The Political Voices of Women

On December 8, 2010, Naomi Klein delivered a TED talk at the first-ever TEDWomen conference in Washington, DC.,  during which she raised the question of why our culture is so prone to reckless high-stakes gambles in our pursuit of energy.  

In light of this past weekend’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the renewed calls in the United States for off-shore oil drilling, I have to wonder if we will ever get serious about investing in clean and safe energy solutions.

Just days before giving her Ted talk, Naomi had been on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico, looking at the catastrophic results of BP’s risky pursuit of oil. 

While Wisconsin didn’t have a budget deficit until Governor Scott Walker created one, Pennsylvania did.  However, as in the case of Wisconsin,  Pennsylvania’s newly-elected Republican Governor wants to preserve tax cuts for corporations and balance the state budget by making deep cuts to programs that aid those who need help the most.

As Tami Luhby reported last week for CNN:

“The state is facing a budget gap of more than $4 billion, and its new governor is keeping his promise not to raise taxes to close it. Instead, he is looking for concessions from public employees and for cuts from a wide array of agencies. Also, some 1,500 positions would disappear in the budget that cuts overall spending by 3%.

The governor is leaning hard on education — both K-12 and college level. Together, these suck up 38% of the state budget.

Corbett is asking teachers to freeze their salaries for a year, saying it would save $400 million, and he wants school districts to be allowed to furlough employees during tough budget times.

But he still plans to cut $550 million from basic education funding. He is also looking to reduce state mandates and promote school choice. And he wants to allow voters to rule on property tax hikes school districts may propose to make up for state funding cuts.

The state university system would see its state funding slashed $271 million, while Penn State, University of Pittsburgh, Temple and Lincoln universities would lose half of their funding. 

The governor also said he will be looking for salary roll-backs and freezes from the state’s 62,000 employees, as well as having them pay more for health care. And he wants to start discussions on fixing the pension system, which could mean higher contributions or less generous benefits.”

Until last week, those cuts may have been seen as the most troubling items in the Governor’s proposed budget.  But as Rachel Maddow pointed out on her March 11th broadcast, there is a not widely reported element in the Governor’s plan that may have far greater and potentially dangerous consequences, his plan to appoint a state energy executive.

As the Pennsylvania Environment Digest reports: 

As part of his campaign platform, Gov.-elect Tom Corbett laid out a series of commitments on protecting the environment, developing Pennsylvania’s energy resources, enhancing agriculture and promoting sportsmen’s  issues.

 Tom Corbett’s energy plan has five core areas: 

– Growing Our Energy Infrastructure;
– Encouraging Renewable, Alternative; Clean Energy in Pennsylvania;
– Cultivating Pennsylvania’s Coal Resources; and
– Transitioning to Competitive Markets.

            Harnessing Pennsylvania’s energy potential to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make energy affordable for all

Sounds great doesn’t it.  Until you read a little further and find out what the Governor means by “Transitioning to Competitive Markets.”  

“As Governor, Tom Corbett will issue an immediate Executive Order to designate a senior advisor within the Governor’s office to serve as the state Energy Executive, who will be charged with coordinating the overall state energy policy, utilizing expertise within the relevant agencies of state government.”

As I mentioned, this was the topic of discussion on a recent broadcast of the Rachel Maddow Show.  On March 11th, Abrahm Lustgarten of ProPublica joined Rachel to discuss how the aforementioned provision in Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s budget could give authority over the state’s environmental permitting process to an energy executive.  The proposal would give C. Alan Walker, the head of the Department of Community and Economic Development, the unprecedented authority to “expedite any permit or action pending in any agency where the creation of jobs may be impacted” – including coal, oil, gas and trucking.

( and nuclear power plants ?)

I’m sure that you see where I’m going with this.

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission study released less than a year ago ranked Exelon Nuclear’s Limerick Generating Station, (a nuclear energy plant located in southeastern Pennsylvania, about 20 miles northwest of Philadelphia in Montgomery County), as being the nation’s nuclear plant that is at the third highest risk of being damaged by an earthquake.  The study also reveals that of the top 10 nuclear plants most at risk from earthquake damage, three are in Pennsylvania, more than any other state.

