…surrogates of the campaigns have traded accusations of whether the camps of the two leading candidates are trying to make race an issue in the Democratic nominating process.

“Senator Obama and I agree completely that neither race nor gender should be part of this campaign,” Clinton said during the debate

Bill Clinton says race shouldn’t be an issue in the Democratic presidential campaign.

There is a real disservice being done to this country this election season. A service typical of what happens when our national debates play out through the simplistic, self-serving filter of the national media.

Everyone is concerned that race is being made into an issue. Well, guess what? It is an issue. One we continue to avoid like the plague.

What people are reacting against, of course is the attempt to make racism a campaign tool. And that’s a very different charge. But, doing as the traditional media always does, the matter has been rhetorically hyper-simplified so much, it has morphed into something else entirely. The very topic of race is now a hot potato. Talking about race at all has been narratively linked to being racist through this language (or at the very least being anachronistic), and that’s crazy.

But of course, it’s not just the press. White America is replete with rationalizations for avoiding the topic, and is happy to embrace another one provided for them by the traditional media.

And in case you need a reminder about how much of an issue race remains for America, consider that African Americans as a group still lag White America in home ownership, standard of living, age-related mortality rates, access to health care, and the list goes on. And if you’re in denial that this is a systemic problem, consider the fact that hate crimes and hate groups are still a nationwide phenomenon.

Of course race should be an discussed this Presidential election. So should gender. They both remain critical issues across our country. Issues that still make everyone else very uncomfortable.

How absurdly ironic it is that the very fact we have a black man and a woman as viable candidates for the presidency has become our latest excuse to avoid the topic(s).

I am just back from Moscow, Sri Lanka and Singapore and was stunned at the level of interest in the US Presidential elections.  I was, repeatedly, interrogated at length about the primaries and the candidates.  I had a beer with one Brit who went on in excruciating detail about the brilliance of Rudy's Florida strategy (this conversation was before the primary there), but most of the interest was directed towards Obama and HRC.  Throughout the entire trip, in cabs, on planes, over dinner – the election came up constantly.

 I lived overseas through 3 presidential elections, but I have never seen foreign interest in a primary election process (the primary system is a bit like baseball to Europeans and Asians – they know Americans care about it, but they don't understand it).  

Roger Cohen in the NYT has his take on this phenomenon:

I am not quite sure I am ready to take the interest as a validation of our way of life the way Cohen does, but I do think it is an indication that our system does still have some vitality left in it.  

cross-posted from Integral Psychosis

By most accounts, the Vermont Democrats are void of a real, big name candidate for governor for this upcoming election because the conventional wisdom is that Douglas is more or less unbeatable.  For a wide variety of discussions about this, and the effects of Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina’s bid for governor, pop over to Green Mountain Daily, where the topic (rightly) gets plenty of airtime.  But anyway, the reality is that there is a rather deep list of Dems with statewide name recognition who are interested in taking a shot at becoming supreme leader of our small, mountainous social and political bubble (Dunne, Racine, and Shumlin to name a few).  However, the insiders all know that these folks are holding out for the 2010 elections.  Generally, there is a belief that Douglas will not seek re-election that year.  This logic, near as I can tell, is predicated on the rumor that by 2010 Senator Leahy may be announcing his retirement, at which time Douglas would throw his hat in the ring for a shot at that job; thus leaving the governor’s seat wide open for a Dem to step into.

Not comfortable leaving one of ‘their guys’ off the ballot, the Dems are floating virtual unknowns (Cambell, Galbraith) as possible sacrifices to the Douglas electoral juggernaut (a juggernaut created, no less, by the Democratic Party’s failure to run someone against Douglas for Treasurer for many years, giving the GOP do-nothing quite a bit of personal political momentum).  For the Democratic Party in the State of Vermont, the 2008 election is pretty much over, aside from the necessary lip-service that has to be paid to the chances of whoever the eventual challenger to Douglas becomes.

