Four Obama Inspired Lessons for California Democrats – Part One

The Obama campaign should serve as a master class in winning elections for Democrats.

Unfortunately, not enough California Democrats are playing attention to the Obama campaign’s most important lessons.

As the effects of the state’s budget crisis and the nation’s economic meltdown hit more and more California voters, the Democratic Party has a once in a generation opportunity to convince voters that it that will protect and defend their interests far better than the Republicans, as well as make fundamental and progressive changes in the way that California is governed.

But to do so will require that Democrats embrace and implement the lessons of the Obama campaign.

These lessons are:

1. Blame Republicans and Present a Democratic Solution
2. Use the Internet
3. Expand the Electorate
4. Champion the Middle Class

Let’s look at them one at a time. [Note: For lessons 3 and 4, click here.]

1. Blame Republicans and Present a Democratic Solution

I recently heard a Republican leader of the state senate saying that the state’s $41 billion budget crisis was “not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, but a California problem.”

While that kind of non-partisan sentiment and high-minded rhetoric might be praise-worthy in another context, here it is just plain Republican spin.  Of course California’s Republicans don’t want to take responsibility for the budget mess and the impending collapse of state government and public services, despite the fact that they have caused it by creating the most regressive and ineffective state revenue system in the nation and by obstructing any and all solutions that would require that the state’s corporate and business interests to share the burden of solving the crisis.

But the Democratic leadership appears to buying into the Republican’s public relations campaign and failing to place the blame for the crisis squarely on the Republicans.

In his reponse to Governor Schwarzenegger’s State of the State address, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D- Sacramento) said that this is “no time for finger-pointing.”

If not now, when?

Throughout the presidential election campaign, Barack Obama consistently stayed on message and referred to the “Bush-McCain economic crisis.”

Why are California’s Democrats not referring to the “Schwarzenegger budget crisis” or the “Republican budget crisis”?

If the Democrats do not tell the voters that they should blame the Republicans for the state’s $41 billion shortfall and the impending collapse of state government and public services, who will?

Of course, blaming Republicans is not enough. California’s Democrats also need to present a clear Democratic solution to the state’s budget and economic problems.

During the presidential campaign, Obama talked about middle class tax cuts, investment in infrastructure, help for homeowners, and a stimulus package geared to getting America back to work.  His website contained detailed solutions to the country’s economic crisis.

What is the Democratic solution to California’s economic problems?

And where is it spelled out?

You won’t find it on the California Democratic Party website.

2. Use the Internet

During the presidential election, I received at least an email message per day from the Obama campaign.  And even now I receive several emails a week from the Obama administration.

But I’ve never received an email from the California Democratic Party.

(The Orange County Democratic Party does a much better job than the state party of using the Internet to communicate – thanks Melahat Rafiei!)

The California Democratic Party group on Facebook has 429 fans.  The website has not been updated since October 2008, before the November election.

The California Republican Party group on Facebook has 1,400 members.

The Internet is more than an easy, fast, and relatively inexpensive way to communicate.

It is also a potential game changer for California Democrats.

For years, the Republican Party has used direct mail to raise funds, project it’s message, motivate it’s base, and get out the vote.  It has developed extensive mailing lists and tremendous expertise in direct mail political marketing.

Democrats have been unable to compete with the Republican’s direct mail campaign – not least because direct mail is expensive.

But the Internet makes direct mail (nearly) obsolete.

It is also much less expensive.

The Obama campaign showed that Democrats can have a tremendous advantage over Republicans in Internet messaging and networking.

But to capitalize on that advantage in California, we have to use it.

Next: Obama Lessons 3 and 4: Expand the Electorate and Champion the Middle Class.

Rush to Judgment: Dems Fight Back Against Limbaugh

I’ve had fun listening to Rush Limbaugh’s tantrums since Barack Obama’s inauguration.

The right-wing radio windbag has practically exploded with rage and frustration — not only at Obama and the Democrats, but also at Republicans who might try to find areas of agreement with the popular president.

It was even fun watching spineless Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) — who had dared to defend the Republican party leadership against Limbaugh’s attacks — grovel the very next day and beg Limbaugh for forgiveness.

But apparently some Democrats are not amused.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to repudiate Limbaugh — especially his saying that he “hopes” that President Obama fails.

In an email sent along with the petition, DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff  writes that “Jobs, health care, our place in the world — the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed.  Creating real change requires every American stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s attacks — and all of the other partisan attacks from desperate Republicans that are on the way.”

This little flap might be giving Limbaugh too much credit.

But what the heck –

It feels good to fight back.

Especially when we’re winning.

THE PHOTO of Barack Obama’s Inauguration

Millions of photographs were taken of Barack Obama’s inauguration, but there is no question which is THE SHOT of the historic moment.

That honor belongs to David Bergman’s panorama.

Actually, it is not one shot, but 220 separate shots stitched together with a machine called a Gigapan Imager, a robotic platform for capturing very high-resolution (gigapixel and up) panoramic images from a standard digital camera.

Bergman explains:

“I covered my first inauguration and what an inauguration it was.  Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States in a ceremony on the west front of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC. Before Tuesday, I had photographed five presidents and covered big events including the Olympics, the Super Bowl, and concerts like Live 8 and Live Earth. But this one was the biggest. It deserved a big photo.”

“I made a panoramic image showing the nearly two million people who watched President Obama’s inaugural address. To do so, I clamped a Gigapan Imager to the railing on the north media platform about six feet from my photo position. The Gigapan is a robotic camera mount that allows me to take multiple images and stitch them together, creating a massive image file.”

“My final photo is made up of 220 Canon G10 images and the file is 59,783 X 24,658 pixels or 1,474 megapixels. It took more than six and a half hours for the Gigapan software to put together all of the images on my Macbook Pro and the completed TIF file is almost 2 gigabytes.”

You can use the controls to zoom and pan around the photo.

You can also double click to zoom in and double click again to get even closer and see the scene in amazing detail and clarity.

And you can see close-up the expressions of your favorite — and least favorite — politicians and dignitaries as Obama makes his inaugural address.

(You can make these panorama photos yourself.  My cousin, Geoff Fox, a meteorologist for WTNH TV in New Haven, Connecticut, and a gifted amateur photographer, recently made a spectacular panorama of New York’s Grand Central Staton using 51 separate shots.)

A Mom in the Senate? Oh My!

You wouldn’t expect to find anti-working mom bias in a column written by the first woman to become the editorial page editor of the New York Times.

That is, until you read Gail Collins’ snarky and demeaning Op-Ed column titled “The New Hillary” on Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

Describing Gillibrand’s press introduction as Hillary Clinton’s replacement in the senate, Collins writes that Gillibrand “thanked everybody on the planet and introduced her 8-month-old son who was, she explained happily, ‘a good eater and a good sleeper.’ Little Henry, we have since learned, was born shortly after Gillibrand spent 13 hours in the House of Representatives, voting on the farm bill and sitting through an endless hearing of the Armed Services Committee, where she successfully offered an amendment before moving on to the delivery room.”

From the condescending tone, it is clear that Collins thinks that Gillibrand should not have brought her 8 month-old son with her or spoken about him at an event intended to introduce New Yorkers to their new United States Senator.

How can we take this woman seriously, Collins implies with a rhetorical hand waving dismissal, if she brings her baby to her first appearance as a senator and – worse yet — talks like a mom?

Clearly this is an important issue to Collins, since she dedicates 64 of her column’s 800 total words to the unseemly (to her) spectacle of Little Henry appearing in public with his mother.

Doesn’t Gillibrand know, Collins implies, that being a senator is an important job?  Doesn’t Gillibrand realize that babies (and their mothers) don’t belong at important public events?

Every working woman in America knows how hard it is to combine work and family.

And every professional woman in American knows that it is still nearly impossible to climb the ladder of success with a baby in your hands.

Except, apparently, Gail Collins.

My Vote for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

It appears that New York Governor David Paterson is going to select Kirsten Gillibrand, a second term member of Congress from the 20th Congressional District, to take Hillary Clinton’s place in the U.S. Senate.

If he does so, it’ll be a great choice.

Gillibrand is young (born in December 1966), smart (she graduated magna cum laude from Dartmouth, went to UCLA Law School, and clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit), and a powerful campaigner (she is the first Democrat to represent her overwhelmingly Republican district in thirty years).

She is also from upstate New York, which currently has no representation in either the U.S. Senate or the executive branch of New York state government.

And she is only the sixth Member of Congress to have a baby while in office (she received a standing ovation on the floor of the House from her colleagues for working right up to the day she gave birth).

Gillibrand’s initial election to Congress in 2006 was somewhat of a fluke.  Her Republican opponent was four-term Congressman John Sweeney, a rising Republican star with a seat on the Appropriations Committee, who had never had a serious reelection challenge.  But during the campaign, Sweeney was linked to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and forced to admit to domestic violence against his wife.  Gillibrand won the election with 53 percent of the vote.

Immediately following her improbable election, Republican challengers appeared, including Richard Wagner, an aide to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with financial backing from Wall Street, and Alexander (“Sandy”) Treadwell, a former chair of the state Republican Party.  Gillibrand eventually defeated Treadwell in a landslide, 69 percent to 31 percent.

As would be expected from a representative from a Republican and rural district, Gillibrand is more conservative on some issues, such as gun control, than many of her Democratic colleagues.  But she has never voted contrary to the Democratic majority and is a strong supporter of middle class tax cuts, ending the spying abuses of the Bush adminstration, ending the war in Iraq, repealing tax cuts to oil companies, reducing the interest rate on student loans, and reforming health care.

Kirsten Gillibrand would make a great senator — and be a powerful addition to the Democratic Party’s arsenal of smart, young, and tremendously appealling advocates in future national campaigns.

UPDATE

The New York Times reports that Governor Paterson has, in fact, selected Kirsten Gillibrand as the new United States Senator from New York.

Why Obama Should Say No to Aid for California

The inaugural festivities are over and the new Obama administration is in place, but California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state’s Democratic legislative leadership are sticking around Washington to lobby for federal aid for the financially starved and politically stalemated Golden State.

Last week, Schwarzenegger pitched for billions in federal financial aid in a letter to Barack Obama, in which he urged the new president to support a New Deal style “substantial federal stimulus program” for California.  According to Schwarzenegger, California is ready to undertake nearly $44 billion in infrastructure projects that are capable of creating nearly 800,000 jobs.

Specifically, Schwarzenegger told Obama that California is prepared to launch $11.8 billion in energy and energy efficiency projects; $11 billion in investment in road, transit and rail construction;  $4 billion in health care investment, including $1.4 billion in health care information technology; $8.5 billion in water and sewer projects; $1.1 billion in school construction, including broad band access and career technical education projects; and more than $5 billion in airport, park, public safety and other public works.

In addition, Schwarzenegger asked Obama for financial help to cover rising public health caseloads, tax credits for renewable energy projects, and federal funds to pay for the $1.6 billion estimated cost of retrofitting trucks in California so that they comply with state legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

I doubt that Schwarzenegger reminded the president — who has economic worries of his own — that he had just vetoed the plan passed by the California legislature to raise revenue from the state itself to deal with California’s budget crisis.

Along with Schwarzenegger, California’s Democratic legislative leaders are also looking to President Obama and the federal government for financial aid.

In a letter sent to Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) wrote “During this challenging time, the states — especially California — need the federal government’s help.”  Among the projects and programs that Steinberg wants federal help to fund are school construction and repair, job training, state park and wetland maintenance, new energy and green technology projects, highway and rail improvements, and affordable housing construction.

Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) also held a conference call today with reporters to talk about how California can increase its share of the billions of dollars that President Obama wants to invest in public works projects as part of his economic stimulus package.

As a progressive Californian, I support these programs and projects, and I applaud the Democratic leadership for their advocacy of them in the face of rigid Republican opposition.

But I am not sure that the federal government should pay the tab – even for needed and necessary government services — that California refuses to pay for itself.

Senate President Pro Tem Steinberg has said that this is “no time for finger-pointing.”

I strongly disagree.

The confluence of the nation’s economic meltdown, California’s crushing financial crisis and $41 billion budget deficit, and the state’s political gridlock is precisely the time to point the finger – and squarely place the blame for the mess we’re in on Prop 13  and the state’s Republican Party.

Because of Prop 13 (which is now Article 13A of the California Constitution), California’s property tax is both regressive (that is, the same tax rate applies regardless of the value of the property or the income of the property owner) and severely limited (the property tax cannot exceed 1 percent of the property’s appraised value).

In addition, the property tax is unclassified — that is, the same tax rate applies to residential and commercial property, and to owner-occupied (homestead) and investor property.  This means that the state legislature cannot apportion the burden of taxation among classes of property based on their function in the economy or among property owners based on their ability to pay.

It also creates a political alliance, based on supposedly shared economic interests, among property owners of whatever size — uniting the perceived interests of middle class homeowners, such as someone who owns and lives in a $500,000 house in Fullerton or Modesto, with the state’s largest corporate, commercial and investment property owners.

Prop 13 also severely restricts – and in practice all but eliminates – the state’s ability to increase revenue and pay its own way.

Under Prop 13 (Art. 13A, section 3), the California legislature cannot increase the state’s revenue except by a two-third super-majority vote.  This means that a minority in the legislature – such as the current onstructionist Republicans – can prevent the state from obtaining the funds it needs to pay its bills.

In practice, it now means a $41 billion state budget deficit, as well as the disintegration of the state’s highways and infrastructure, and the elimination or drastic reduction of necessary government functions such as aid to schools, the poor, and the elderly.

Since it’s passage in 1978, Prop 13 has become the “third rail” (as in touch it and die) of California politics.

It has also become a rallying point for the state’s Republicans and their ideological opposition to government social programs of any kind.

It has allowed the Republican Party to pose as the protector and defender of middle class economic interests.

And it has pushed California to the brink – and now perhaps past the brink – of complete political dysfunction and economic collapse.

So while I applaud California’s Democratic leadership for looking for a way out of our political and economic crisis and in funding the state’s essential government projects and programs, it also seems to me that we must finally confront the $41 billion elephant in the room – Prop 13.

Until we do so, and until the governor and the legislature elected by the people of California can raise the revenue necessary for California to function, we should not expect the taxes raised by the federal government – paid for by the people of other states – to bail us out.

Perhaps, then, the best thing that President Obama and the Democratic Congress could do for California is to say no and insist that we first take care of Prop 13 and its crippling effect on our state’s ability to govern and pay for itself.

UPDATE

Yahoo has an article that calls California’s budget crisis a “golden opportunity” to eliminate Prop 13.

The article points out that “at the heart of California’s problems, economists say, is the government’s heavy reliance on personal income taxes, which produces wild swings in revenue as its coffers overflow in good years and dry up in leaner times.”

“A big reason for the state’s reliance on income taxes is Proposition 13, a voter-approved change to the state Constitution that limits property tax increases and requires any plan to boost taxes to receive the approval of at least two-thirds of the legislature.” “

“The 1978 measure was credited with sparking anti-tax sentiment in other states and assisting Ronald Reagan’s election as U.S. president two years later.”

“Legislators have responded by burdening state residents with some of the highest income and sales taxes in the country.”

“Economists say the state has long needed to fix that revenue roller-coaster ride and are hopeful that this crisis will force leaders to face the music.”

Amen.

Pressure Builds in Israel to End Gaza War

Haartez, Israel’s leading center-left mass circulation newspaper and its oldest daily, has published an editorial today calling for an immediate end to Israel’s military operation in Gaza.

The editorial, entitled “Stop the Operation,” argues that Israel has now achieved whatever security goals it is possible to attain through military means, and that the suffering the operation is causing to the people of Gaza is unconscionable.

“This is the time to put the operation aside. It has crushed the military organization of Hamas, killed senior figures of the group, but also killed hundreds of civilians and injured thousands. The basic infrastructure in the Gaza Strip has also suffered a fatal blow. The UNRWA hospital and food storage facilities that were hit yesterday now join a list of population centers and power plant, which have already been struck in the operation.”

“The military force that Israel has applied in the past three weeks does not permit it to ignore the terrible suffering experienced by the residents of Gaza. The ‘humanitarian corridors’ are insufficient. The three or four ‘mercy hours’ leave little chance of delivering convoys of supplies or distributing needed items to the population that is now under direct Israeli occupation.”