Limerick has two General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR) units, cooled by natural draft cooling towers similar to but slightly newer than the reactors in Fukushima, Japan.  Limerick has Mark II reactors instead of the Mark I’s in Fukushima.  Limerick reactors 1 and 2 were licensed in 1984 and 1989, respectively. Nuclear energy plants in the United States are licensed to operate for 40 years which reflects the amortization period generally used by electric utility companies for large capital investments.  But 40 years in the world of nuclear physics may not be the same as 40 years on Wall Street. 

Are nuclear reactors meant to last 40 years?
Is it like comparing dog years to human years?

And what happens if a Governor gives a non-elected representative from the private sector the power to expedite nuclear power plant licenses ( for the sake of corporate profits) even if another government agency prohibits it?

Until these questions are answered, Governor Corbett’s plan to appoint a State Energy Executive is deeply trooubling

The following is a video clip of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) speaking to Ed Schultz on licensing nuclear power plants. 

Good luck Rep. Kucinich and thank you for being a voice of reason.

In a recent article for TruthOut.org, Russ Baker wrote an article titled,  “Qaddafi, Bush and the Iraq Big Lie” in which he reminds us of the troubling ties between the US and Libya’s despotic leader, Muammar el-Quaddaffi.   Baker writes:

“In May, 2009, a man named Ibn Shaikh al-Libi supposedly committed suicide while being held in a Libyan jail. Al-Libi is a deeply, deeply interesting fellow. Back in 2002, he was tortured by Egypt under US direction. It appears that the reason the US government had him tortured was not to stop some imminent attack on the United States, but to generate alleged—and false— links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that could justify invading Iraq.”

The article goes on to cite Nick Baumann’s  2009 article for Mother Jones:

“Al-Libi was the man whose false confession, obtained under torture, of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda provided the Bush administration with its casus belli for war with Iraq. It didn’t seem to matter that al-Libi’s claim that Bin Laden had sent operatives to be trained in the use of weapons of mass destruction by Hussein’s people didn’t make any sense. ‘They were killing me,’ al-Libi later told the FBI about his torturers. ‘I had to tell them something.’ A bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee report would later conclude that al-Libi lied about the link ‘to avoid torture.’”

This revelation about Ibn Shaikh al-Libi is just one of what has been a constant stream of skeletons falling out of the Pentagon and State Department’s closets since Egyptian police fired tear gas canisters labeled “Made in the USA” at protesters in Tahrir Square.  

Of course it’s always easy to look back on a series of events and/or decisions and stand in judgment of what an elected official or a political party should or should not have done.  But while hindsight may always be 20/20, the resulting criticism is not always fair nor prudent.   However, sometimes the only way that individuals, and in this case a nation, can move forward is to carefully examine past mistakes, evaluate the consequences and, commit to changing course.  There was never a better time for this type of examination than when President Obama was elected to office, on a wave of dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of the Bush/Cheney era, and with a mandate for change.  And when in January, 2009, then House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H.R. 104, a bill to establish a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties  to investigate the policies that were undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers, it was the Obama administration’s opportunity to clean the the US’ foreign policy closets.   The opportunity was missed. Now, 8 years of a previous administration’s embarrassing dirty laundry is spilling out, one dirty item at a time.

As a Political Voices of Women contributing editor, Marcia G. Yerman wrote in 2009:

“A litmus test for many will be the stand that the Obama administration puts forth on accountability regarding the actions of Bush and his key players on the issue of torture and civil rights. The conversation is out there, and has been featured in numerous posts including a January 9th article at Talking Points Memo by Elana Schor. Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, has been seen on both the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow shows, where he has been explaining the high stakes for all Americans in getting this right.”

As I wrote at the time,  I believed that Americans and the global community deserved answers to questions about the Bush administration policies that lead to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the suspension of habeas corpus, the NSA wire-tapping program, extraordinary rendition, torture, the no-bid contracts to war contractors, and more.  It was my opinion that if  President Obama and the 111th Congress failed to at least public hearing on these issues that there failure to do so would come back to come not only the President, the Democratic Party but US foreign relations.   My support for H.R. 104 had less to do with the criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials, than a desire to see the record straight and a framework for real change built on a solid foundation.  There are still Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and that the Iraq war was all about the desire to spread democracy to the Middle East.  This, of course, if probably the same group that believes that President Obama is a Muslim. 