Oddly enough, this is more or less the exact same position that the Republican Party, on the national level, is in.  John McCain, as most of us should realize, is not quite “in” with the upper echelons of the GOP.  For what, I don’t know.  He’s generally typified by the mainstream press as the “maverick” of the Party- what this more or less means is that he has a slightly differing stance on a couple of issues than they do, I guess.  Or maybe he’s just always fucking up the secret handshake, or forgetting the words to the hymns they chant during ritual.  Make no mistake though, the national GOP leadership are loath to imagine a ‘President McCain’.  But, for so many friggin years he’s been like that annoying little yapper dog that, no matter how much you try to ignore, is still right at your ankles, nipping and yapping away in the ultimate test of “do I really believe kicking a dog to be immoral?”

At the same time, the GOP leadership can see the writing on the wall.  These folks may have indefensible moral and ethical beliefs, but they are not idiots.  They know that there’s a high degree of certainty that a Democrat is taking the White House in 2008.  I think that to some degree, they realize the possible trouble they could be in as a result of the drastic political polarization that Bush’s tenure has brought.  Because of the long-term problem this could be, and because over the past 8 years they’ve given themselves a pretty good hand at which to reap some serious money (don’t forget, that is the ultimate point of all this), they’ve resigned to the fact that they won’t be president one year from now.

Strategically, I think they’re quite comfortable letting the Dems take control, which over the next few years will allow the American people to slowly redirect their ire and angst from the GOP to the Dems, and which will give them a good shot at dethroning the prez in 2012, and probably a chance to take control of Congress before then.  Given all this, the GOP are allowing McCain to be their sacrificial lamb to the Dems for this coming election.  If they thought they had a chance, they’d certainly be running someone backed by the neo-cons.  At the same time, if the Vermont Dems thought they had a chance, they’d certainly be running one of their big stars.  

So the reality is that on the national stage, the GOP are allowing “not their guy” to give it a shot, simply because the leadership knows this one is  a loss anyway, and so they figure “what the fuck, at least McCain will stop yapping at us about his ‘turn’ to run for the top job’ and we can re-group and be ready to regain control in the next election.”  At the same time, the Vermont Democrats are saying pretty much the exact same thing, waiting for their ‘inevitable’ chance at the big time.  Kinda makes you glad to be a part of such a great political system, doesn’t it?

A couple week ago, Terri Hallenbeck ran a blog post about the Legislature’s House Ways & Means Committee’s first hearing on Governor Douglas’ proposal to lease the state lottery.  In her post, Ms. Hallenbeck attacked the committee for what she portrayed as a bias against the proposal that was so profound, the committee was refusing to listen to the administration.  

The tenor of her post was derisive and failed to mention the legitimate concerns the Committee expressed about the proposal (concerns no doubt shared by other state legislators across the country who have faced similar proposals – sometimes from Democratic governors – and have yet to accept one).

Yet within the last week, the House Ways & Means committee heard from the Douglas administration about the proposal, as did two Senate committees (Appropriations & Institutions).  While Nancy Remson may have been responsible for covering the House hearing, Terri Hallenbeck was seen at the Senate hearing.  

It will surprise few to learn that Ms. Hallenbeck failed to issue a blog post about that hearing.  After all, she had recently criticized legislators, writing: “Legislators, particularly those in the Democratic majority but Republicans too, fairly strongly oppose this proposal and are eager to discredit it. One doesn’t need testimony from supporters of the proposal to accomplish that.”  (Clearly insinuating that the legislators were not even going to bother listening to the administration’s idea.)

This is a perfect example of how reporters can exhibit bias subtly – sometimes it is not what they write, but what they don’t write.  Terri Hallenbeck publicly criticized legislators for not taking a specific action, and then ignores them when they do exactly what she said they should be doing.  It’s difficult for her readers (ie voters) to get an accurate picture of the work the legislators are going when she will only report on what they are not doing.

I’ve written about Terri Hallenbeck’s biased reporting in the past, and I will continue to do so.  I hope others will join me in chronicling the bias exhibited by her and other Vermont reporters.  Blogs have given us a chance to reach many of the same readers that Terri Hallenbeck continues to mislead.  Without our vigilance, there will be no voice to counter her biased and misleading narrative.

(view her post at: http://www.burlingtonfreepress… where did the hyperlink button go?