( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

If the polls are right — and they are reinforced by the abundant signs of panic in the national GOP — then our nation is about to survive a close brush with the Ghost of Richard Nixon.

One of the tragically underreported aspects of the 2000 campaign was the fact that Dick Cheney was not (as he was usually depicted) the wise grey eminence who could rein in the young, impetuous W. He was, indeed, Richard Nixon’s revenge. He firmly believed in Nixon’s broad view of executive power and Nixon’s contempt for checks and balances and constitutional rights.

The Bush Administration has been a combination of the worst aspects of Nixon and Reagan. Nixon’s unconstitutional excesses and invasions of privacy; Reagan’s tax-cut-and-spend fiscal trainwreck and kowtowing to the religious right; both men’s warmongering tendencies, politicization of the federal bureaucracy, and ruthless demonization of political opponents.  

So now the Republican Party offers us John McCain, probably the last major political figure who learned his lessons during the Nixon years. McCain still believes — as does Cheney — the discredited view that we “lost Vietnam” through a lack of political will. Hence the endless commitment to the quagmire of Iraq. And while McCain has sometimes been at odds with Bush, he has said nothing to disavow Bush’s power-grabs and invasions of privacy.  

McCain’s occasional (and oh so beguiling to the chattering class) maverick forays are straight out of the Nixon playbook: Nixon did, after all, open the door to China, establish the EPA, and expand some Great Society programs. He did some positive things, in other words, while otherwise taking a sledgehammer to our political and social systems.

There are clear echoes of Nixon in McCain’s campaign tactics: sliming his opponents, lying about Obama with a straight face. And repeating those lies endlessly, even after they’re thoroughly discredited. And doing it with a fakey Nixonian smile on his face. And refusing (except for that one town meeting) to disavow the even worse things that his surrogates have said.  

Picture an undead Nixon as Emperor Palpatine, looking on the work of his political heirs with an evil cackle. And imagine his unrestrained glee if McCain actually captured the White House, and continued the Nixonian transformation of America into a Big Brother oligarchy that operates for the benefit of the rich and powerful and seeks to impose its will on the world.

Assuming Obama wins, he will face the daunting task of dismantling the executive powers and unconstitutional excesses pioneered by Nixon and promulgated by Bush-Cheney. Obama the politician will have to deny himself the advantages of the Nixonian brand of political power. He will have the opportunity to tear down — or firmly establish — the Nixon/Reagan/Bush vision of government.

In other words, to continue the Star Wars analogy, he will have to choose whether to be Luke, or Anakin, Skywalker. If he chooses wisely, the Emperor Nixon might finally fade away into history.  

(I was about to write something up about it.  Thanks for saving me the trouble 🙂 – promoted by JulieWaters)

I hope you are reading this story in your morning paper and it is making you as mad as hell on a bunch of different levels.

Gaye Symington called out Jim Douglas yesterday on using taxpayer money to help his campaign. And did a pretty good job I think because the Douglas campaign still has NO answers to why they are flat out stealing from Vermonters:

“It's unfortunate that she's taken this low road in an attempt to distract the voters from the important issues,” Casey said.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2008/10/29/symington_says_douglas_spends_public__on_campaign/

Ironic considering the negative ads Douglas has been running against Symington are clearly “an attempt to distract the voters”

Casey argued that much of the expense of Douglas' travel is due to the state trooper who drives and provides security for the governor and the official vehicle in which they travel.

“… much of the expense…” OK, even if we take that for face value, how about the rest of the expense?

Dean reimbursed the state for his own travel costs, paid them himself to begin with or had organizations that supported him pay them. But he declined to pay for the trooper who traveled with him, saying it wasn't his decision that he should be accompanied.

Uhm… Douglas incurs NO personal expenses?

“According to Howard Dean's own finance reports, he traveled only 1,800 miles in 2000 for campaign stuff. That's about four trips to Bennington. That's ridiculous. That's not accurate,” Casey said.

