I'm Not Surprised

During the time I was working for Continental Airlines, Houston hosted the 1992 GOP convention. Many of those delegates went through IAH to get to the convention and return to their homes scattered across the country. I met some of the GOP leadership like now Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), other George HW Bush cabinet peeps, and convention delegates from various states as I worked flights during this period.

The day after it ended, I had a Seattle flight I was working. I was killing time until a short air traffic control delay was lifted before I could board the plane. In the lobby there was a group of teenaged kids who had just attended the convention. They had their GOP t-shirts on and were energized about working for George HW Bush's reeelection. Three girls approached the podium and engaged me in a discussion about joining their party and voting for Bush senior.

After politely listening to them for a few moments I replied, "No thanks, I'm voting for Clinton."

"But why?" one of the eager young white females replied.

"Your party has engaged in practices and behaviors over the years that have led me to conclude that people who look like me aren't wanted. Until your party gets serious about competing for my people's votes and doing the things necessary to get those votes beyond symbolic measures, I'll continue to be a Democrat."

I'm recounting this conversation because of the news that GOP frontrunners John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, and Mitt Romney all declined invitations to the All American Presidential Forum to be held on September 27 at Morgan State University for the GOP candidates. A similar forum was held on June 28th for the Democrats and all eight contenders showed up at Howard University for it.

I'm not surprised that Guiliani isn't gonna show up. He's 'scurred' about the questions that will pop up about his contentious relationship in NYC with the African-American community and the Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo NYPD incidents that happened under his tenure.

McCain has 'F' grades on his NAACP Civil Rights report cards and Romney is probably afraid he'll get hit with questions about the Mormon Church's negative beliefs about African-Americans. Only one of the GOP candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) even bothered to show up for the presidential forum during the recent NAACP convention in Detroit.

The journalists who will be asking the questions for the five confirmed Republican presidential candidates showing up in Baltimore as I write this are Ray Suarez of The NewsHour, columnist Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal Constitution and NPR's Juan Williams. Tavis will once again be moderator for the event which will air on PBS starting at 9 PM EDT.

I read Tavis' comments on the snub and he's not a happy camper.

"The word frontrunner has taken a whole new meaning for me," said Smiley in an interview with Lee Bailey. "I didn't know it meant being out front and running from people of color."

"The frontrunners, specifically Mr. Romney, Mr. McCain and Mr. Guiliani, have said to us they will not be on stage at Morgan State University on September 27th. All the Democrats showed up in June, but the front running Republicans have said they will not be there. They have also told Univision that they will not be there for the Hispanic debate. So, collectively, what the Republican frontrunners have told both black and brown Americans is that we don't appreciate you, don't value your issues and you're not a priority to us."

"You can't go through an entire primary process and refuse to talk to black and brown voters," he continued. "It's unconscionable, it's untenable, it's unthinkable and no one should be elected president in 2008, in the most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial America ever and, in the process, ignore and ditch those voters. If you're not going to talk to all of America then you don't deserve to be president of all of America."

That's been the GOP game plan since Nixon concocted the 'Southern Strategy'. Like Tavis, I'm sick of Black conservatives spouting that bullshit 'you need to get off the Democrat plantation line'. You Black conservative clowns continue to apologize and make excuses for your GOP massas. These GOP peeps say they want to compete for our votes, but don't have the cojones to show up at our conventions, our events or give interviews to our media peeps to address our issues.

You black conservatives have shown the African-American community repeatedly over the years where your loyalties lie.

In 2004 the negro Ken Blackwell led the charge to suppress our people's votes in Ohio (he doesn't deserve to be called Black). Ward Connerly is the point negro in trying to get affirmative action programs killed. Don't even get me started on Uncle Thomas, the 'honorary white man' as conservative commentators call him on the Supreme Court.

And all you Black conservative bloggers and GOP butt-kissing preachers have been deafingly silent about how your vaunted GOP showed the world how much they cared about New Orleans and its African-American residents, but can flap your gums ad nauseum when it comes to same-sex marriage and hatin' on GLBT people.

And you want to know why reality based African-Americans vote at a 90% clip for Democratic candidates?

Thanks to the naked racism that's spewing out of your base over the immigration issue, you're driving Latinos away from your party as well at a record clip. 'Bout time they woke up to the true nature of the Republican Party.

Can't wait for September 27 to get here. I'm gonna make sure I have plenty of popcorn on hand to munch on for what promises to be an entertaining evening.

The DNC Is Ready To Embrace Us

Guest column by Monica F. Helms

I recently spent three informative and productive days in Las Vegas with the hierarchy of the Democratic National Committee. Kathy Padilla from Philadelphia, PA was also there. I’m happy she came because she is a very knowledgeable person in the political arena. We were visible, we were vocal and we were active.

The structure of the weekend was such that on the first day, Thursday, they had the “Women’s Leadership Summit Agenda,” then an Issues Briefing with Q & A after lunch. During the Issues Briefing, two people had a presentation on the issues facing the DNC and the country. They used a Power Point slide that listed the various areas of the population the DNC include. On the list I saw the words “sexual orientation,” but I didn’t see “gender identity and gender expression.”

When they asked for questions, I got up and stated the DNC needs to start including those words, because “sexual orientation” doesn’t cover transgender people. If they don’t use them, they will be leaving out 3 million Transgender Americans. Kathy also got up and asked if all the vendors at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver had non-discrimination in their EEO policies that covered all GLBT people. Apparently, one didn’t.

On Friday, we had what was called “Constituency Sessions,” where the various constituency groups held all-day workshops that pertained to their specific issues. Besides the LGBT group, there was one for the Asian and Pacific Island Americans, African Americans and Hispanic Americans (which is how it was listed in the manual.) Some people checked out different workshops in different groups to get a feel of what the various groups were talking about, while others, like myself, stayed with one group all day.

I found the discussions interesting. The six different workshops/panel discussions in the LGBT Constituency Sessions were broken up into different subjects, with people on the panel who have had experience in that subject matter. Kathy was on the “Diversity in 2008 and Beyond” panel, which talked about diversity in the LGBT community. In that session, a very frank and heated discussion broke out on the issue of racism that is so prevalent in the LGBT community today.

On one panel, a lesbian from the Gill Action group presented us with various polls with American people that have been taken on LGBT subjects. Not surprising, most of the issues excluded anything having to do with transgender people. However, even when she was making generic statements, she used only “gay and lesbian.” I held up my hands and formed a “T” with my index fingers. She asked me if I had a question and I said, “No. I’m making a ‘T’ with my fingers so you won’t forget it.” From then on, she started saying, “gay, lesbian and transgender,” still leaving out the bisexuals.

Dennis Kucinich was there. I came up to him and thanked him for including transgender people all along. He told me it was the right thing to do and gave me a big hug. Another time, Gov. Howard Dean stopped in the room where the LGBT panels took place and gave a little speech. After that, he asked for any questions and I asked, “In 2004, transgender people were left out of the Platform. Will we be included in it this time?” He said a quick and strong, “Yes.” He then followed it by saying that he didn’t have complete control of that and reminded us that he was the only candidate that included transgender people in 2004 and couldn’t understand why others have a difficult time even saying the word. I’m hoping he has a little control over the Platform language in 2008 to ensure we are there. Of course, one of us needs to be ON the Platform Committee.

What I have also found out during that weekend was that all of the candidates support including us in federal legislation that has language for “sexual orientation.” The candidates should have updated their websites to have fully inclusive language. If anyone has a problem with their websites, they should contact the web masters of those sites and bring it up with them. Keep in mind, the one issue where we are not included and where we shouldn’t make a fuss about is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Yes, it affects us, but the language doesn’t include us, so we just support the repeal of this law.

You have to keep in mind that the people who attended the summit were the heart and soul of the DNC. These were District Coordinators, National Caucus Chairs, DNC Officers, State Chairs, State Diversity Officers and many ground troops that will run the DNC’s “50 State Strategy.” These people are the ones who will have control over the Platform language. They will help and train others to work with the party and get the people out to vote. The DNC wants to focus on one state at a time, one county at a time and one neighborhood at a time, all done by thousands of people at the same time.

These were also the people who set the goals for their state to ensure that the 2008 Delegates look like the face of America. This includes us. Some of the people there are the ones running the various state and local Stonewall Democrats chapters. One person from the Colorado Stonewall Democrats stated that they are working with the Convention Planning Committee to set up “family restrooms,” so women with small children or anyone else who wants privacy can use them. They thought of us.

One thing that bothered me was when they discussed the way each Republican candidates make a case for themselves and what we needed to do to focus on making a case against them. When they put up Rudy Giuliani, they showed a picture of him wearing a dress and makeup. Many people in the audience laughed, but I was angry. Before I could say something, a gay man got up and said that he was a member of the LGBT Caucus and the picture highly offended him. He pointed out that by using that picture it says that people can make fun of the transgender community. I shook his hand. They got the message and apologized for using the picture, saying they would not do it again.

I walked away from that weekend completely convinced that the DNC heard Kathy and I. Everywhere I went (except in the general population,) I wore my “2004 Transgender Delegate” button and one that said, “Trans and Proud.” I now know in my heart and soul that WE WILL NOT BE LEFT OUT THIS TIME. I’m sure several people won’t even believe it if they saw the language in the Platform, but it is true.

So, now what? If any transgender person wants to get involved in getting the “T” out to vote, contact me at mfhelms@earthlink.net. I have a plan on what we need to do in regards to the DNC this time. We need to drive home one simple message. “One Percent.”

Why “One Percent?” Over the last 5 years there have been various independent surveys/studies/researches done that when combined, we get a picture that one percent of the American population falls under the transgender umbrella. We don’t need to get into details on whether some no longer identify as being transgender or never were. For the sake of politics, if anyone has crossed the gender lines, even temporarily, they are in that One Percent. Hell, non-trans people are confused enough as it is, so let’s not make it worse for them.

We can easily use this “One Percent” to our advantage by constantly reminding the DNC on how many elections that took place in the past where a Democrat lost by less than one percent. In 2000, Al Gore lost by 537 votes in Florida. That comes to .003% of the population of Florida, according to the 2000 Census. If Al Gore carried just one more percent of the population in Florida, he would have won by over 158,000 votes. In 2004, John Kerry lost Ohio by 136,000 votes, which is slightly over one percent of the population in Ohio, but he lost Iowa by only .4% and New Mexico by .3%. We are no longer a voting block they can afford to ignore.

If any of you get asked about the hard numbers and where the One Percent comes from, a friend of mine, Jessica Xavier, told me to say something to the affect, “The intensity of the social stigma of transgenderism and things like violence, discrimination, harassment and multiple barriers to access of health care, drives most of us into secrecy, out of a need to survive an intolerant culture.”

I realize that not all Transgender Americans are registered to vote, or even old enough to vote. I also know that some transgender people vote Republican. (Yes, it’s true.) Many are registered Independent. When Transgender Americans talk to the DNC, they don’t need to get into those details. “One Percent” is all the DNC needs to know.

What I personally would like to see is an increase in registered Democrats in the transgender community and to see an increase in transgender people volunteering with the DNC at a local level. I would also hope to live long enough to see an openly transgender person speak from the podium at the Democratic National Convention and to see an openly transgender person elected to Congress. This is truly the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION in our lifetimes. It is time for the Democratic Party to fully recognize us a part of their party, on all levels. They appear to be doing that. Now, it’s time for us to help Democrats on all levels of government to win in 2008.


Monica F. Helms is one of the founders and president of TAVA, the Transgender American Veterans Association

Ralph, Stay Out In 2008

The news that Ralph Nader is considering another futile run for the presidency next year brought back all those angry feelings that I still harbor for him because of the 2000 election.

If you want to piss off a Green Party member, tell them that Ralph cost Al Gore the election. So I'm not only gonna say it, I'm gonna crunch the numbers and back it up.

Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election.



So Naderites, before we get started, spare me whatever spin you've come up with to salve your guilty consciences. Your Nader votes made it possible for the worst president in my lifetime to take office. (I was a teenager during the Nixon years) The blood of 3000 plus dead soldiers is on YOUR hands. The conservative Supreme Court majority we have is YOUR fault.

And it's all because you and Ralphie boy lacked the vision (and failed to listen to us Texans) to see what a disaster a Bush presidency would (and has turned out to be) for our country.

Before we start, here's the basics. In the 2000 election Gore received 266 electoral votes, Bush 271. 270 is the magic electoral vote number to win office. Gore actually received 267, but one DC elector didn't cast their vote in protest over the Florida travesty. I'm going to presume that Nader votes are progressive ones that I'll add to Gore's totals and Buchanan ones are conservative that I'll add to Bush's.

Let's start with the two states that the 2000 election hinged on, New Hampshire and Florida.

Ralph pulled enough votes from Gore in New Hampshire to swing the state in Bush's direction along with 4 critical electoral votes.

Gore 266,348
Bush 273,549
Nader 22,195
Buchanan 2,615

Now assuming Ralph (and Pat) aren't in, lets take their votes and add them to the respective candidates totals. (Nader votes=progressive ones, Buchanan votes =conservative ones) I reject the Naderite assertion that without him in the 2000 race those voters would have stayed home. That's bull feces and y'all know it. The 2000 election was critical to our country's future and everyone knew it.

Gore 266,341 + 22,198 = 288,556
Bush 273,559 + 2,615 = 276,174



No Nader, and Gore not only takes New Hampshire but the presidency as well. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes puts him over the top and makes Jeb and Katharine's thuggery in Florida irrelevant.

Gore 267 + 4 = 271
Bush 271 - 4 = 267


Moving on to Florida. Remember the Supremes stopped the recount. At that time the vote totals were:

Gore 2,912,293
Bush 2,912,790
Nader 97,495
Buchanan 17,484

Check out the new totals with Nader votes going to Gore and Buchanan ones to Bush.

Gore 2,912,293 + 97,495 = 3,009,741
Bush 2,912,790 + 17,484 = 2,930,274

Gore not only wins Florida, it's not even close enough for them to steal it. That adds 25 more electoral votes to the Gore column and your new electoral vote total is:

Gore 267 + 4 + 25 = 296
Bush 271 - 4 - 25 = 242

That means we have no Supreme Court intervention, no Iraq War, an erasing of our national debt by 2009, a 6-3 PROGRESSIVE majority on the Supreme Court with a Latino/a judge sitting on the bench...

Shall I continue listing what Ralph and y'all screwed up besides a Gore presidency?

Naah, think I'll drop some more political science on y'all. Y'all desperately need a refresher course in it.

In that 2000 election there were six states, Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota and New Mexico worth a total 55 electoral votes that Gore narrowly won.

Nader polled 29,374 votes in Iowa, and Gore only beat Bush by 1144 votes there. In Oregon, the 77,357 votes he received there had Gore trailing most of the night until a late surge gave him a 6715 vote win. In Wisconsin, the 94,070 votes he received made it so close Gore only won by 5708 votes there.

Washington was a nail biter most of the night thanks to the 103,002 Nader votes cast there. Gore eventually pulled it out and won by 78,825 votes. In Minnesota, the 126,696 votes Nader garnered there also made that state uncomfortably close but Gore won that state by 59,607 votes.

In New Mexico the 21,251 votes Nader got almost cost Gore the state. Gore won by a razor thin 566 votes.

So what you Naderites say? Here's the problem. Because of Ralph, in the closing weeks of the 2000 campaign, instead of using that precious time to attack Bush in Missouri and Ohio and going home to Tennessee to mend fences he was forced to defend what should have been friendly turf.

Gore lost Missouri by 78,786 votes, Tennessee by 80,209 votes and Ohio by 165,019 votes. No Republican gets elected without having Ohio in their electoral vote column and that's where Gore needed to be, not in the Pacific Northwest and the Midwest. He could have also spent time in West Virginia, which he lost by 40,978 votes.

The only thing I can take solace in is the fact that the 'there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats' line has been exposed for the lie it is. The last 7 years have proved there's a major difference when Democrats run thangs as opposed to when Republicans do.

There's one other thing you Naderites need to chew on. If you want progressive policies for our country, you definitely aren't going to get them by helping to elect CONSERVATIVE politicians.

Ralph, stay home in 2008. You've done enough damage to our country.

All-American Presidential Forum

Friday, June 29, 2007
By: Associated Press and BlackAmericaWeb.com

WASHINGTON (AP) A historically diverse field of Democratic presidential candidates -- a woman, a black, an Hispanic and five whites -- denounced an hours-old Supreme Court affirmative action ruling Thursday night and said the nation's slow march to racial unity is far from over.

"We have made enormous progress, but the progress we have made is not good enough," said Sen. Barack Obama, the son of a man from Kenya and a woman from Kansas.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first female candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, drew the night's largest cheer when she suggested there was a hint of racism in the way AIDS is addressed in this country.

"Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country," said the New York senator.

In their third primary debate, the two leading candidates and their fellow Democrats played to the emotions of a predominantly black audience, fighting for a voting bloc that is crucial in the party's nomination process.

One issue not raised by questioners, the war in Iraq, dominated the past two debates. Queries about AIDS, criminal justice, education, taxes, outsourcing jobs, poverty and the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina all led to the same point: The racial divide still exists.

"There is so much left to be done," Clinton said, "and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes."

While the first two debates focused on their narrow differences on Iraq, moderator Tavis Smiley promised to steer the candidates to other issues that matter to black America. In turn, the candidates said those issues mattered to them.

"This issue of poverty in America is the cause of my life," said John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee.

Said Obama: "It starts from birth."

Obama criticized President Bush's No Child Left Behind program. "You can't leave money behind ... and unfortunately that's what's been done," he said.

Clinton spoke of her efforts in Arkansas to raise school standards, "most especially for minority children."

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden urged people to be tested for the AIDS virus, noting that he and Obama had done so. Cracked the Illinois senator: "I just want to make clear I got tested with Michelle," his wife, Obama said drawing laughter from the predominantly black audience.

The debate was held at Howard University, a historically black college in the nation's capital.

Black voters are a large and critical part of the Democratic primary electorate, making the debate a must-attend for candidates seeking the party's presidential nomination.

A half century of desegregation law -- and racial tension -- was laid bare for the Democrats hours before they met. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court clamped historic new limits on school desegregation plans.

Clinton said the decision "turned the clock back" on history, and her competitors agreed.

The conservative majority cited the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case to bolster its precedent-shattering decision, an act termed a "cruel irony" by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent. The 1954 ruling led to the end of state-sponsored school segregation in the United States.

Obama, the only black candidate in the eight-person field, spoke of civil rights leaders who fought for Brown v. Board of Education and other precedents curbed by the high court. "If it were not for them," he said, "I would not be standing here."

Biden noted that he voted against confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion. He said he was tough on Roberts. "The problem is the rest of us were not tough enough," he said, seeming to take a jab at fellow Democrats. "They have turned the court upside down."

All the Democratic candidates in the Senate opposed the confirmation of conservative Justice Samuel Alito, another of President Bush's nominees. Clinton, Biden and Obama voted against Roberts; Sen. Chris Dodd voted for his nomination.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the first major Hispanic candidate, said race is about more than passing new laws and appointing new justices. "The next president is going to have to lead," he said, vowing to do so.

Dodd said "the shame of resegregation in our country has been occurring for years."

The nomination fight begins in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states with relatively few minorities. But blacks and other minority voters become critical in Nevada, South Carolina and Florida before the campaign turns to a multi-state primary on Feb. 5.

About one in 10 voters in the 2004 election were black, according to exit polls, and they voted 9-to-1 for Democrat John Kerry. In some states, blacks make up a bigger share of the voters. In South Carolina, for example, blacks made up about 30 percent of the electorate in 2004, but were more than half of the voters in the state's Democratic primary.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only black governor, introduced the candidates with a warning that a dispirited GOP "is not enough to elect a Democratic president nor should it be. We need to offer a more positive and hopeful vision ... to run on what we are for and not just what we are against."

Among those in attendance were entertainer and activist Harry Belafonte, congresspeople Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings and John Lewis; National Urban League President and CEO Marc Morial, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Children’s Defense Fund founder and president Marian Wright Edelman and noted scholar Cornel West.

“This is really historic," syndicated columnist DeWayne Wickham, who has covered every presidential campaign since 1984, told BlackAmericaWeb.com in an interview before the debate. "In the tradition of the black press, we seek to tell our own stories."

“This debate was relevant. It connected with African American people,” Rep. Jackson Lee (D-Texas) told BlackAmericaWeb.com. She went on to say it was provocative. “It was a real debate, real issues for real people in a black environment.”

Two women in the audience who declined to give their first names said they enjoyed the debate, but wished the candidates could have gone more in-depth.

“Overall, I thought the debate was good, but some of the candidates played it too safe,” said Y. Thompson from California. “Tavis echoed what many in the audience thought. Hilary was an excellent venue for this kind of forum.”

R. Smith from Washington, D.C. said she would have liked to have heard more of what she called the “urban agenda,” but she liked that the candidates dealt with “racial disparity, health issues, Hurricane Katrina and issues pertaining to New Orleans.”

“Clinton was strong on three issues: Health care, Darfur and AIDS,” said Dr. Silas Lee, who joined the Clinton campaign as a pollster from New Orleans, focusing on black issues related to Hurricane Katrina. He said he thought, though, based on conversations with several audience members, that a number of people wished they had heard more about the living wage, affordable housing and health care.

Colorado State Sen. Peter C. Groff, executive director of the Center for African American Policy at the University of Denver and publisher of Blackpolicy.org, said this debate was the toughest to date for the Democratic candidates.

"One can make the argument that this was the most challenging debate for the candidates since it wasn't all about Iraq. For the first-time to date, candidates were required to consider other critical issues other than the war in Iraq,” Groff told BlackAmericaWeb.com in a statement. “The issue of war remained a sub-text throughout, but this debate seemed to satisfy a general hunger for discussion on other major bread-&-butter issues. The forum was a great opportunity for presidential candidates to answer questions about the unique issues facing African-Americans and Africa. It is the first time in the history of the republic that all major candidates for president were gathered -- on an HBCU campus no less -- to discuss these issues."

The Republicans candidates will engage in an All-American Presidential Forum at Morgan State University in September.

"Regardless of what you think about Sen. Barack Obama, Obama was in a unique position," Groff said. "He had to ‘prove’ his authenticity -- a role not required of any other candidate -- while not pandering or acting ‘too black’ for the remaining 80 percent of the electorate. He had to strike a balance between authenticity and preventing general election campaign fodder for his potential GOP rival who could use footage against him as a racial wedge issue.”

“The debate was a lot of conversation of agreement and little clarity of the distinctions between the candidates,” said Dr. David Anderson, radio talk show host and pastor of Bridgeway Community Church in Columbia, Md.

“Clinton was the clearest communicator about the disparity of AIDS, race, health care and had a strong response to the tax burden issue between the wealthy and middle class. Richardson gave a succinct and cogent response to the tax problem by recommending a policy to give tax breaks and holidays for corporations that invest in our inner cities. That was one of the most practical statements of the night, in my opinion," Anderson told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "Obama was clear on trade with Africa, which was right on."

