interested. I am interested because the campaign's central characters fascinate me, and inspire such emotions and passions in me that our own politicians are underwhelmingly unable to.
Well back to Funmi, as expected the reactions to her post were passionate AND heated, and many of our 'black brovas' tore at Funmi for a lot of things, but underlying a lot of it, no matter the intellectual pretence, is SHOCK at a black person not supporting the historical candidacy of another black person who says the right things and looks the part.
For blacks in America this is an emotional issue and I can understand. If Obama becomes president it will be a HUGE psychological as well as a social lift.
But people like me who live here at home are lucky to be able to afford objectivity, and from an unecumbered viewpoint can say who we like, who we trust, who we believe in, who we would vote for if we had the chance. Funmi took the words right out of my might in being suspicious of an Obama who hasnt been tested and trusted. They stand on the same team in terms or policy: the difference being that one is vetted and tested, the other gives inspiring speeches. Say what you may, speak all the obscurantist grammar, it's really that simple. Hillary is a worker, Obama, a talker.
I dont like - or trust - Obama. It's that simple. Trust has to be earned. Trust has to be worked for. Trust has to be built. What the Obama supporters are riding on now is a huge wave of 'feel-good' opium. For people like me, that is not and can never be enough.
Being 'the good, clean, new guy' was what took Bush to the white house twice - and where did that leave the world? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Obama is riding on that same wave - good clean, new guy. Same as any guy that comes up on the scene now.
All in all, any two of them would be better than a Mitt ROmney, or a Republican President at any rate. It is my fervent wish that Obama humbles himself, works hard to earn cogent trust, and then join hands with Hillary to win a TRULY historical presidential contest. Until then, I'm enjoying the thrills of the race!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
