Skip to Content Skip to Search Go to Top Navigation Go to Side Menu


Funny Nas Blog Post


Friday, August 8, 2008 - 11:19 am (EST)
By Ray LeMoine


Black GOPs

Sasha Frere-Jones went to see Nas at the Rock the Bells Fest at Jones Beach last week and wrote this for his New Yorker blog. In an intro, Jones establishes this post as “service journalism,” but this is one the best paragraphs he’s ever written:

Nas: this rapper currently has the #1 album in the country. He said he loves Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson but they are “out of here.” Nas is, according to Nas, the new voice of the young people. “I talk your talk, I dress your dress,” he said. I didn’t see anyone in the audience wearing a white shirt, white jeans, designer sunglasses and a blingy crucifix, so maybe what he meant is that he’s the new voice of Russian real-estate developers. People always talk about what a great lyricist Nas is, and he certainly was when “Illmatic” came out fourteen years ago. Which is maybe why he did more songs from that album than any other album from his catalogue during his set. It was nice of Jay-Z to come out for the “Black Republicans” cameo. Do you know how much people like Jay-Z? More than they like anyone else. I’ve see Jay-Z pop up at three shows, and every time it happens, you remember what it’s like to be at a genuinely exciting event. And then Jay-Z leaves. Bad idea, the Jay-Z cameo, for anyone who is not named Jay-Z.

No two artists have been awesome longer than Nas and Jigga. Both are still relevant after 15 years. What white pop artists can say the same? NIN? Pearl Jam? RHCP? Nyet. Even The Boss turned corny after 1982. (Btw, The Boss was at The Box last night with the Sting.)

TAGS: GOP, Jay, Jesse Jackson, New York, Republicans, russia, The Box, youtube

RELATED POSTS:

The Myth of Barry the Lefty


Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 10:50 am (EST)
By Ray LeMoine

All this shock and awe at Obama’s centrist drift ignores history. Barack Obama was never an uber-liberal, despite his (thin) Senate voting record saying he was the chamber’s resident lefty.

No one better chronicles Obama’s rise to national power than the Chicago Tribune’s David Mendell in his book Obama: From Promise to Power. For the book, Mendell followed Obama from 2003 until he announced his presidential run in early 2007. The politician Mendell describes is a pragmatist with a liberal’s heart; an egotistical, insanely ambitious, and mercurial man who wants to be loved—even if that means appealing to the center for votes; a man whose career has been guided by Washington-insider David Axelrod, with an above-all focus on personal narrative; a natural wonk who has traded policy for vague rhetoric to achieve political goals; and someone whose political fortunes were dependant on Penny Priztker and Chicago’s Gold Coast monied elite. After reading the book, there’s no question Obama has what it takes to be president. But he’s a politician not a progressive activist.

Those ever-( dare I say over-) influential “Netroots” folks on the left did not study the facts before crowning Obama liberalism’s savior. Obama ran a primary campaign that was to the right of Hillary Clinton on domestic issues. (Remember, triangulated centrism was a mid-90s Clinton specialty.) Still, the net-left gave Barry unending support.

Now Obama’s disregarded the constitution in favor of telecoms—you know, phone companies, the little guy. He supported a Supreme Court ruling overturning a handgun ban in a city with an unprecedented history of handgun murder. He told black people not to try and be “the next Lil Wayne” (even though Wayne’s studied political science at U Houston and his latest record ends with a six-minute spoken-word political essay), prompting longtime Obama supporter Jesse Jackson to say he wants to “cut his nuts out.” He wants to “refine” his unrealistic 16-month Iraq withdrawal promise. And so on.

None of this should come as a surprise, however. Nor does it make Obama a weaker candidate. It just makes him less of the hope/change martyr the net-left worshipped. Of course, it’s hard not to be offended by Obama’s recent moves. But politically I respect his, well, Clintonian dedication to electoral victory at any cost.

After eight years of GOP illegal wars and criminal rule, we need a winner not a savior. And on foreign policy Obama remains a committed multilateralist. I’m looking forward to seeing how Europe and the Middle East greet him on his upcoming tour. Although this TNR piece is pessimistic about the latter stop, saying recent statements at AIPAC on Israel have soured Arab opinion, I’m not sure I buy the authors’ argument. Arabs are foremost a hospitable people. When Obama arrives as a guest, I hope and assume they’ll respond with the same open mindedness that I received upon visiting the region. If Obama needs to drift to the center to win an election so he can carry out a liberal foreign policy, that works for me.