The editorial also calls for an end to Israel’s blockade of Gaza and its imposition of economic sanctions:

“There will be no harm to the war effort or to Israel’s security if it opens the border crossings for the continuous flow of supplies and medicines. In any case, the policy of economic sanctions Israel imposed contributed to nothing and did not avoid the need to go to war. Even the concern that the opening of the crossings to the transfer of goods would strengthen Hamas’ ability to hold out in the war is not valid. Hamas is not fighting Israel for bread, and in any case the collapse of Hamas is no longer a declared aim of the war.”

Haartez argues that Israel cannot justify its military operation from either a moral or a pragmatic perspective.

From a moral perspective, Haaretz contends, so long as there is no sovereign Palestinian state, Israel is responsible for the 1.5 million people of Gaza.

From a pragmatic perspective, Haaretz points out, first, that the Gaza operation will generate even greater Palestinian hatred and resistance toward Israel (“[D]isease, poverty and unemployment are the fertilizer in the greenhouse that grows the desperation and the radicalism that brought Hamas to power. Israel is the one that will reap the hatred and fear that Operation Cast Lead will sow in the hearts of the children of Gaza. These are the neighbors with whom Israel will have to reach a peace agreement and live next to for generations to come.”). Second, Haaretz observes that “a better diplomatic formula than those proposed by Cairo and Washington will not be offered to Israel.”

Haaretz is not alone within the Israeli mainstream in calling for an end to Israel’s Gaza campaign.  The Israeli General Staff and the leaders of its security forces have told Israel’s politicians that “Israel achieved several days ago all that it possibly could in Gaza.”  There are also reports that “The very success of the campaign has led to a growing rift in Israel’s leadership. Defense Minister Barak, the commander of the IDF General Gabi Ashkenazi, Military Intelligence, and others associated with the defense establishment believe that Israel should try to reach an immediate cease-fire with Hamas, rather than expand its offensive against it in Gaza.”

In the face of the continued tacit acceptance, if not outright support, of Israel’s Gaza campaign from the world’s governments, including those of the Arab states, it is likely (and ironic) that the most effective pressure on Israel to end its devastation of Gaza is now coming from Israel itself.

Israel’s Stunning Geopolitical Victory in Gaza

Eighteen days and a thousand Palestinian deaths into its massive Gaza campaign, Israel has yet to suffer a single significant geopolitical casualty.

In fact, despite the international outcry in the press and in the streets against its military offensive, Israel has scored a stunning geopolitical victory in Gaza.

The reaction of world governments (as distinct from world media and public opinion) has been surprisingly supportive (albeit mostly tacitly) of Israel and its aim of destroying Hamas, even at the cost of hundreds (or more) of innocent Palestinian lives.

To no one’s surprise, the United States Congress, the Bush administration, and the incoming Obama administration have all gone on the record in support of Israel’s war in Gaza and continue to green light its escalation.

More surprising is the position of the European states and Russia, which have endorsed a United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolution and a joint French-Egyptian mediation effort whose terms would meet Israel’s goal of disarming Hamas and crippling its ability to rule Gaza.

Venezuela, the one country that responded to Israel’s actions in Gaza by expelling the Israeli ambassador, has now told Israel that it did not intend to break off diplomatic relations with Israel and asked that Israel reopen its embassy.

Most surprising is the position of the majority of the Arab states, which have also endorsed the U.N. cease-fire resolution and the French-Egyptian mediation effort.

Even Iran and Syria – the two countries that have been Israel’s fiercest opponents and the strongest and most crucial supporters of Hamas – have toned down their rhetoric and taken actions that at least tacitly accept Israel’s Gaza campaign.

Iran has publicly announced that it will not permit suicide bombers to attack Israeli targets from Iran and less publicly, but more significantly, told Hezbollah to stop its missile attacks on Israel from Lebanon.  Indeed, Lebanon’s parliament majority leader Saad Hariri publicly stated that Saeed Jalili, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told him that Hezbollah would not attack Israel from Lebanon in response to the Israeli attack on Gaza.

Both Syria and Israel downplayed an incident involving an attack last week on Israeli troops near the Syrian border and agreed that the Syrian military was not involved.

Khaled Abu Toameh quotes a Hamas representative in Gaza City saying  ”We feel that our brothers in Teheran and Damascus have betrayed us, as have the rest of the Arab and Islamic governments.”

What this all means is that Israel is scoring a stunning geopolitical triumph against Hamas, which appears to have been abandoned and left to its fate at the hands of the Israeli military by every nation in the world, including its purported allies.

The short term consequence of this Israeli geopolitical victory will be the continued escalation of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas (and more Palestinian deaths), limited only by Israel’s own strategic concerns.

The long term consequences — for Hamas, for Gaza, for the Palestinians, for the Arab regimes, for Israel, and for peace in the region – are far less clear.

Now Ain’t The Time For Your Tears: The Lonesome Death of William Zantzinger

The New York Times reports today on the death of William Zantzinger, whose murder of a black barmaid named Hattie Carroll inspired one of Bob Dylan’s most haunting and politically acute ballads.

On February 9, 1963, Zantzinger, the 24 year old son of a wealthy and politically well connected tobacco farmer, attended a white tie ball at the Emerson Hotel in Baltimore, Maryland.  Already drunk before he came to the hotel, Zantzinger became enraged when he thought that 51 year old barmaid Hattie Carroll did not bring him his drink faster enough.  Zantzinger called her a “nigger” and a “black son of a bitch” and hit her on the head with a cane. 

Carroll died eight hours later of a brain hemorrhage.

Zantzinger was arrested and charged with murder. The change was later reduced to manslaughter and assault.  On August 28, 1963, Zantzinger was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and fined $500.

 

Dylan recorded the song “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll” for his third album,  The Times They Are a-Changin’, on  October 23, 1963.

The song’s lyrics are:

William Zanzinger killed poor Hattie Carroll
With a cane that he twirled around his diamond ring finger
At a Baltimore hotel society gath’rin’.
And the cops were called in and his weapon took from him
As they rode him in custody down to the station
And booked William Zanzinger for first-degree murder.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain’t the time for your tears.
William Zanzinger, who at twenty-four years
Owns a tobacco farm of six hundred acres
With rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him
And high office relations in the politics of Maryland,
Reacted to his deed with a shrug of his shoulders
And swear words and sneering, and his tongue it was snarling,
In a matter of minutes on bail was out walking.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain’t the time for your tears.
Hattie Carroll was a maid of the kitchen.
She was fifty-one years old and gave birth to ten children
Who carried the dishes and took out the garbage
And never sat once at the head of the table
And didn’t even talk to the people at the table
Who just cleaned up all the food from the table
And emptied the ashtrays on a whole other level,
Got killed by a blow, lay slain by a cane
That sailed through the air and came down through the room,
Doomed and determined to destroy all the gentle.
And she never done nothing to William Zanzinger.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain’t the time for your tears.
In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all’s equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain’t pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught ‘em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin’ that way without warnin’.
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now’s the time for your tears.
Zantzinger later said “I should have sued him [Dylan] and put him in jail.”

The Times article on Zantzinger’s death includes a six minute and twenty-seven seconds video clip from YouTube of Dylan singing “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll” on the Steve Allen Show in 1964. 

Where on television today is there anything as politically or artistically powerful?

Progressive Radio Host Goes Racist on Sanjay Gupta

Today on Los Angeles’ progressive talk radio station KTLK 1150, substitute host Johnny Wendell blasted Barack Obama’s selection of Dr. Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General of the United States.

In course of his rant, which included attacking Dr. Gupta for his presence on CNN and for his televised disagreements with “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore on health care policy, Wendell said that Americans think that people with “foreign accents,” like Dr. Gupta, are smarter than they are.

But Sanjay Gupta is not “foreign” and does not have a “foreign accent.”  Dr. Gupta is from Michigan.

What Sanjay Gupta does have is a non-Anglo-Saxon sounding name, which some racist or very stupid people might therefore call “foreign.”

Whatever issues are properly raised by Obama’s choice of Dr. Gupta as Surgeon General, his being or sounding “foreign” isn’t one of them.

I understand that Johnny Wendell, like conservative talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, is part political commentator and part clown.

But racism or bigotry (even of the unintentional and merely stupid kind) isn’t funny.

It isn’t progressive.

I would have welcomed a progressive talk radio discussion about Gupta’s political and social views, as well as his personal qualities.  But Wendell’s statement in connection with Gupta about people who have “foreign accents” was not about any of these things but only about Gupta’s race and ethnicity.

That’s racist and unacceptable.

Especially on self-described “progressive” radio.