Posted July 31, 2007 – With such a large field of Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls, there’s a good chance of some intra-party rival hook-ups.

Take, for example, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s comments this past week that when all the bickering is done, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama will wind up being on the Democratic Party presidential ticket.

Of the Democratic candidates currently in the race, which two names would you like to see on the ticket?

- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
- Barack Obama and John Edwards
- Hillary Clinton and John Edwards
- Neither of the candidates

Whom would you like to see on a Republican ticket?

 -Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney
 -John McCain and Rudy Giuliani
 -Mitt Romney and John McCain
 -Neither of the candidates

 Read and respond. 

Posted July 30, 2007 – The need for attitude adjustments from members entering the U.S. Capitol apparently isn’t confined to race, gender or political party. But it seems that the punishment for those who step out of line is.

Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) Remember all of the hullabaloo surrounding then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), when she and a Capitol Police officer got into a tussle in March 2006.  Compare that to the whisper about the recent confrontation between and a Capitol Hill officer.  Earlier this month, the Connecticut Republican pummeled an officer with a profanity-laced tirade when the officer refused to speak into a lost constituent’s cell phone to help unite the congressman, who was on the line, with a party that was wandering around in the rain. (Officers aren’t allowed to use cell phones while on duty.)   After Shays arrived at the Capitol entrance in a driving rainstorm, he reportedly grabbed the officer by his badge and let him have it, WestportNow.com reported.  

Although the officer filed no charges, according to The Greenwich Time, he did lodge a non-criminal “courtesy complaint,” which is a cordial resolution of the matter. “When he returns, we’ll arrange a meeting between him and the congressman if the officer wants it,” Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for Capitol Police told the Time.

Mighty polite, compared to the McKinney fiasco.

McKinney, who entered through the same door on most days, believed she was racially profiled by the Capitol Hill officer who denied her when she wasn’t wearing her congressional ID pin. After a heated exchange, she pushed the police officer with her cell phone in her hand and entered the building.

Before long, the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police was on national television talking about the severity of her actions in the workplace of their duty.  McKinney spent days describing what happened defending her actions to her attorneys, her colleagues, and members of the press. She faced possible criminal charges and censure from her own party.

Ultimately, McKinney apologized to the Capitol Hill Police, but even that wasn’t enough for the chief who said that dismissing charges “would be sending the message to the public that it’s OK to hit a police officer, and its not.”  By the time the dust settled, McKinney was on the outside of the Capitol looking in. She had lost her seat for the second time.
 
Last week, Chief of Police Phillip D. Morse, Sr., and assistant chief of police Dan Nichols said they met with Shays and the congressman acknowledged he acted inappropriately and would take full responsibility for his behavior.   “The congressman stated his full support and admiration for the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police and offered his apologies,” CQ.com reported.
But Jim Himes, the Greenwich Democratic Town Committee chairman, who’s challenging Shays seat next year, said, “Police officers deserve our admiration and our respect, and I think it’s embarrassing to Chris Shays and his constituents that he chose to verbally assault a police officer.”

But, like the press and the Capitol Police, Himes says it doesn’t compare to what McKinney did:

“I think there’s important differences,” Himes told the Greenwich Time regarding the two incidents.

I think there are important differences too. Shays and McKinney are a different race, gender and party.

Posted July 25, 2007 – If you’re planning to visit the White House, make sure you show up in appropriate attire. Otherwise, you’ll be asked to come another day.

I noticed there are new signs posted, alerting visitors to the West Wing that the following attire has been outlawed: jeans, tank tops, mini-skirts and flip-flops. 

Perhaps, the fact that four members of the 2006 Northwestern University’s women’s championship lacrosse team posed with the president at the White House in flip-flops and sandals caused the “clothing police” to kick into high gear. 

 This new dress requirement will be an effective way to limit the number of visitors.  I rarely see folks during the summer taking snap shots outside the Pennsylvanian Avenue address who don’t have on at least one of the newly banned items.  No one comes to Washington dressed for success anymore. 

April Ryan, White House correspondent for National Urban Network, and I discussed our sandals in reaction to the new requirements.  “They (colleagues) tried to call these flip-flop’s,” she told me, pointing to a fashionable black sandal.  Considering I too had on shoes with out a back strap, we agreed our footwear did NOT belong in the flip-flop category. 

I imagine that if one person wore all of the prohibited items at the same time, he/she would look like he/she were ready to cut the lawn, or attend a cookout or baseball game.

Before folks get their halters in a knot, this isn’t the first White House to set guidelines for staff and or visitors.  First Lady Nancy Reagan didn’t approve of women wearing pants, so skirts were the order of the ’80s White House. 

For me, no flip-flops is fine. I’m a shoe-lover and while I do own my share of flip-flops, the other 200-plus pairs of shoes in my closet aren’t. 
 

Posted July 24, 2007 – Last night as the Democratic presidential candidates faced off I was wondering if supports were evaluating their performance as well. So I decided to check with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to see how they thought their candidate faired.

Rep. Danny Davis, (D-Ill.) likened Barack Obama’s performance in terms of baseball, telling me, “I think he did well - he didn’t hit a home run – but every time he steps up to the plate he’s a threat.”

Before the debate pundits were speculating Obama was going to be “edgier” – in other words go after his colleague Sen. Hillary Clinton (D – N.Y.).

Davis said, he held his own, “On balance not only did he hold his own, the positions he was willing to take indicates he would be good under fire.”

Rep. Edolphous Towns (D-N.Y.), a Clinton supporter, was pleased with his presidential pick as well. “I thought she did very well and sounded very presidential, and I thought she addressed the question upright and upfront – I’m delighted she’s in the race,” he told me.

Towns said Clinton’s response to leading the country forward set her apart from the others. “I think the things she’s about are the same kinds of thinks I’m about and I feel should happen,” he said.

We’ll get to see them a few more times before anyone has to decided on making a choice, so based on these Davis and Towns evaluation, I’m going to call this one a draw.

Do you think the congressman crossed the line or do are people over-reacting? Read and post your comments.

 Posted July 20, 2007 – About two weeks ago, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) was speaking to a group of atheists at a forum in Minneapolis when he reflected on the attacks of 9/11 as the turning point that opened the door for the U.S. government to enact laws that it otherwise wouldn’t have been able to do.

Addressing a group of atheists is, by itself, enough to evoke public outrage in a nation where “God-fearing” is the label of choice. But Ellison – already the target of skepticism and mistrust by those who find it absurd that a Muslim could be elected to Congress in this post-9/11 era – did nothing to win over his critics when he alluded to the “N”-word in describing the Bush administration’s war in Iraq.

No, the other “N”-word. “Nazis.”

“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that – after the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted,” Ellison told the 300 or so members of Atheists for Human Rights.

Ellison was referring to the Reichstag German Parliament building that burned in 1933, an event that Hitler used to justify suspending the German people’s civil liberties. The run-up to the passage of the Patriots Act is a lot like that historic event, said Ellison, a steady critic of the administration.

The ensuing public outrage was prompt and powerful.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League, immediately called for Ellison to retract his comments and to apologize to the American people. He issued the following statement:

“Congressman Keith Ellison’s comments, comparing the rise of Nazism in the aftermath of the burning of the Reichstag to the War on Terror in the aftermath of 9/11, is outrageous and offensive to all Americans. Whatever his views may be on the administration’s response to 9/11 and the conduct of the War on Terrorism, likening it to Hitler’s rise to power and Nazism is odious and demeans the victims of 9/11 and the brave American men and women engaged in the War on Terror. Furthermore, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and his Nazi regime perpetrated.”