TAGS: Barack Obama, BOOKS, election, GOP, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Jesse Jackson, Lil Wayne, NPR, NSA, obama, political, Politics, Supreme Court, Trade, war

RELATED POSTS:

Jesse Jackson challenges Barack Obama to a cut-your-nuts-off duel


Wednesday, July 9, 2008 - 10:37 pm (EST)
By Tommy Esquire

Unless you’ve escaped media for two whole hours, you know by now that Jesse Jackson was caught on tape saying he wants to cut Barack Obama’s nuts off for having the audacity to criticize deadbeat dads and say that young brothers should give up on the Lil Wayne dream and stay in school.  Of course, Jesse immediately apologized and called his support for Barack “wide, deep and unequivocal,” although he might have been talking about the vagina he was planning on carving out.

From the NY Post:

Jackson said that in doing so Obama was hurting his relationship with black voters, “that the senator was cutting off his you-know-whats with the black people and black churches.”

Now I’m a white guy, but I really could not disagree more here.  Black folks know what the problems are in their communities, they’re not happy with no-show baby daddies, and they want someone to stand up to them.  Almost half of American black children live without a father, which is more than double any other ethic group in this county.

This is a huge opportunity for Barack Obama, not just with blacks but with those blue collar white Democrats and independents who are fed up with Republicans but are pretty wary after hearing Barack’s black pastor say GOD DAMN AMERICA.  Standing up to Jesse Freakin’ Jackson would be like Sister Souljah times a thousand.  At the same time, he won’t be losing many – if any – blacks, who are on Obama’s side to begin with, and from my experience have been cool to Jesse for years.

This all assumes that Barack has the nuts to stand up for something. If he follows the same play-it-safe, no controversy game plan he’s been so widely derided for the last few weeks, he will pass up a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity.  The fish jumped right in the boat, and all he has to do is whack it with the oar.

TAGS: Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Lil Wayne

RELATED POSTS:

Nader is Wrong on Obama


Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 4:25 pm (EST)
By Ray LeMoine

Left, pic by Geoff Kenyon

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader spoke today about presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Nader accused Obama of “talking white” and being “corporate.” Despite his causing of Gore to lose in 2000, I generally like Nader. I’m gonna pull the quotes from the Denver Rocky Morning News, who conducted the interview, and go through them:

“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

“I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law,” Nader said. “Haven’t heard a thing.”

“He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician,” Nader said. “He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.”

Nader is little off here. Remember Obama’s Philly race speech? In it, Obama said (with a Faulkner quote to boot):

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

Nice try Nader. While it’s true that Obama has not made the plight of the poor his top campaign priority (that was Edwards’ theme and he lost—fast), he did in fact address it in the best speech of 2008.

Obama’s historic race speech is not to be taken lightly. He said things no major American presidentail candidate has ever said. And I believe once in office there’s no way he can ignore black America, as it will make up one his largest constiuentcies. Strategically, he needs to court the middle now—the left is already with him.

TAGS: Barack Obama, Crack, HBO, Jesse Jackson, kids, obama, political, Race, Ralph Nader, Schools, war

RELATED POSTS:

Obama still holds the lead, cue racism… NOW.


Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 6:29 am (EST)
By John LaCroix

Look, I’ll make a graphic to remind you.

delegates.jpg

So out come the wolves. Geraldine Ferraro pulled an old trick out of her old school play book last weekend when she marginalized any and all of Obama’s achievements in public service and life claiming he was “lucky” to be black. The 72 year old two-time U.S. Senate race loser from a period of time that should be forgotten, said:

 ”If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”

Which sort of reminds me of what she said in 1988 about another historically significant black candidate from her own party:

“If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

It makes me sick. Read the details here, here and here if you feel like it.

To Hillary supporters and the right wing scum machine, this is your signal: “Let the racism begin!” Ferraro won’t lead the destruction of the Democratic party - she’s far too stupid - but she has sounded the alarm. Take cover and prepare for President John McCain.

Sorry Iran.