"I do think Sen. Obama missed an opportunity, however, when the candidates were asked about Darfur and how America did nothing in Rwanda,” Groff said. “This should have been an opportunity to 'remind' Biden, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson and Clinton of their inaction on Rwanda despite previous influence, and that many remain in those same positions today while faced with genocide in Sudan."

“The night's most disingenuous moment is when Sen. Dodd roundly criticized today's Supreme Court ruling on race in public schools despite his voting ‘yea’ for the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts,” said Groff. “This should have presented an opportunity for both Tavis Smiley and panelists."

Dem Debate at Howard University

I was stuck at work when it happened Thursday night, but I was happy to finally see for the first time in my life a presidential primary debate that tackled issues of importance to my community, even if I did have to catch the repeat on C-SPAN. I did get to see the post debate focus group made up of African-Americans on PBS last night in addition to the C-SPAN interview Tavis did Friday morning.

The 90 minute Democratic debate was organized and moderated by Tavis Smiley and televised on PBS Thursday night. It brought all eight current Democratic candidates for president to the Howard University campus in Washington DC to answer questions on issues that haven't been discussed in the other debates such as HIV-AIDS, criminal justice, education, taxes, outsourcing jobs, poverty, the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina and the hours old 5-4 Supreme Court conservative majority decision placing new limits on school desegregation plans.

The other unique feature was that it had African-American and Latino journalists Michel Martin, DeWayne Wickham and Ruben Navarrette asking those questions. The audience was also packed with African-American leadership ranging from entertainer and activist Harry Belafonte, congresspersons Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD)and John Lewis (D-GA)to National Urban League President and CEO Marc Morial, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Children’s Defense Fund founder and president Marian Wright Edelman and noted scholar Cornel West.


As to who I'd like to see get the Democratic nomination as of June 2007, it's a toss up between Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) with John Edwards running third. That still leaves much room for me to change my mind between now and when the primary elections actually start getting cranked up in February 2008. I'm not making my final choice until probably December 2007 or January 2008. But whoever ends up with the nomination by the time the convention occurs in Denver, I'm pleased with the quality of candidates we have in the Democratic primary and wouldn't be disappointed in the final outcome.

Sen. Clinton already according to some polls has 40% support in the African-American community and did plenty in this debate to ensure she not only holds on to it, but set herself up for the opportunity to build on it.

Sen. Clinton garnered the loudest applause of the night when she stated in a response to a question on HIV-AIDS, "Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country."


Sen Obama has a burden that the other candidates don't. He has to prove to many African-Americans that he's with us on our issues while not alienating his middle of the road predominately white support by not appearing 'too Black'.

African-Americans will be the decisive voting bloc in the Democratic primaries and the 2008 general election. While Hispanics outnumber us population wise, what many people forget is that they don't vote in the consistently high sustained numbers that African-Americans do and that some of that Hispanic population growth is made up of people who aren't eligible to vote yet. In 2004 African-Americans were one of of every ten voters in that election and that vote went 9-1 for Sen. John Kerry. In South Carolina, where an early primary test will be held February 5, African-Americans cast 30% of the votes in the 2004 election and were 50% of that state's 2004 Democratic primary voters.

In September there will be a similar Republican forum at Baltimore's Morgan State University for the Republican candidates. That will be the only debate featuring the GOP candidates I'll bother watching. It'll be fun to see them squirm while having to answer questions that address African-American concerns they've ignored.

Is the Lone Star State Turning Back To Blue?

I've been saying for several years now that the current GOP dominance of Texas is a temporary thing because of the Lone Star State's longer history as a bastion of progressive populist politics and the cyclical nature of politics in general.

A recent DSCC poll conducted from April 11-15, 2007 of 800 registered likely voters has some interesting findings. The polls plus-minus error rate was 3.5%

*Texas voters give President George W. Bush a negative job rating (47% positive – 51% negative) and they are split in their opinion as to whether their family would be better off with a Democratic or Republican majority in the United States Senate (41% Democrats – 43% Republicans).

* A strong plurality of Texas voters believes the country is headed in the wrong direction (34% right direction – 49% wrong direction). Voters give President Bush an even more negative job rating on his handling of Iraq (41% positive – 57% negative).

* Republican John Cornyn has lower than expected name recognition for an incumbent US Senator, with 40% of the electorate unable to rate Cornyn either favorably or unfavorably. Overall, Senator Cornyn’s favorability rating is 41% favorable – 19% unfavorable.

* Senator Cornyn’s re-elect vote preference against a generic Democrat is under 50% (47% Republican John Cornyn - 38% Democratic candidate - 15% undecided).

With 2008 being a presidential election year could Texas finally be carried by a Democrat for the first time since Jimmy Carter accomplished the feat in 1976?

Cornyn's plummeting popularity coincides with a long overdue resurgence in the Texas Democratic Party. In the November 2006 elections they sent former US reps Nick Lampson and Ciro Rodriguez back to Congress. The most delicious part of Lampson's victory is that he now represents the congressional district of the man who in 2003 Delaymandered him and five Democrats out of office during an unprecedented and contentious mid-year partisan redistricting.

That midyear redistricting resulted in the Democratic House and Senate contingents relocating to Oklahoma and New Mexico in order to deny the Republicans a quorum to conduct business. The GOP-controlled Lege couldn't come to consensus on what to do about Texas public school financing system despite being under a court ordered deadline to fix it, but Governor Rick Perry in order to do Delay's bidding called two special sessions specifically for the redistricting issue over the objections of many Texans.

Six new Democratic state representatives were elected to whittle the GOP margin down to 81-69 and put them within striking distance of regaining the Texas House. They also swept local, judicial and county races in Dallas and Hays counties. Last weekend a DSCC fundraising event in Austin raked in an astounding $1.1 million from supporters throughout the state. Back in my home county, according to the most recent credible polling data more Harris County voters call themselves Democrats than Republicans by a 43% to 33% margin.

It's positive trends like this across the state that have Texas Democrats energized. They are determined to take the Lone Star State back from the peeps that ruined it in the first place.

Many Texans are weary of 13 years of total Republican control of state government that has brought massive debt, scandal, reactionary policies and inaction on many issues. They remember how the late Ann Richards as governor from 1990-1994 efficiently erased a $6 billion debt, turned it into a $2 billion surplus, had the most inclusive administration in Texas history and through her magnetic personality got several major companies to relocate their corporate headquarters to Texas in just a single term.

Texas is also considering legislation to move the 2008 primary date up from early March to February 5. With Texas being a major electoral vote rich state, moving up the primary date would force presidential candidates of both parties to spend more time actually campaigning in The Lone Star State instead of treating it like a political ATM machine.

For national Democrats to continue their momentum toward becoming the majority party they have to get Texas back in the game. The Texas Democratic Party has to channel the spirit of great Texas women such as Ann Richards, Billie Carr and Barbara Jordan. They also need to combine it with the political courage of Ralph Yarborough and Barbara Jordan's rock solid ethics. They've also got to be in it to win it. Texas Dems can't be 'scurred' to articulate their mesaage against peeps whose 'proven conservative leadership' campaign mantra only proves how well they muck up things and gay bait to cover it up. Never again should an election happen in which every top statewide office went uncontested as it did to my disgust in 2000.

It looks like they may finally be doing just that. It couldn't have happened at a better time.

Barack Obama Is More Than 'Black Enough'

One of my TransGriot readers posted this commentary on the blog concerning Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama

Monica sistergirl,

I am sooooo fed up with people talking about whether Obama is black enough like Black people are actually sitting around arguing about it. I've made it clear to people that I think it's nothing but rehashing *other* people's stereotypes of blacks as being anti-education, driven by a herd mentality, and just plain silly but people insist that it's a real issue put forth by "prominent black leaders". Would you mind lending your eloquence to this subject? I'm eager to hear your thoughts.

Since TransGriot strives to be an interactive forum, I'll honor your request to add my two cents to this ongoing debate about whether Barack is 'Black enough' for the African-American community.

One of the painful legacies of slavery is African-Americans who aided and abetted our slavemasters. Whether it be the Black folks who 'told massa' when the slaves were planning a revolt or an escape' or helped thwart our progress during the Jim Crow era and beyond (see Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas and other Bush misadministration Negroes as current examples), we have always been vigilant about being taken in by 'Oreos'.

Barack's appeal to the white electorate in this country, while refreshing, makes him suspect to many peeps the African-American community. His story as a kid that was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a white mother from Kansas who didn't grow up in the hood but in Indonesia (and in their mind doesn't have any ties to the Civil Rights Movement leadership many of them detest) has many African-American people asking questions. We wonder whether he would be an effective advocate for those of us who did grow up in the hood, who never forget HOW we got to these shores in the first place and how much fighting we STILL have to do just to get our rights as human beings and American citizens respected.

Personally, I like him. I plan on reading his books Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope . I like a lot of what he has to say in terms of what's wrong and what's right with this country because much of it mirrors my own views in many ways. I'm encouraged by his record as an Illinois state senator, by what I've heard about him from my relatives who live in Chicago and by some of the policy stances he has laid out.

My concern is whether Barack Hussein Obama would actually get to stand in front of the Capitol building on January 20, 2009 and take the oath of office as the 44th President of the United States.

I have observed throughout my life that African-Americans have a hard time just getting elected to statewide office. Granted, Barack is the sitting junior senator of Illinois. But I have seen enough of the GOP slash-and-burn win-at-all-costs election tactics to know that if they're losing, they will not hesitate to negatively use race to keep the White House in their hands (ask Harold Ford, Jr. and Harvey Gantt about that). They know that 10% of this country's electorate will not vote for an African-American no matter how qualified he is and that's a sizable enough chunk of votes in a close election to turn it.