So now, instead of an investigation by a bi-partisan panel, the White House and State Department are busily spinning answers to questions about the US’ relationships with the regimes of Mubarak, Qaddafi and Bahrain’s royal family and, the American public is learning about our foreign policy via Wikileak’s unveliing of State Department cables and CNN’s pictures of Beyonce’s private performance for the Qaddaffi family.

Congressional hearings would have been much kinder. 

If you haven’t heard it yet, the following is the audio clip of a the prank caller (Buffalo, N.Y., blogger Ian Murphy of the Buffalo Beast) pretending to be billionaire conservative businessman David Koch in a lengthy conversation with Gov, Walker that not only revealed the latter’s strategy to cripple public employee unions but left no doubt to whom the Governor answers.  

As a writer who covers women’s issues and human rights, I am fortunate to meet many people who are on the cutting edge of working to effect change in the world.

This past October, I was invited to moderate a panel at the Pages and Places book festival in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  The talk was titled, The Remains of Death: Society in the Wake of Catastrophe.  Although the dialogue covered ground that included genocide, war, and natural catastrophe—it was in fact a hopeful conversation.  The human capacity to rebuild what has been devastated by cruelty and destruction is indomitable.

One of the presenting speakers was Joseph Sebarenzi.  I was previously not familiar with his story of survival during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.  My introduction to him came through his memoir, God Sleeps in Rwanda: A Journey of Transformation.  As I turned the pages, I came to know him.  I felt as if I were with him from the moment in 1973 when his mother first explained that hatred existed between the Hutu and Tutsi, to his final departure from Rwanda. He returned to his country, where he served as the Speaker of the Rwandan Parliament, from 1997 to 2000.  That final year, he was forced to leave his homeland to escape an assassination plot.  The reason? He spoke the truth to power.

When we met the night preceding the event, I told him how profoundly his book had affected me.  His quiet demeanor belied the internal strength of a man who had lost so many to the mass killing—including his parents and seven siblings.  Yet, as he often says, “No suffering should derail us from who we are.”

Social justice is his mission. Part of the work that Sebarenzi is currently doing concentrates on “moving toward forgiveness and reconciliation.” Armed with numerous degrees including a Ph.D. in Law and a Masters in International and Intercultural Management, Sebarenzi is on the faculty of the School for International Training, where he teaches conflict transformation across cultures. His personal experience informs his teaching on cyclical violence borne from enmity, and victimization based on race, religion, and ethnicity.

Sebarenzi outlines reconciliation as involving several components. They encompass acknowledgment, apology, restorative justice, empathy, reparation, and forgiveness.  He points out that in addition to dealing with the past, all insights must be accompanied by “forward-thinking vision.”  He envisions a new model of leadership where peace education and understanding “nonviolent conflict management” is essential to the worldwide community.  He writes:

People do not awake one morning and say, “I am going to kill my   neighbor because he is a
different color from me” (or practices a different religion from me, or belongs to a different
ethnic group).  The path to genocide begins long before the first shot is fired or the first
machete is swung.  It builds slowly, first by categorizing people.  One group becomes “us”;
the other becomes “them.”

Embracing forgiveness on a personal level, as well as a national and community level, is integral to Sebarenzi’s philosophy.  He writes, “I was once asked by a student, ‘Can you forgive the people who killed your parents?’”  He responded that it “was the genocide that was unforgivable, not those who perpetrated it.”

Traveling his singularly difficult road, Sebarenzi learned about letting go of his own anger and bitterness. While visiting prisons where Hutus accused of murder were being held in horrendous conditions, he came face to face with the mayor of his village—previously a close friend of his family.  The man had been accused of instigating the order to kill all the Tutsis of the community, so that none would remain retaining a legal claim to their land.  Witnessing the depth of the mayor’s suffering, he was able to acknowledge him as a person in need.  He gave him money for food. Seberenzi pinpoints this pivotal experience as the moment when everything changed and crystallized for him.