Hillary’s prototype is Ferraro. And Ferraro is a loser. Read up on the 1984 presidential campaign, when her refusal to disclose her husband’s tax refunds (doesn’t that sound familiar too?) and constant backtracking helped make Mondale’s disaster of a campaign against Reagan even worse. That worked out pretty well, didn’t it? They just handed the whole country to the second worst president in history and we’ve yet to begin recovering from it.

McCain, this may be your chance to become number one.

TAGS: Hillary, Iran, Jesse Jackson, John McCain, mccain, obama, Race, Racism

RELATED POSTS:

SuperSexxyTuesday


Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 5:27 pm (EST)
By Ray LeMoine

Today’s Election Reads
Delegate Counts
Obama:765 (AP), 908 (Obama campaign spreadsheet via Drudge y Politico, but it looks like NBC will report this too)
Clinton: 845 (AP), 884 (Obama campaign spreadsheet via Drudge y Politico, but it looks like NBC will report this too)
Needed:2025

Hillary dominated with the poorest sector of society (sub $15g per year) and Obama with richest ($150g per year). She also got the Latino and union vote. That should answer who benefitted most from Edwards the Populist dropping out. Yet an endorsement from Edwards for Hill is unlikely. Right now, Obama has more funds on hand ($32 mil raised last month vs $13 for Hill). So, unless Hill gets some serious donor dough this week, Obama looks to bet the favorite down the stretch.
79574125.jpg79574576-1.jpg

After jump, there’s a rundown of national coverage…
(more…)

TAGS: attack, Barack Obama, Boston, Congress, debate, election, Hawaii, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Jesse Jackson, John McCain, mccain, NATO, obama, Ohio, paris, political, Politics, Race, Republicans, Texas, Vermont, war

RELATED POSTS:

Bill Kristol Lights Up Times Op-Ed Page


Monday, January 28, 2008 - 6:48 pm (EST)
By Ray LeMoine

Yes, that’s right, William Kristol has written the best (early) 2008 column. I’m reprinting the whole thing because it’s damn near art. Remember: I hate Weekly Standard-National Review politics. Hate. Think they’re economic fascists. Wreckless in foreign policy.

None of that matters when Bill Kristol lays down analysis, humor, context, and personality to 850 words of political writing. I don’t agree with a lot of his points–think he’s overreaching Bill’s overall effect and race pandering; and SC’s importance. But Kristol’s right about Obama’s Kennedy family endorsements making him the new RFK.

Kristol, like O’Reilly before him, is engaging Obama with rage–and as the Clintons’ antidote.

In the run-up to Saturday’s South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton repeatedly denounced racial divisions in American politics. Indeed, he said Friday in Spartanburg, Americans are “literally aching to live in a post-racial future.”

But Clinton certainly hasn’t been hastening that day. Quite the contrary. In Charleston, on Wednesday, he disingenuously remarked: “As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that’s why people tell me Hillary doesn’t have a chance of winning here.”

Really? Who was telling him that?

Hillary was ahead in South Carolina polls as recently as early December. And in fact, women made up 61 percent of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, blacks 55 percent. If Obama was getting votes because of race and Hillary because of gender, Hillary had a perfectly good chance to win. Bill Clinton’s excuse is unconvincing and unseemly.

Then on Saturday, in Columbia, pre-spinning his wife’s imminent defeat, Clinton reminded reporters out of the blue that “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ’84 and ’88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere.”

What do Jesse Jackson’s victories two decades ago have to do with this year’s Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama isn’t running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.

Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did.

But of course — as Clinton knows very well — Jesse Jackson didn’t win (almost all-white) Iowa. He didn’t come within a couple of points of prevailing in (almost all-white) New Hampshire. Nor did he, as Obama did, carry white voters in rural Nevada. And Saturday, in South Carolina, even after Bill Clinton tried to turn Obama into Jackson, Hillary defeated Obama by just three to two among white voter.

So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards? He wasn’t supposed to be in the game. But just as Hillary was supposed to be finding her own voice, Bill decided to barge in, and to do so with a vengeance. This has been no favor to Hillary.

(more…)

TAGS: Bill Clinton, debate, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, NATO, New Hampshire, obama, political, Politics, polls, Race, Review, spin, war

RELATED POSTS: