Perhaps not a surprise here, well, to anyone except celebs, that the public seems to be feeling this intersection of politics and celebrity less and less in the SmartPower era. Why? No matter how well meaning they appear, many just seem to feel that they are not grounded enough to take on today's challenging social shift. Transparency, organics: this is what people are looking for, but it seems celebs are not getting the memo. Yet, in an era where it's all about leaderful, who can blame them for wanting to self-determine just as the rest of society. It's just that this particular group is seen as entitled and not quite solid enough to fill that trust-deficit that is running rampant in society. Sorry, Ashley, looks like you may have to settle for those Independent Spirit Awards (which is really not bad, at all!)
Lighter news in the political realm today turns to actress-activist Ashley Judd. For those who may not know, Judd has been gearing up as candidate to take on the powerful Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a battle for Kentucky. However, reports say that despite the money and media attention she would bring to the race, she does not seem to have former President Bill Clinton's vote. Instead, Clinton has approached Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes to challenge Senate Mitch McConnell in 2014. Clinton reportedly told Grimes during a private meeting that he and Hillary Clinton would support her candidacy. Unfortunately for Judd, this new possible candidate might be a challenge especially after Judd's comment comparing coal mining to "rape". Let's see what politicos think.
I thought the Ashley Judd thing was a gimmick, but now it appears the left is obsessed with mounting a challenge to McConnell. I don't know whether it is because they think he is weak or because they want the appearance of attacking GOP strength. They seem to want a female candidate, probably to use gender as a wedge issue...
Interesting intersection on politics and race here. It is interesting to note the comments that say that one should focus on the "best" rather than diversity, as if diversity somehow means that sub-standard individuals can only be selected. It is this type of thought, along with the concept that there is "race-baiting". While it is clear that a new race theory is being called for in a country fast-moving toward plurality, it seems that a large part of that discussion will involve politics and politicos. As we re-define hierarchy, the volume around these questions will be raised in politics, enterprise and more.
It has not gone un-noticed that all of President Barack Obama's nominees for cabinet are all white males. John Kerry for secretary of state, John Brennan for CIA director and Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. The media, for the time being, seems to be on Obama's side criticizing those raising concerns over the cabinet's diversity reminding that, for example, Obama's first choice of secretary of state was Susan Price, an African-American and a woman. According to reports, Obama has a better diversity record than his two predecessors and still has more secretaries to appoint to his second-term cabinet. What does the court of public opinion say?
We should be glad that Obama realizes that ... only the best ... should get those positions. All that affirmative action garbage is good for corporate America and McDonald's. ... We must consider qualifications on this one.
It's awesome that the party who judges each and every person based on the color of their skin is suddenly having it thrown back in their face. ... Now, it's "ridiculous". If you live by the race baiting sword, you die by the race baiting sword. ...
... It is reasonable to question why a Cabinet doesn't have more diversity ... Where a white male doesn't seem uniquely qualified, or a woman or minority is at hand and seems to have been passed over ... The irony is that the people who could question this Cabinet are women, racial minorities, and so on. For any conservative ... to raise the question is ludicrous and pathetic ...
To discuss racial influence in making a decision or not, that is the question. If one admits race influences choice (as it obviously sometimes does with many based on even the Harvard Google Voter Racism Study of the '08 campaign), one must not say this on television, it seems. If sociologists and scientists are demonstrating that negative behavior and opinion is based on certain triggers that can be actually seen in the brain as a result of attitudes toward race, is it then possible that it could also influence behavior overall? This now wades into an arena that is very deep and early in its research. But it's definitely a touchy subject because many people like to believe we live in a meritocracy where, because the society was so NOT that initially, that a meritocracy is not quite, quite hard to achieve. But at least it is being to be discussed. Again, don't believe the hype. This ain't post-racial America, Jack! Not yet, until we unravel more of sentiment, biology and goals for the future.
Former White House Chief of Staff unsder President George W. Bush said on CNN that part of the reason why former Secretary of State, in the first Bush Administration, endorsed President Barack Obama is because of his race. Sununu also added that he applauded Powell for standing behind someone of his own race. Obama responded to the comment by saying it did not make much sense because American know and respect Powell for his credibility and saying things straight. So what do Americans have to say about it?
I lost some respect for Powell. How can you be a Conservative your whole adult life and then all of a sudden vote for a Liberal just because he's black? ... Color should have nothing to do with it. ... He's my guy as long as he's competent.
Anyone else think it's damn weird that men are having these conversations and making decisions about women and their bodies when they have no idea what it could ever feel like to be raped as a woman and/or go through pregnancy (as maybe overall sentiment expressed by Comment 1 below)??? This new development, in addition to what has been said to be a new "war on women" is curious to watch in the age of great flux. But look closely, this is really about a larger issue of control and dominance and the continual shift from that of those who were in power traditionally. Sociologists are saying that the shift in male power over females is indicative of further and further signs of disruption. If that is the case, could this be one of the few remaining battle areas and one of the most appropriate, the uterus. "Throughout history, ideas about women's bodies have been used to reinforce and/or challenge women's social position," as per this hot link http://www.fwhc.org/roseweitz1.htm Do check out this cool Infographic of sorts and then think about who you are going to vote for, and why.
Republican Todd Akin, who is running for Missouri Senate, said he opposed abortion after rape because women rarely became pregnant from legitimate rape. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan said they disagreed with Akin and found his statement insulting. Ryan and Akin co-signed a bill that included the phrase "forcible rape." President Barack Obama said rape is rape and cannot be categorized on different levels. He said he would support abortion for rape victims. Republican now urge Akin to quite the Senate race. And the people say....
Romney can always pull out his Etch-A-Sketch on this ... but Ryan has no way to hide from this - he has always explicitly stated that he opposed abortion in ALL cases, except to save the life of the mother. His attempt at passing an amendment defining a fertilized egg as a person should dispel anyone's notion that Ryan is any less radical than Akin. ... "Small government conservatives" please get out of our bedrooms ... and certainly get out of women's uteruses! ...
... No claim is made about what aspects of the Akin's statement Romney and Ryan disagree with. ... Nor is any claim made about Ryan's view of abortion for rape victims. ... Ryan can remain personally opposed, but the statement effectively creates a different impression. ...
Watch out when politics collide with race. Unavoidable and more present each week. What is most interesting from the comments is that people are beginning to address more and more sentiment about what they see as themes of excluding, intentional divide and more. These are issues that the general media has yet to really address, but "the people" are watching...and thinking along these lines. However, are the candidates? Let's continue to track what develops.
The Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney recently delivered a speech to the NAACP. He said that he would work to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and was booed for it. The black audience members booed Romney also for saying that Obama's record proves he hasn't done enough on the economy and other matters, and that he himself would be a president who makes the lives of African-Americans better. The NAACP chairman, Benjamin Todd Jealous, said in a statement that Romney's stated agenda was "antithetical" to the group's interests. Thoughts from the comment-sphere?
As predicted, Romney's campaign goes into full tilt boogie spin control and claim the boos were directed at the public hatred of ObamaCare.” … Somebody is clueless about his audience. … He must be on his third Etch-a-Sketch this week. … Either his team needs a few replacements or he isn't smart enough to manage a team. … This is why the GOP is working so hard at excluding so many people from voting. If you don't vote you don't matter. … Why is Romney talking to the NAACP anyway? … So the question is whether this was an unintentional gaffe or/and intentional ploy to get a soundbite of a bunch of blacks booing that would play well with the GOP base.
They booed because, obviously, Romney is not running on the platform of helping the middle class and poor. He’s running on eliminating programs and policies that help the middle class and poor in order to support more tax breaks for him and other wealthy Americans. … The Jewish founded, funded, and organized NAACP is doing exactly what it was invented for - divide society into as many small groups as possible. … Can we talk about “voter blocks” and “special interest groups” now? … Nobody expected black people at a racist NAACP convention to embrace Romney. Did you?
He took the boos like a man and stood his ground whereas Obama would have been all "No no no no no, hold on now.” … He should have said: “In order to take care of those in need of affordable healthcare – I will find a better alternative to the current healthcare bill.” … He should never say Obamacare ever again. … I don't know why he even bothered talking to NAACP. … I guess Romney did ok under the circumstances, but his campaign did not prep him well at all.