We African-Americans define leadership in a different way as University of Maryland professor Dr. Ron Walters points out.

The task of Black leadership is to provide the vision, resources, tactics, and strategies that facilitate the achievement of the objectives of Black people.

These objectives have been variously described as freedom, integration, equality, liberation, or defined in the terms of specific public policies. It is a role that often requires disturbing the peace. And we constantly carry on a dialogue about the fitness of various leaders and the qualities they bring to the table to fulfill this mission.

This standard is what Barack Obama is being evaluated by in the African-American community. Contrary to what conservatives think, we are not monolithic lemmings who reflexively vote for anything with a 'D' behind their name or as Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann and the GOP found out last November we don't vote for peeps or support them just because they're fellow African-Americans either.


As Dr. Julia Hare said during the recent Tavis Smiley 'State of the Black Union' event at Hampton University, there's a difference between Black leaders and leading blacks. Right now we're trying to figure out which category Barack fits in. And let's be real here. It's only March 2007 and the first presidential primaries don't happen until January 2008.

If he is deemed to be a Black leader after some introspective thought, debate and input from the various sectors of the community, you will see his support rise. If he doesn't pass that community litmus test we will support the candidate who we deem not only has the best chance to get elected but who will pursue our interests once he or she is sitting in the Oval Office courtesy of our votes.

Barack Is In!

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - (AP) Democrat Barack Obama declared himself a candidate Saturday for the White House in 2008, evoking Abraham Lincoln's ability to unite a nation and promising to lead a new generation as the country's first black president.

The first-term senator announced his candidacy from the state capital where he began his elective career just 10 years ago, and in front of the building where in another century, Lincoln served eight years in the Illinois Legislature.

"We can build a more hopeful America," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery. "And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for president of the United States."

Obama did not mention his family background, his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia or that he would make history if elected president.

Instead, he focused on his life in Illinois over the past two decades, beginning with a job as a community organizer with a $13,000-a-year salary that strengthened his Christian faith.

He said the struggles he saw people face inspired him to get a law degree and run for the Legislature, where he served eight years before becoming a U.S. senator just two years ago.

"I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness, a certain audacity, to this announcement," Obama said. "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.

"Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done," he said. "Today we are called once more - and it is time for our generation to answer that call."

Obama, 45, gained national recognition with the publication of two best-selling books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," and by delivering the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. His optimistic message and his compelling biography immediately sparked talk of his White House potential.

Initially he said he would not run for president. But he said last fall that he was considering it after receiving so much encouragement. He formed a presidential exploratory committee last month.

Despite his thin political resume, Obama is considered New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief rival among many vying for the Democratic nomination.

Obama planned to travel throughout Iowa on Saturday and Sunday before a rally Sunday night in Chicago, where his campaign has its headquarters.

He planned to visit New Hampshire on Monday on the heels of front-runner Clinton, whose first visit to the state as a presidential candidate over the weekend provided some early competition for attention from Obama's announcement.

Thousands of people in their warmest winter wear came out for Obama's campaign kickoff despite temperatures in the teens. The crowd huddled in close for warmth and to squeeze into the closed off streets around the Old State Capitol.

"This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us," said Bethany Scates of Ridgway, Ill., who drove four hours with her family for the announcement.

Brenda and Michael Calkington of Muncie, Ind., said they have never been involved in a political campaign, but both were laid off from jobs with a lighting company and plan to volunteer for Obama.

"He makes you feel like it is possible to change things," Brenda Calkington said.

She seemed to be reading from Obama's songbook.

He spoke of reshaping the economy for the digital age, investing in education, protecting employee benefits, insuring those who do not have health care, ending poverty, weaning America from foreign oil, fighting terrorism while rebuilding global alliances.

"But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq," Obama said. "America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war."

Obama was not yet elected to the U.S. Senate when Congress voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, but Obama gave a speech in 2002 opposing the war. He said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and predicted the invasion would lead to an occupation with undetermined costs and consequences.

Obama has introduced a bill to prevent President Bush from increasing troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008 - legislation that has virtually no chance of becoming law while Bush is president.

Obama's address was steeped in American history.

He talked how previous generations have brought change - fighting off colonizers, slavery and the Great Depression, welcoming immigrants, building railroads and landing a man on the moon.

He repeatedly referred to Lincoln and his success in moving a nation. He said it is because of Lincoln that Americans of every race face the challenges of the 21st century together.

"The life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible," Obama said. "He tells us that there is power in words. He tells us that there is power in conviction. That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people. He tells us that there is power in hope."



Associated Press writers Deanna Bellandi and John O'Connor contributed to this report.