Seeking to mitigate the political backlash from his remarks, Ellison wrote in a July 13 editorial in The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune that, “I spoke to constituents about religious tolerance and the erosion of civil liberties in a post 9/11 America. It is precisely in the aftermath of a tragedy like 9/11 that we must be most vigilant about our precious civil liberties. Unfortunately, some have tried to misconstrue my remarks.”

A spokesman in Ellison’s office told me he wasn’t comparing Bush to Hitler and, in an interview with The Associated Press, the congressman said, “In hindsight, I wouldn’t have used that reference point.”

But he didn’t back down on his assessment of the administration’s policy blunders. “Bush and his team seem intent on enlarging his authority and defying those who would challenge him or his administration,” he said.

Black lawmakers in Congress represent 40 million African Americans, do you think their support will help a candidate win?

Posted July 19, 2007 – As presidential candidates work to earn support from the American people, they’ll first look to their colleagues in Congress. So far, the Democratic presidential hopefuls have been able to garner the support in their home state but few others.  

Take a look at whom the Black members of Congress have publicly endorsed among the three top contenders for the nomination.
 
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has an impressive list of members of the Congressional Black Caucus backing him: 
Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.)
Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-Ill.)
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D- Md.)
Rep. Artur Davis (D- Ala.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
Rep. Al Green (D- Texas)
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)
Like Obama in Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) swept her state for the Congressional Black Caucus endorsements:
Rep. Yvette Clark (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Alcee Hasting (D-Fla.)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.)
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-Ohio)

Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) list is the shortest with only three confirmed supporters:
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.)
Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D- Texas)

So far half of the CBC have not signed on with a presidential candidate.  Gov. Bill Richardson (D- N.M.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Sen. Joe Biden (D-Conn.) do have members of congress offering home state support only Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) have no congressional endorsements.

But it’s still early. 

Will you pay more attention to risque campaign spoofs or the real thing? 

Read and post your thoughts.

 Posted July 18, 2007 – While campaigns work to raise millions of dollars for campaign ads they may discover the videos produced with sexy and bikini clad women may get more bang then their buck can buy. 

Barleypolitical.com’s Web site has been inundated with users wanting to check out the follow up to their first video hit “Obama Girl.” 

 Now the sequel features two rival girl gangs in short-shorts and bikinis facing off in support of their presidential pick.  “Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl” is a musical with political barbs flying throughout.  Lyrics like “Everyone get up on the floor if it’s Giuliani you adore, I’m gonna be wife number 4,” pokes fun at the candidate.

I understand why neither political camp wants to comment on the videos, but they can’t ignore the buzz they’ve created.  Could they be secretly hoping these videos do just what they are doing – bringing attention to their campaign?  

This is the third video of this nature to make the Web and create a lot of hype.  Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-N.Y.) was the featured candidate in a video on a Web site Hot4Hill.com where bikini wearing songstress touted the virtues of the former First Lady. 

While the winner in the “Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl” video is determined by a pillow fight, with a win in the Obama column, the real winner may be any candidate featured in one of these on-line musical tributes – after all these videos don’t require cash from the campaign coffers.    

Will Their Effort Force Pres. Bush to Change Course in Iraq?

Read and Post Your Thoughts

 Posted July 17, 2007 - Democratic Senate and House members are going to burn the midnight oil and hold an outdoor vigil like those held in the 1970’s in protest of the war in Vietnam.

Tuesday night the chamber will remain open as members of the senate filibuster on a bill that would shift the role of the U.S. military to counter terrorism and training of Iraqi troops.  But that won’t be all – the Upper Senate Park will also host war veterans, military families and anyone else who wanting to join the call for a new plan of action in Iraq.
  
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants to force Senate Republicans to allow an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed Amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, with language that will also reduce U.S. troops in combat.

Reid laid the ground work for tonight’s events from the Senate floor, saying “The American people deserve an up-or-down – yes or no – vote on this amendment.  A ‘no’ vote on Levin-Reed would be a vote to ‘stay the course’ – to continue the President’s failed strategy indefinitely.  A ‘yes’ vote would finally bind the President to responsibly reduce combat operations and return our focus to the real and growing threats we face.”

Senators are signing up to make floor speeches throughout the night.  Sen. Barack Obama didn’t do too bad; he’s scheduled to hit the floor Wednesday morning at 6:00 a.m. -  just in time for the morning news shows.

Pamela Gentry

Senior Political Producer 

Posted July 16, 2007 – Last week, the war topped every headline, and experts and pundits debated what strategy would put the United States in the “win” column. 

I haven’t heard much on how Black folks feel about it. 

President Bush said last week, after updating Congress on the progress in Iraq, that “those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism.” 

Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chris Van Hollen blasted the president for digging in on a failing strategy.   “More than six months into the troop surge, it is clear the president’s Iraq strategy is not working – more than 3,600 American troops have been killed and thousands more have been injured; U.S. taxpayers are spending $10 billion a month; and the Iraqi government has failed to meet the agreed upon political, economic or military benchmarks.”

The African-American members of Congress are also frustrated with Bush’s insistence on staying the course.

What do you think?
 

Posted July 13, 2007 – There were passionate pleas by Black lawmakers on the House floor Thursday urging the president to follow the will of the American people, and not his own misguided mission, when it comes to planning next steps in Iraq.

“One thousand, five hundred and eighty-one days, 53 months, or more than four years since this president led this Nation to war in Iraq.  Over 3,600 soldiers killed; 2,600 American soldiers seriously injured; 60,000 to 100,000 Iraqis killed;  $10 billion per month; 500 billion American dollars spent on this War!” said an emotional Rep. Maxine Waters.

And Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), reminding us that the president told us the “surge” in troops is just beginning when he deployed more troops six months ago, said the time for patience has passed. “We cannot wait,” Lewis said. “We cannot be patient. The American people want to end this war and end it now. How many more of our young people must die before we realize enough is enough?  One more day of involvement is too many. One more death is one too many. This war is not worthy of another drop of human blood!”

It is apparent that the riveting cries from Waters, Lewis and others hit deep as 223 of Thursday’s 424 voting members agreed that the time has come to extract U.S. troops from a rapidly declining situation in Iraq. In passing H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, American troops will begin returning to their families within the next 120 days. By next April, they should be home. 

It was the president’s glum interim report to Congress – ahead of a status report on Iraq due in September – that oiled the passage of the bill, even without defections of House Republicans loyal to the president. Only 10 Democrats joined the few GOP loyalists. … What did some of the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have to say about our current direction in Iraq?

Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.):

 “Just a few months ago, the president told us that ethnic militias were undermining the security and stability of Iraq.  Now they are the guarantors of the stability and security of Iraq?
 
“When the president’s strategy for victory involves arming the people who just a few months ago were our sworn enemies, it becomes difficult for any of us to explain to our constituents what our troops are still doing there in Iraq.  The troops have done their job.  But they will not be successful if the president cannot decide what the mission is.
“The surge is not a strategy….”
Black Caucus Chairwoman Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.):
“Despite the fact that we are not making progress in Iraq, the president expects America’s families to be patient as he requests more troops, more time, and more tax dollars. We cannot wait any longer. We must change course and stop funding failure instead of initiatives that promote the priorities of and provide protection for America’s families.”

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisc.):

 “This stubborn administration is choosing to ignore the American people’s will, but make no mistake: Americans – my constituents in Milwaukee – want our troops home. We will continue plugging away for a change of course in Iraq because it is our duty to fight for the safe removal of troops from Iraq and to keep our focus on America’s security.”
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.):

 “The president’s surge is not working; more than 3,600 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq; the Iraqi government has failed to meet key benchmarks; political reconciliation in Iraq is non-existent; and readiness levels of the U.S. military are at an all-time low. 
The American public and the Democratic majority believe that this war must end.  When will President Bush and the Republican minority agree?”