Sebarenzi recognizes that forgiveness doesn’t replace justice.  He states, “It does not let the perpetrator ‘off the hook.’”  Rather, it lets you off the hook because your life is no longer governed by the injustices you have suffered.”  As he concludes, “We all have the power to set ourselves free.”

Moving into 2011, it is a valuable concept to consider.

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com

Have you ever waited until the last minute to grocery shop for a holiday party or a big family dinner only to get home and realize that you’ve forgotten a key ingredient in a recipe?

Or, have you ever waited until the the last moment to buy a birthday present or waited until Christmas Eve to do your Christmas shopping.  If you have then you probably remember spending way to much, not finding the gift that you really wanted, and/or forgetting someone’s gift entirely.   And, if you were last minute Christmas shopping and were lucky enough to find  gifts on sale you probably charged those gifts to your credit card and paid interest.  

A few days ago, in my post, The Bipartisan Art of Rushing and Procrastinating,  I pointed out, in a rather tongue in cheek way, that it seems that this is the way that our government seems to operate when it comes to major pieces of legislation.   Always procrastinating, always rushing, and often paying too much, forgetting things and using the charge card.

Well, last night Rachel Maddow summed up perfectly why in recent years it seems that  Congress seems to always be running around like the white rabbit in Alice in Wonderland when the calendar is counting down. 

Hopefully Congress will be able to make it home some time before January 4th.

As part of a move to create a space for an “exchange of dialogue,” Patricia Duff founded the organization The Common Good.  Her goal is to make sure that people are willing to keep an open ear and have conversations that “aren’t limited to sound bites.”  The group has been the force behind numerous events.  They recently hosted a preview screening of the documentary Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer.  Duff told me that she had been a Spitzer supporter. “I think he did a lot of good work as Attorney General. This film is fodder for starting a discussion,” she said.  A question and answer forum with director Alex Gibney was part of the evening.

Having written numerous articles about the Eliot Spitzer saga, its intersection with prostitution and human trafficking, and his reemergence in the public eye—from speaking appearances to a co-host position on the CNN nightly line up—I was interested in learning what the film would have to offer.

Gibney’s account is a story with a motley cast of characters that only a screenwriter could dream up. It is a political intrigue tale, missing only a definitive “Deep Throat” anchor. Perhaps the closest element to that is the actress who portrays “Angelina,” the primary woman that Spitzer had assignations with.  (Despite her protracted presence in the public eye, Ashley Dupre had only one meeting with Spitzer.)

Spitzer is interviewed seated on a sofa, in comfortable and elegant surroundings.  On topics related to Wall Street and the Governorship, he is extremely verbal and forthcoming.  On matters requiring introspection, he is less articulate.  We do learn about how he was raised by a father who translates as more forbidding than loving.  His top lesson for his son was, “Don’t trust anyone.”

With references to Greek mythology (think hubris and exalted mortals with clay feet) the film intones, “No one expected him to go down like he did.”  As the “Sheriff of Wall Street” whose mantra was “attack, attack, attack,” Spitzer’s premise was that Wall Street couldn’t be left to police itself.  Spitzer saw himself as the people’s attorney, fighting to change a system through the law—which had turned a blind eye to white-collar crime.

Self-identifying as “a fucking steamroller,” Spitzer racked up an array of enemies.  They included Joe Bruno, the former Republican Majority leader of the New York State Senate; Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chairman of A.I.G.; and former director of the NY Stock Exchange, Kenneth G. Langone.  Eager to weigh in on the chain of events is Roger Stone, a flamboyant Republican political consultant, who delivers his insights with the nighttime Manhattan skyline as a backdrop.

On the dichotomy between Spitzer’s actions and the fact that as governor he worked to pass The Human Trafficking Law (June 6, 2007), little about this conundrum is addressed.  There is a brief clip showing prominent anti-trafficking activists witnessing the bill being signed by Spitzer. Yet, more time is devoted to an interview with a sex worker involved in the “high-end” of the prostitution continuum who states flatly that women in this well-paying line of work are not abused victims.  Rather, they like the checkbook net-gains.  Gabney also includes a visual montage of other politicians whose reputations have been affected by “sex scandals.”

As for Spitzer’s explanation of his behavior, he likens himself to Icarus, describing his activities as a release that was “easier than a relationship.”  Others suggest that Spitzer didn’t understand his own behavior.  On days when his severe political and personal style would be out of control, his staffers would wearily suggest that his evil twin “Irwin” had shown up.

When taking questions from the audience about whether the coverage of the Spitzer imbroglio was “skewed,” Gibney said, “There was salacious excitement that the ‘Sheriff of Wall Street’ was part of this escort service.”  He underscored that “other details weren’t looked at,” and suggested, “Federal investigators don’t get interested in this stuff [escort services].”  What was the purpose of the investigation? Was there corruption in the Justice Department? Did United States attorney Michael Garcia abuse his power?  These were the questions that Gibney was targeting.  He explained, “The film is dark.  It asks all of us to examine how we judge public officials.”

The movie consistently points to Spitzer’s knowledge about the inner workings of Wall Street, his understanding of the economy in terms of TARP and subprime mortgages, and his prescience about the Wall Street meltdown.  After the Q & A, I approached Gibney to ask him if he had reached out to anyone in the anti-trafficking community for their thoughts on the Spitzer situation, particularly as they had viewed Spitzer as an ally who understood their issues.  His answer was, “No.”  Gibney in turn asked me if I equated the Emperor’s Club V.I.P. with the sexual trafficking of children.  He related the fact that he had interviewed people in the “high end of the escort trade who didn’t feel in need of protecting.”  That singular point of view was represented in the documentary, with no parallel mention of the debate about the demand for paid sex, or whether it is acceptable to purchase another human being.

About the story line he had shaped, Gibney said, “I want people to come to their own conclusions.” Client 9 delves into an interesting set of circumstances.  However, it is not built upon the questions that I brought to the film.

In the end, I would have to agree with Spitzer’s reason for his “rise and fall.”  As he says without emotional affect, “There’s all sorts of rumors about bringing me down.  My view is I brought myself down.”

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com.

“Once upon a time, a whole lot of just plain Americans woke up to realize the economic system was working against them. They had believed in it; they worked hard to make it work for them. They knew its shortcomings but saw in it the way to a decent return for their labor and a better future for their families.

Then, one day, calamity struck: The system turned on them. And they discovered that they had been betrayed, bamboozled, by the people at the top. But they didn’t hang their heads and turn tail, like a dog whipped by its master. They organized and fought back — millions of them in a grass roots movement for democracy. What they did became known as the Populist Moment, an extraordinary time in our country’s history.

But, the flimflam gang returned with a vengeance in our time — the monied interests and political mercenaries who connived to bring on a calamity that lost eleven million Americans their jobs, robbed people of their homes and pensions, and brought the world’s economy crashing down.”

– Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal, April 30, 2010

It’s also now obvious to almost everyone that the “monied interests and political mercenaries” are running the show.  Equally obvious is the fact that health care reform, government regulation ( banking industry, EPA), Social Security and Medicare are at the very top of their hit lists.

And, if it’s not true that the plutocrats are calling the shots,  it certainly appears that way.

Washington Post Staff Writer Dan Eggen reported on the influence of “outside entities” on the budget process this past Wednesday.  He wrote:

    “The leaders of President Obama’s deficit commission sparked criticism from both sides of the political aisle Wednesday for proposing broad cuts to federal programs.

    But the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has also come under attack for its unusual approach to staffing: Many of its employees aren’t employed by the panel at all.

    Instead, about one in four commission staffers is paid by outside entities, many of which have strong ideological points of view about how to tackle the deficit.

    For example, the salaries of two senior staffers, Marc Goldwein and Ed Lorenzen, are paid by private groups that have previously advocated cuts to entitlement programs. Lorenzen is paid by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, while Goldwein is paid by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is also partly funded by the Peterson group.

    The outsourcing has come under sharp criticism from seniors’ organizations and liberal activists, who say the strategy is part of a broader conservative bias favoring painful entitlement cuts over other solutions. The fears of some liberal groups appeared to come true on Wednesday, when the commission’s two leaders recommended significant reductions for Social Security and other social-welfare programs.

    Bruce Reed, the panel’s executive director, defended the staffing arrangement as fiscally responsible and said the staff includes a broad range of views. Other staffers paid by outside entities include an analyst from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute and a Clinton administration official who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, he said.

    “We’ve got wonks from across the spectrum who have been working on this issue for years,” Reed said. “Every possible voice from left, right or center has a voice on the commission.”

    But Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic House member from Connecticut who heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said the commission’s staffing structure is “unprecedented” and casts further doubt on its fairness.

    “Taxpayers fund the commission and they should work independently of Washington lobbyists and power brokers,” Kennelly said. “This is the type of shenanigans that average Americans are so upset about right now – that money talks and everyone else is left out”

If you ask the average American citizen, “who in Washington do you trust to reform Social Security?”,  you would probably receive the answer, “no one.”   And they would have more than a few reasons for feeling that way.   It is very hard for most Americans, myself included,  to understand  why an “entitlement program”  which is  funded by a clearly designated tax  (FICA) is always one of the first programs that gets offered up on the political sacrificial alter when the discussion involves federal budget cuts.

“Republicans who took over the House on pledges to reduce federal spending and get the nation’s budget in order are running into the third rail of U.S. politics.

A draft proposal from the co-chairman of President Obama’s fiscal commission this week put Social Security on the front burner, leading some Democrats to draw a line in the sand. The proposal would raise the retirement age, slightly reduce benefits and raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.


While the proposal was drawn up to keep Social Security solvent and not to deal specifically with reducing the nation’s record deficit, Democratic strategists say it will be difficult for Republicans to duck an issue that has caused them political pain in the past.


“It does put them in a tough position,” Mike Lux, a strategist who works with liberal advocacy groups, said of the GOP. “These kinds of proposals, raising the retirement age and cutting benefits, are overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people.”

Soon-to-be-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is on record supporting similar changes to Social Security, as is Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee and rising intellectual star of the House Republican Conference.”

Well I think that this is as good a place as any to conclude part one of this series.  


Talk to you soon

—-
originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation blog

The absence of black faces in the Senate is not even half the story when it comes to black political fallout from the midterms.

By: Devona Walker | TheLoop21 (Add to your loop)
Thu, 11/04/2010 – 10:10

0
Votes

like it!

James Clyburn will lose his position as Majority Whip in the House of Representatives

With Roland Burris retiring in Illinois and the failure of the Kendrick Meek campaign, there are now no blacks in the U.S. Senate. What did the midterms signal for the future of black political leadership?

The 2010 midterm elections were apparently a repudiation of President Barack Obama’s policies, according to the pundits. But it was also a white-washing of the Senate.

Ironically, however, the House of Representatives got a little more black. Three black Congressional hopefuls sailed into office. However, two of those were staunch Republicans. Tea party-backed Tim Scott and Allen West were elected to office. This marks the first time African Americans will represent the GOP in Congress in about seven years — when J.C. Watts retired.

Read the full story

http://theloop21.com/politics/midterm-elections-decimate-black-political-leadership

According to exit polling, black voters who came out in unprecedented numbers in 2008 to help put President Barack Obama in the White House, decided to stay home this time around. An estimated five percent of blacks voted in the 2010 midterm elections, compared to 13 percent in 2008.

Just looking at eligible voters, and impressive 60 percent of black eligible voters came to the polls during the 2008 presidential election, making that electorate the most diverse in U.S. history. In fact, black women had the highest voter turnout rate among all the demographics. Period.

This time is different. But despite the dismal turnout, black, young and Latino voters have not turned their back on the President or even the Democrats necessarily. We will likely continue to have your back in 2012. But as evidenced in the 2010 midterms, Obama and the Democrats will have to deliver if they want us to do it with any enthusiasm. If he continues to be as engaged with these communities as he has been in the last month, he can depend upon good solid turnout in 2012.

http://theloop21.com/politics/obama-appeal-black-voters-too-little-too-late