Maybe this one is better:

Mike Hudson responded in comments to my earlier, Kunzian, jab at his weekly column.

thanks for the traffic alan! i think i got two clicks already!

…

by the way, i didn’t call obama “uppity,” hardly mentioned clinton at all, merely stated that irish, italians and jews have been voting their own for years so why shouldn’t blacks too? and, after pennsylvania, i’ll hold you to the importance you place on the popular vote, alan.

the column was not directed towards obama, who i will vote for if he makes it to the general election, or to his black supporters. it was directed against upscale white suburban twits whose support he would be better off without. you know who you are.

and as for mike, who wants to use a column item about eigth street i wrote two weeks ago to brand me some kind of racist, that’s my neighborhood, buster, and if you want a second opinion you ought to ask (the overwhelmingly black and decent) members of the block club who will tell you the same thing.

So, Mr. Hudson is a kind of free-tabloid, latter-day version of Tom Wolfe, providing biting commentary on white elites pandering to radical revolutionaries. Only with crappier suits.

Let’s begin with the article itself, which claims that Obama has built a unique coalition of:

poor, inner-city blacks and well-to-do white suburban liberals who fled the cities in order to get away from the poor inner-city blacks.

Taken within the context of the entire rest of the piece, Hudson is basically saying that black people are, by definition, poor inner-city denizens. The premise, evidently, is that there are no poor rural black people supporting Obama in places like Mississippi or Georgia. Nor must there by any middle or upper-middle class black people supporting - well, anyone.

After a brief lesson on the all-too-familiar concept of identity politics, Hudson goes after his pet peeve, limousine liberals.

The term “limousine liberal” is always a handy epithet to hurl when one supposes he has the moral high ground. If class struggle is your thing, then go for it. But the revolution is not coming, and if it does, it will be televised.

On Fox News.

Interestingly, and bringing it back to the presidential race, the term “limousine liberal” is now most often used by the right as an epithet against the left. Now, Mike, I thought you were a good anarcho-socialist who lives amongst decent black people, and I therefore figured that your anachronistic epithets towards me would be more current. I mean, they used that one against Lindsay in the 60s. It’s 2008. “Limousine liberal” is now thrown around by the likes of Limbaugh and Krauthammer. And Ostrowski, evidently.

On top of that, I’ve only ridden in a limousine I think 3 times in my entire life.

Although Hudson says the piece was more about ridiculing Obama’s white supporters (which is sort of sickening in itself), he does indeed decry the fact that Obama has mucked it up for Hillary:

Over the past six months, these vermin have combined to turn what was a certain Democratic victory in November into a question mark. The party itself is so badly fractured that the likelihood of everyone forgetting about what was said and done in time to unite against John McCain seems remote.

That’s the Obama coalition and, except for the black people, I don’t think I want any part of it. It’s about enough to make me support McCain myself, as a matter of fact.

There are loads of examples of very heated primary campaigns resulting in the ultimate uniting of the party behind the ultimate nominee, and there’s no question that will happen this year. In fact, Obama and Clinton are in headlines daily, getting their messages out there, while McCain is an afterthought deep in the national section of the paper. And to think all those disingenuous white people have the nerve to support Obama. Hypocrites! [/sarcasm].

Hudson’s allusion to a 40+ year-old short story where the protagonist is alleged to be prejudiced towards black people, instead of against is something I’m not comprehending.

I have my reasons for supporting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, and the word “black” or “African-American” or whatever the fuck people would like to pin as my motive for said support is not even remotely on the list.

Perhaps I am rather shallow, easily swayed by a good speech and gullible in matters politic. Perhaps I am foolish to believe that a candidate might be able to transcend decades’ worth of idiotic political, racial, and gender cleaves to bring the country together after 8+ years of division so that we work together for a common good.

Perhaps I am naive not to support the wife of the former president, a woman who is despised by half, and adored by the other half. Perhaps she is whom I should support, lest I have too-cool-for-the-room tabloid publishers accuse me of being a reverse-racist hipster tool.

Luckily for everyone, I suppose, I trust Hudson’s judgment as little as he trusts mine. I value his opinion as little as he values mine. Because, as the old adage goes, opinions are, indeed, like assholes.

The moment someone touts his competence to bear witness to the plight of black people because he lives near black people, and that black people “love him”, it’s game over. Unless, of course, that person is, himself, black. Mike, last I checked, you’re as white as I am.

But back to the issue at hand. This blog began as a paean to a Presidential candidate from 2004. It has morphed into the garbage it is today because I like to write things about things that I find interesting. However, I have been finding political candidates who inspire me, or anger me, and I then write down what I think about all that. It’s what I’ve done time and time again for the past 4+ years.

Hudson continues:

[Obama’s] supporters have pointed to his opposition to the war in Iraq back when it started in 2003 as evidence of his great wisdom. I opposed it too, wrote a bunch of columns about it and everything, but I wouldn’t vote for me for president. Opposing a war, or anything bad, when you’re not in a position to do anything about it really doesn’t amount to much.

Hillary Clinton was in a position to do something about it. FAIL.

Anyway, last Tuesday, after weeks of indignantly demanding that Hillary Clinton do the right thing and drop out of the race, the Obama cultists were shocked and stunned when she beat their man like a rug in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas.

For someone who is such a stickler for facts and accuracy, you may want to revisit the Texas results. They’re still being tallied, and by today’s math, Obama has 98 Texas delegates, and Clinton has 95. My math tells me Obama’s winning Texas. But I’m a rich white kid, so what the hell do I know?

In six weeks she will do the same thing to him in Pennsylvania, and thus will have beaten him in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, Nevada and most of the other key Democratic and swing states, while he will have won caucuses for the most part in states like Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota, where his “O-Mentum” isn’t likely to prevail against John McCain or any Republican in November.

Perhaps not, but what evidence is there to conclude that Ohio or New York or California would not vote for Obama if he is the nominee come November? None whatsoever. Hudson’s talking out his ass.

I realize Hudson is the coolest, if not the smartest, hep cat in the room at any given time, but this blog doesn’t pretend or boast to be anything except for my opinions about things. I realize full well that I’m the dumbest limousine liberal white boy on the planet. Hudson is free to ascribe to me whatever motives he’d like.

So, to Hudson’s point, if you think I’m supporting Obama because he’s black, and because I’m overwhelmed with white guilt about the black plight because I live in a nice neighborhood that is diverse only in terms of the European and Asian countries represented therein, you are welcome to it.

But you would be wrong. And then maybe give Geraldine Ferraro a call. She holds some similarly anachronistic opinions you might find more palatable. She also agrees with you, being one of Clinton’s top surrogates and higher-profile supporters.

I received an email today from the Independent’s Open House blog, asking me to write about whom I’m supporting for President in today’s primary and why. Here’s what I wrote:

The first time I visited the UK was in 2005, in the midst of a parliamentary election. I envied the fact that the entire race would be resolved in a matter of weeks, rather than months - or years. As our current months-long election season dragged on, I was unsure of whom I would be supporting. The slate of Democratic candidates was quite varied, and for a long time Iraq seemed like it would be the primary issue on people’s minds. I was originally leaning towards New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, whose foreign policy resume is most extensive.

In January, the race started in earnest and it quickly became evident that Richardson was running for Secretary of State or Vice President. The field narrowed to Barack Obama, and my state’s Senator, Hillary Clinton.

What struck me about Obama was his earnest call for change; not just change as typical political pablum, but real, stark change. He is the first political figure in a generation who can truly say that his appeal transcends identity politics, and promises real unity across racial, ethnic, religious, and party lines. Read the rest of this entry »

At the regular monthly meeting of the Clarence Democratic Committee last night, the members heard from the two candidates for the 26th Congressional District seat now held by Tom Reynolds (R-Clarence).

Alice Kryzan spoke first, touting her legal experience - particularly having represented the town in past litigation - and took questions ranging from desired committeeships to No Child Left Behind.

Jon Powers spoke next, and the young Iraq War vet from Clarence underscored his campaign theme of leading by example. He reminded everyone of his campaign kick-off picnic at the Clarence Town Park last June when about 250 - Democrats and Republicans alike - came out to wish him well. That sort of bipartisan support was telling, and since then he’s been traveling all throughout the district, talking to suburbanites and farmers, students and businesspeople, young and old, about his vision, why he’s running, but more importantly listening to them and their concerns.

After hearing the candidates, and a lively discussion about their various merits, the committee voted unanimously to endorse Jon Powers for Congress. They join Wesley Clark, Bob Kerrey, and the Democratic Committees of Livingston, Genessee, and Orleans Counties.

The problems affecting Western New York are, frankly, not particularly unique to our region. They’re far more widespread, and his voice won’t be alone in the wilderness when he gets to Congress.

The elephant in the room nowadays is two-time loser Jack Davis. In a recent Buffalo News article, he was quoted thusly:

…he feels compelled to continue to highlight the issue and will again commit at least $2 million of his own funds to the effort should he decide to run….

…Davis said he is aware of his two possible opponents in a Democratic primary but said he has no doubt that his considerable wealth would enable him to defeat both.

“If he wants to run a primary against me, it’s a free country,” he said of Powers. “But I don’t think I will have any trouble beating him.”

Davis built his fortune over a long career as an engineer and owns I Squared R Element Co. in Akron. He spent $2.25 million of his own funds against Reynolds in 2006, only to lose by 52 percent to 48 percent. He lost by 12 percentage points in 2004 against Reynolds, a major figure in the state and national GOP, after spending about $1.2 million of his own money.

In 2006, Davis was handed a gift called “Mark Foley”. Reynolds’ sloppy handling of his role in that fiasco is what brought Davis within striking range of winning. All his money couldn’t make up for the fact that he refused to do any actual campaigning. Shaking people’s hands and looking them in the eye - that helps people win. He ignored much of Monroe County, including the Town of Greece - Rochester’s answer to Williamsville and Amherst. Reynolds was then bolstered by FEMA’s response to the October Storm, and we know the rest of that story.

Davis has run twice and lost twice. On the surface, that shouldn’t be an impediment to someone making a third try. The difference this time is that we have two qualified candidates who are already in the race. I believe that Jon Powers is the better candidate, and has a better shot at defeating Tom Reynolds in November. But for Davis to waltz around with his singular issue of trade, and expect his millions to do for him now what they’ve twice already failed to do, is simply arrogant. Not only doesn’t he meet & greet voters, he’s not even a good enough debater. He does not deserve anyone’s endorsement, and should. not. run.

He should instead devote his money and effort into supporting the candidate who is running a broader campaign of issues and vision, who goes out and listens to people rather than dictating to them.

This is a winnable race.

But not with Jack Davis.

Jon Powers has earned the respect and admiration of voters throughout the district. He’s been campaigning hard, and readily admits that it’s a learning process for him. He’s got the integrity and the smarts to go to Washington and not fall into the trap of big money and shady influence.

He’s the kind of guy who remembers that, no longer whether you’re “red” or “blue” on the political spectrum, both of those colors coexist quite happily on our flag.

Yesterday in New Hampshire, an audience member asked Hillary Clinton, “how do you do it?” The reply:

This is the first time I remember Hillary Clinton showing any emotion in public beyond “happy” and “angry”. I don’t think there’s very much wrong with it. Surely, being on the trail for so long, and getting trounced by some young upstart at (and in) the polls, is taxing. It’s a hiccup in a long, otherwise completely normal national campaign.

It’s amazing that this choking up by Clinton, which didn’t amount to more than what, say, a pro ballplayer experiences when announcing his resignation, is engendering as much discussion as it is.

Some say she’s not being genuine. Luckily, most of that talk is relegated to the “Hitlery” crowd who hate her viscerally because she’s a Democrat and a woman. Witness the spectacle of Rush Limbaugh’s concern over this “set back” of feminism. Take some more hillbilly heroin, Rush.

Some say it shows she doesn’t have the mettle to be President. I think it shows that this country is more comfortable with the idea of a black president than a female president. Because no one mentions anymore that Mitt Romney has teared up on the campaign trail - twice.

In fact, it was John Edwards - that folksy guy with the sweet accent - who first suggested that Clinton’s tears underscore her unworthiness for the job. Edwards, therefore, is an a-hole.

In any event, the northern New Hampshire town of Dixville Notch voted at midnight last night, and the results are as follows:

REPUBLICANS

McCain 4
Romney 2
Giuliani 1

DEMOCRATS

Obama 7
Edwards 2
Richardson 1

I’ve been thinking more lately about the ‘08 Presidential race. Yes, I’ve looked on in horror as, e.g., Mike Huckabee’s star ascends in direct proportion to his attacks on Mitt Romney’s religion. I’ve been satisfied by Giuliani’s fall after it was learned that he fudged the books, Enron-like, to hide the fact that New York City was paying for a security detail to accompany him during trysts with his lover-now-wife in the Hamptons. And what about the Ron Paul Revolution? He can’t crack double digits, but he’s the nominee!!!!! Bank on it!!!!!!

On the Democratic side, I’ve been quietly supporting New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, but he’s not going anywhere. He’s run something of a clumsy campaign. It’s between Obama and Clinton. Richardson is running for Secretary of State at this point - a post for which he is eminently qualified. So, as between Obama and Clinton, I’m leaning very much towards Obama.

We need a sea-change in Washington. Among the Democrats, he’s the one who can pull it off based on his intelligence, his experience, and his penchant for openness and transparency. I get the impression that he’ll do what he can to dramatically alter the way Washington does business, and he’ll do it without pissing off everyone in his way. Then consider his major competition.

Hillary Clinton.

How much baggage do those two words come with? How polarizing is she? Remember the 1994 conservative backlash and how that helped deepen the divide between Democrats and Republicans? I don’t have any particular problem with her at all, but when I think of whom I want in the White House to follow up a Bush, I don’t think I want her. This country is in need of emergency repair - a uniter, not a divider. Hillary is a lot of things, but a uniter, she’s not.

Put simply, I don’t think Hillary Clinton is whom this country needs to lead it deeper into the 21st Century.

Read this passage from the Boston Globe’s endorsement of Barack Obama:

Obama’s critics, and even many who want to support him, worry about his relative lack of experience. It is true that other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes and have spent more time in Washington. But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government’s constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities.

In our view, the choice on the Democratic side is between Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton has run a diligent, serious campaign, and her command of the issues is deep and reassuring. But her approach is needlessly defensive, a backward glance at the bruising political battles of the 1990s. Obama’s candidacy looks forward.

Obama’s memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” is divided into three main sections. The first is a reflection on his youthful search for identity. The second recounts his days in Chicago, which include the first stirrings of a religious life. The third is a roots pilgrimage to Kenya, to better understand his often absent father. It is hard to read this book without longing for a president with this level of introspection, honesty, and maturity - and Obama published it when he was only 33.

We’ve had a Bush or a Clinton in one of the top two spots since 1981. Twenty-six years. I was twelve years old. It’s enough already.

Whom are you supporting and why?