And instead of answering the charges, they attack Dean? Funny if it wasn't so maddening…  

Still waiting for an answer from Douglas, Casey, Gibbs, or anyone who can answer how every other elected offical in the country repays their government. Oops, I know one. Sarah Palin (supported by Douglas) doesn’t think she needs to repay Alaska for personal expenses while being Governor.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_pr/palin_ethics_complaint;_ylt=AnObRONCeYyisFW6gkhuiMUEtbAF

(Ok, not exactly the same, but close, which just proves every other elected official repays the government while mixing business and campaigning)

Also a quick interlude, Casey is Douglas’ campaign manager and very surprising it is NOT Jason Gibbs responding to this scandal. The Douglas campaign uses Gibbs eight months a year as a spokesperson, which is another theft of taxpayer money. And another whole story.

Lastly, if you missed Shay’s original article, Casey is usually a state employee, paid for by you guessed it, your taxpayer money. She was busted misusing government resources for campaign purposes and will go back to getting paid by the taxpayer as soon as the election is over.  You don’t think Casey and Gibbs ever do any “campaign” work in their government jobs do you?

And don’t give me any bull about how everyone does it…

(Good job, Nate! – promoted by JulieWaters)

UPDATE: A Call For You to Act, please.  (We can't forget to say, “please.”)

Please call WCAX, WPTZ, Burlington Free Press and Vermont Press Bureau this afternoon and tomorrow.  Please be willing to offer your quote on this issue.  This is your opportunity to affect the decision with more influence than your vote.

What you need to know:  The AG met on this issue and has taken the position that there is no legal violation here.  However, please call the print and television reporters in follow up. 

Here is my official response for the record.  Please call and follow up in similar vien.  Thanks for your help.

“While the AG has made a decision in regard to the law, Douglas has clearly violated his own Code of Ethics.  Amazingly Douglas is now questioning the integrity of former Governor Dean, who reimbursed thousands of dollars to Vermont taxpayers over 5 election cycles.  The question of integrity lands at the feet of Governor Douglas as he refuses to accept his responsibility to and continues to pass the blame to anyone else he can accuse.”

Two weeks ago Shay Totten broke the story about Jim Douglas campaigning on the taxpayer dime in “The Governor's Free Ride.”  In his report, Totten refers to Vermont's Personnel Policies & Procedures regarding the appropriate — and inappropriate — use of state property.

Yesterday, Gaye Symington added Governor Douglas' 2003 Executive Code of Ethics as she demanded accountability on this issue.

In addition to the inappropriate use of state proprety, Symington called out Jim Douglas for his use of state funds to support his campaign.  Douglas has now repeatedly dismissed this concern, despite the fact that every government official, business owner and private accountant understands that co-mingling of funds violates standard practices and general rules of accounting.

To make a comparison, every business owner in Vermont is well aware that co-mingling of business and personal funds is neither ethically correct nor legally accepted. In the private sector, such co-mingling of funds carries the risk of an audit, fines, penalities and possibly legal charges from the IRS. 

Prior governors separated official business expenditures from their private campaign expenses, reimbursing the state when the expenses overlapped in a way they could not prevent.  Vermont's other statewide elected officials, including the Auditor, Treasurer and Secretary of State, would not be excused for co-mingling public resources within their private political campaigns.  Despite the standards practiced by every other leading official in Vermont government, it appears that Governor Douglas feels he is “beyond reproach” and therefore not required to separate or reimburse public expenses from his campaign in 2004, 2006 and now again in 2008. 

How much money are we talking about?  Without transparency or the use of standard accounting it's impossible to know for certain.  According to Totten's “The Governor Gets a Free Ride,” Howard Dean reimbursed Vermont taxpayers to the tune of $7500 over 5 election cycles.  But Douglas has been a bit more lavish on himself than Howard Dean.  One of his first initiatives as Governor in 2002 was to give himself a raise in salary by more than $30,000.  Add to this circumstantial evidence Douglas' constant trips around the state, and it's even more difficult to estimate expenses incurred for his security detail.  

This isn't the first time Jim Douglas has turned his back on his empty Code.  In April of 2007 Douglas appointee, Neale Lunderville, attempted to bribe Representative James Fitzgerald.  As reported by Ross Sneyd, Fitzgerald said Lunderville offeed $50,000 for a highway project in Fiztgerald's district in exchange for a “no” vote on major budget bill.  At that time, Douglas defended his former campaign manager, then Secretary of Transportation.  Lunderville has since been promoted to the highest post in government for politcal appointees as Douglas' Secretary of Administration.

Both then and now, Douglas has participated in clear violations in ethical practices and standards of conduct.  Additionally, he has refused to take corrective action.  In 2007 House Speaker Gaye Symington wrote a formal letter to the governor in response to Lunderville's bribery attempt, calling for the creation of a state ethics code in law.  Douglas refused, suggesting that members of both the executive and legislative branch are, “people who for the most part are above reproach.”

People above reproach should not be people above the law.  Perhaps this is why Jim Douglas refused to help Symington strengthen the code of ethics with the force of law. 

How much value do Vermonters place in the ethical practice of government?  Do business owners and accountants believe that the IRS will overlook obvious co-mingling of professional and personal funds?  How do we hold our public officials accountable when we are told they are “above reproach?”

Two days ago, Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of lying about financial gifts he recieved from an oil pipeline services company, and yet he continues to run as a candidate for office.  While Jim Douglas hasn't engaged in criminal activity, his easy dismissal of ethics violations and personnel policies echoes the perplexing audacity of politicians who don't accept the fact that they must be held accountable.  The only measure of accountability preventing Ted Stevens, a convicted criminal, from continuing his campaign as an incummbent, is the force of peer pressure. 

Since Governor Douglas refuses to measure up to his own standards of conduct and Code of Ethics, Vermonters must hold him accountable on November 4th.  A governor who dismisses ethical violations should be summarily dismissed from office.  

UPDATE, Oct. 30, 11:25am:  Formal Complaint filed with AG below the fold.  Times Argus article and link provided.

From the Times Argus:

To:  The Attorney Generals Office

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

I think this recent ad from the

Vermont League Of Conservation Voters has got to be one of the best in the gubernatorial campaign. This is the kind of messaging that works.

Great attack, I especially like how the production quality, refreshingly, doesn’t suck. I hope they bought a LOT of airtime.  

Go figure.

Today I received my second Robo-Call from the spouse of arch-conservative, chickenhawk, Bush corruption enabling WhackJob John Cornyn of Texas.  Mrs. Cornyn is dutifully helping her Big John in his reelection bid.

Either Acorn transferred me to Texas when I wasn't looking or this is one extremely and ambitiously wasteful GOTV effort, even by Texas standards. This is now (at least) the second time I am aware that Sandy Dearest Cornyn has called to remind me to vote in “my” district in Texas (.WMA file).

I hope this means there is a Republican in Texas (who thinks he has an Vermont 802 area code) and who is also in the process of forgetting to vote.  More hopefully, this is probably a healthy anecdote of the state of Republican GOTV when it comes to finding willing campaign workers.  Seems there is a chronic lack of volunteers with dialing fingers and enthusiasm for a notoriously shitty stable of GOP candidates, such as the delusionally unhinged War-Pig from Texas whose wife keeps calling me at home. 

Robocalls are ubiquitous.  However, if you listen to the text of this one, you will hear that this call is targetted to the identified faithful. A lack of people willing to volunteer for GOP campaigns like Cornyn's and make the personal calls to party generated “Identified Republican Voter Lists” (shit, I am still shaking my head over this one) leads to these types mistakes.

Seriously folks, how hard is it to explain to the phone bank programmer that “802” is NOT in Texas? Does a crudely cynical conservative Christofacistzombie running in another time zone really need a memo to know that yours truly is not registered as, sympathetic to, voting with or amendably disposed toward, Republicans at any level?

So. The Obamamercial has come and gone. Little to no content, but there was never going to be any content. If that’s what you were looking for, you were fooling yourself.

This was always about campaign theater. Heartstring persuasion writ large. And as a former electioneer myself, I could hardly wait. Nobody has ever done anything like this before, and I was dying to see what they would do and how well they’d pull it off.

And wow, did they. They nailed it. Just enough schmaltz. Sprinkles of the beginnings of policy content throughout, to give the illusion of content. This was a universe removed from Ross Perot and his charts and likely homed in like a laser beam on many in the swing voter set.

Now would I like beef? Content? Sure. But again, this wasn’t made for me. I knew that going in. Judged on its own terms against its own goals, I think it was a freakin’ masterpiece. And the fact that the last World Series game was forced into a rain delay in what otherwise could’ve been the series finale – that was an act of god, man. Having the World Series audience as a lead in bumped this to a whole new level.

Wow. We’ll see the ratings. If nobody watched it, I’ll have to eat my words, but I think we will see this create a noticeable bump in the polls.

Gotta say, this makes me crazy.

Looks like our Democratic US Representative hasn’t just dissed his own Party’s candidates, he’s doing it to candidates for the very body he recently led – the State Senate. Here’s a postcard from Republican Senator Phil Scott that’s been circulating in the county at this 11th electioneering hour, which is accompanied by comparable ads in Montpelier and Waterbury periodicals – possibly more (and yes, it sounds like it is an authorized use of the quote as I’m told party leaders just slumped their shoulders when confronted with it):

It’s bizarre and frustrating. Yes, Welch has formally endorsed the Democratic candidates, and yes he’s even doing some campaigning with them – but this is a freaking disaster. Dems had a solid chance of picking up a seat, as they came very close last time. This time, one of the Dem challengers looking to join incumbent Ann Cummings under the dome is from Barre Town (Laura Moore), which has been a virtual vote-black-hole for county candidates. With an eye towards breaking that trend, the future was looking rosy indeed until news that the Progressives were running John Bloch as well. Bloch will not do well overall, but he will perform respectably in Montpelier where he is a local face. Those votes will largely come at the expense of Moore, rather than repeat candidate Kim Cheney, who is also a Montpelier-area figure.

What that means is that this is going to be a nail biter after all – a nail-biter that could easily turn on only 50 votes.

And this postcard could easily – easily – be fifty votes. It will be fifty votes. There’s no two ways about it. Why Welch didn’t give him the quote but expressly restrict it to non-campaign use is beyond me.

And it doubly sucks because the Washington County Senate Candidates seem to be the Rodney Dangerfields of the Vermont Democratic Party. They also come out on the losing end of the VT NEA’s endorsements, as the union gave the nod to incumbent Dem Ann Cummings, but also Progressive Bloch and Republican Bill Doyle (who – incidentally – voted for the two-vote budget law, which was the litmus test cited in the passing over of Gaye Symington for Anthony Pollina, and that lack of consistency is telling).

The NEA thing is maddening. Cheney always comes within spittin’ range of winning and the former Attorney General is a solid lefty. Laura Moore is a total rising star and is even on her local school board. Being kicked to the curb by the teachers’ union in the face of a token “R” is pretty bad. Being shoved out in face of a “P,” on the other hand, is hardly a surprise, though, as the major unions are apparently working under a collective unspoken rule that any “P” on the ballot is an automatic endorsement. Honestly, if I were a Dem running for office and there was a Prog in the race, I wouldn’t waste my time with even talking with them about an endorsement any more.

Fortunately, most Dems are pro-labor without needing an official stamp of approval, but its bizarre that Vermont unions are willing to hang their hats entirely on individual Dems’ better selves.

But I digress. As a Washington County Democratic Party officer and former Chair, this stunt by Welch merits a big BIG response from self-identifying Dems. It could well be handing the Republicans a Senate seat at the expense of an ally. Outrageous. Honestly, I was shocked.

I encourage all to call Welch’s campaign office and give him a piece of your mind. From what I hear, this was borne out of cluelessness rather than untoward intent.

Let’s give him a clue.

(802) 658-0600

http://welchforcongress.com/contact

Something NOT about the guv's race…

There's been so much to digest and enjoy with the ever-expanding rightwing implosion. So many of us have waited so long for this, it's still “pinch me, I must be dreaming” for me sometimes. What makes it even better is the fact that for many of them, they seem to be completely incapable of any serious self-criticism or introspection… the dominating lizard brain simply seems to not allow it.

Many of the so-called “intellectuals” (who, I might point out, like Brooks, Noonan, and such are still consistently wrong on most things, but are at least able to use something more than monosyllabic words and grunting to communicate) are, if not jumping ship completely, seriously lamenting how the GOP has completely been taken over by the anti-intellectual fringe, those who have elevated ignorance and incompetence into signs of personal virtue. Christopher Buckley, son of Bill, founder of the con rag National Review, is actually voting for Obama now becuse the kooks have thoroughly taken over the party.

And it's going to get worse (actually better, from where most of us are standing).

It's been the conventional wisdom that when a party/faction loses as big as the GOP is expected to, they often lurch further to their extreme before settling into things. We're seeing this already. Just poke around the net, far and near, you'll read how McCain is losing because he's just “not conservative enough' or some other blather that is based on the erroneous assumption that we are not just a conservative nation, but a batshit-insane conservative one. If they had only cut more programs, bombed more countries, discriminated against more people, cut capital gains taxes more, if only… You get the point. It's ridiculous. They don't get it.

So I've been seeing a lot of articles like this one, and I get all giddy: Social Conservatives Fight for Control of Republican Party. They really don't seem to understand that humanity and society changes. It's why we don't burn witches anymore or think the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is only 5-10 thousand years old (oops.. scratch that last one.. we're talking about social conservatives here). Young people, especially, who have gay friends and friends of every color seriously won't resonate with the messaging; they're more likely to be repulsed by it, actually. And so it goes:

In skirmishes around the country in recent months, evangelicals and others who believe Republicans have been too timid in fighting abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration have won election to the party's national committee, in preparation for a fight over the direction and leadership of the party.

I'm surprised none of 'em have tried to blame the financial meltdown on gays getting married. I'm sure it's coming.

But, what's been really taking me to previously unknown peaks of giddiness is the ones like this that  I've been reading:Win or Lose, Many See Palin as Future of the Party. That's all fine and dandy, as it is ensuring the GOP remains a marginalized, fringe party for some time to come.

“She’s dynamite,” said Morton C. Blackwell, who was President Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the conservative movement. Mr. Blackwell described vying to get close to Ms. Palin at a fund-raiser in Virginia, lamenting that he could get only within four feet.

“I made a major effort to position myself at this reception,” he said, adding that he is eager to sit down with her after the election to discuss the future. Asked if the weeks of unflattering revelations and damaging interviews had tarnished her among conservatives, he replied, “Not a bit.”

Of course not. She's idiotic, corrupt, and incompetent, and she believes in the vengeful nasty God who protects her from witchcraft, hates gays, and cares more about the unborn than the already born (bomb 'em! starve 'em!), so she's exactly what the base is looking for. Let them groom her, get her to pronounce big words and learn where Moscow is. Maybe they can actually get her to read some books without pictures, too. I can't remember the article, but it was similar, and some spokesperson said something along the lines of, “People saw some interviews, and the reporters made it seem like Palin was really dumb”. Did you get that? It wasn't what she said that made us think she was dumb, it was the reporters telling us that made us think that. Okay.

Now, I don't even think she'd win the primary, because although they talk this stuff now, after four years of Democratic dominance, you'd think they'd catch on and not try to cast their campaigns as “the war on thinking”. Maybe the fear of an imminent attack by an Arabic gay army weilding aborted fetuses and mochachinos will shock them into a change in direction. Probably not. And if the Dems actually have some measure of success, forget about it.

It's really an epidemic, as Monibot's latest in the Guardian points out:

Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people. US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD. But this merely extends the mystery: how did so many US citizens become so stupid, and so suspicious of intelligence?

One theme is both familiar and clear: religion – in particular fundamentalist religion – makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing.

There's a whole lotta stupid in this country, and Palin personifies that like no other mainstream candidate has before. So there is both sadness and joy in this. Sadness, in that it does a lot of damage to this country. Just look at the last 8 years. But there is also a joy in knowing that, since much of the success the GOP has had is due to this same anti-intellectualism, that they're not going to just cast it away any time soon. You betcha!

Well now ,how about this,more pleasantly surprising than early snow.It is a serious charge that needs to answered by the Governor,not just brushed aside.Maybe this will contribute some other questions about Gov.Douglas’s permanent PR campaign.

Symington, the speaker of the Vermont House who is challenging the Republican incumbent this year, said her opponent was “exploiting” the taxpayers by not reimbursing the state of Vermont for his political campaign expenses.

The Democratic candidate for governor referenced a recent newspaper report that showed former Gov. Howard Dean reimbursed the state for thousands of dollars in campaign expenditures when he held office – but that the Douglas campaign has not followed that same standard.

“It is galling that at a time when an increasing number of Vermonters are losing their jobs, Jim Douglas is using Vermonters’ tax dollars to campaign to keep his own job,” Symington said during an afternoon press conference at Montpelier’s City Hall.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps…

Here’s my last dispatch before the election for Huffington Post’s Off the Bus. Hope you enjoyed. – Christian

Jack Shaheen, a sort of one-man anti-defamation league, is the author of the groundbreaking work “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People,” which is also the subject of a documentary film. A former CBS News consultant on Middle East Affairs, Shaheen is one of the world’s foremost authority on media images of Arabs and Muslims. Other works include “Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture,” “Nuclear War Films,” the award-winning “TV Arab,” and his latest is “Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs after 9/11.” In “Guilty,” Shaheen examines Arab images in more than 100 post-9/11 movies, and addresses other issues at play since 9/11 that affect public perceptions of Arabs and Muslims. OffTheBus caught up with Shaheen to discuss Arab and Muslim portrayals in the 2008 election and how an Obama presidency can make a positive impact.

The 2008 presidential election is forcing many Americans to deal with issues pertaining to Arab and Muslim culture. How has traditional media outlets handled the issue and what can we learn?

Jack Shaheen: From the beginning most media systems, print and broadcast, were content with the defamation of all things Arab. I say that because if you go back to when Hillary Clinton was being interviewed on “60 Minutes” and was asked if Obama was a Muslim or not. Clinton responded, “Of course not” rather than countering with, “No he’s not a Muslim. He’s a Christian. What if he were, so what?” She could have said what Colin Powell only recently said, which was, “If there’s a seven-year-old Muslim, a boy or girl out there who wants to be president, why shouldn’t they be?” Powell is the first major American figure to really spell this out. It took forever, but it shouldn’t have taken this long. Even before Powell spoke up, one had to credit Campbell Brown of CNN. She commented on it and said “So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab. It doesn’t make a difference.” Maureen Dowd wrote also wrote about in the “New York Times” but it was Powell who took it a step further. But by and large, there hasn’t been much said.

The other thing that concerns me is most major newspapers did not report about a DVD that was released and distributed (in key battleground states) to sway voters. “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” The DVD is as about as anti-semitic or anti-Arab as it can get. The fact that newspapers throughout the country (with the exception of the “Saint Louis Post-Dispatch” and others) accepted this DVD willingly without commenting on it, without bringing out the fact that it is one of the most racist DVDs ever released, this is something Goebbels would be proud of if he were alive today. There was very little commentary on that. I think it went out to 28 million homes throughout the country.

It’s time for more journalists to really address this issue and I’m hopeful that after the election this will come out and much more will be said. I think there’s a reluctance now because the McCain people and the conservative base has said, in affect, that he is a Muslim and an Arab. By writing about it and saying he’s not and so what if he is, might create more doubt and hurt Obama in the election. As far fetched as that may sound, I think that may be one of the main reasons why there’s been silence.

What do you make of Obama’s reactions to being called a Muslim?



He’s mentioned from time to time that Islam and Muslims are good. He hasn’t done it that often but he has done it to some extent, said that we should not target Islam and we shouldn’t target Muslims. He has not been as forceful as he could be, primarily because the fear that some people would perceive him as a Muslim and that in itself is a tragedy. If he were white and Muslim, that would be bad enough but because of his color and the fact he’s being tagged a Muslim is very difficult. It’s like “driving while black,” and God help him if he’s a black Muslim! So I think it makes it that much more difficult for Obama. I do think once he’s elected, this will be one of the items he will address. He is a unifier and he will somehow address this issue.

Is this bigotry a stand-in for anti-black racism? Or is this kind of bias against Obama due to his marginal past associations with Islam, his being a child in Indonesia, etc.?

I think it’s both. I think many people don’t want to say they’re not voting for him because he’s black. No one likes to admit they’re prejudice. You talk to a bigot and say “you’re bigoted,” they’re going to say, “no I’m not.” We don’t like to admit that. But it’s safe to say “I won’t vote for him because he’s a Muslim” or “I won’t vote for him because he’s an Arab.” You can get away with that even in liberal circles. So in an a way, Arab and Muslim have replace the n-word. You can get away with it. Just like movies and television shows that target Arab and Muslim-Americans as terrorists. These portrayals have worked their way into the psyche of many Americans.

Has either candidate contributed to the bigotry?

I think McCain contributed to it (when the McCain supporter) asked if Obama was an Arab and he said “no, he’s a decent man.” What he should have said is “No, he’s not an Arab or a Muslim-American. But if he was, so what? He’s a decent human being… just like most Arab and Muslim-Americans are.”

The Internet in general has helped democratize media coverage. Do you believe that it has made some impact in bringing about appropriate portrayals of Arab and Muslim-Americans?

That’s a difficult question. I follow mainstream more than I do the Internet. I still believe that mainstream media rules the day. I certainly think the Internet has helped Obama, but I also think it reinforced the attitudes of those who would swear on the Bible that Obama is a Muslim or an Arab. I think Huffington Post is a great Web site. Many of my friends go to it. I think that’s helped a lot. But I think people go to the Web looking for sites that reinforce their beliefs. I really believe change will have to come from the top. The only person to speak out with any eloquence has been Powell. What he said has to be expanded. We can’t let these comments filter down into yesterday’s news. It just has to stay alive.

I am optimistic. In time, I think Obama will address this. Given his world views and approach to issues, eventually it will be OK for someone to say “Oh, you are a Muslim” or “Oh, you are an Arab.” Eventually it will be acceptable and embraced in a small town when someone says “Gee, they’re building a mosque” instead of saying “Oh my God, no.” They will say “Gee, isn’t it wonderful to have a mosque next to a synagogue and next to a church?” This is America, this is what it should be. We need leadership that will take us to that point. We don’t need another scapegoat. We have vilified so many people for so long with blacks, Asians, Jews, and others. It’s time we stop vilifying all things Arab and all things Muslims. I’m confident that Obama will do his best to change this.