Barack Obama at the Thursday
debate. He picked up several
new endorsements, including former
Fed chair Paul Volker, and the
Nation magazine. See below.
2 days ago
Friday, February 01, 2008
More Obama Endorsements
Barack Obama at the Thursday
debate. He picked up several
new endorsements, including former
Fed chair Paul Volker, and the
Nation magazine. See below.
From The Nation editorial endorsement
Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of The Nation magazine, which said in part:
The question of who can best build popular support for a progressive governing agenda is related to, but distinct from, the question of electability. Given a certain ceiling on Clinton's appeal (due largely to years of unhinged attacks from the "vast right-wing conspiracy"), her campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign, a rerun of 2004 but with a state or two switching columns: Florida, maybe, or Ohio. Obama is aiming for something bigger: a landmark sea-change election, with the kind of high favorability and approval ratings that can drive an agenda forward.
Why should we think he can do it? The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most. Pollster.com shows a series of polls taken in the Democratic campaign. The graphs plotting national polling numbers as well as those in the first four states show a remarkably consistent pattern. Hillary Clinton starts out with either a modest or, more commonly, a massive lead, owing to her superior name recognition and the popularity of the Clinton brand. As the campaign goes forward Clinton's support either climbs slowly, plateaus or dips. But as the actual contest approaches, and voters start paying attention, Obama's support suddenly begins to grow exponentially.
In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It's a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests.
Finally, there's the question of coattails. In many senses there's less difference between the two presidential candidates than there is between a Senate with fifty-one Democrats and one with fifty-six. No Democratic presidential candidate is going to carry, say, Mississippi or Nebraska, but many Democrats in those states fear that the ingrained Clinton hatred would rally the GOP base and/or depress turnout, hurting down-ticket candidates. Over the past few weeks a series of prominent red-state Democrats, most notably Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, have endorsed Obama. When I asked a Democratic Congressional candidate in the Deep South who he preferred at the top of the ticket, he didn't hesitate: "Obama is absolutely the better candidate. Hillary brings a lot of sting; he takes some sting out of them."
For other endorsements, news and post-debate chatter: American Dash.
The question of who can best build popular support for a progressive governing agenda is related to, but distinct from, the question of electability. Given a certain ceiling on Clinton's appeal (due largely to years of unhinged attacks from the "vast right-wing conspiracy"), her campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign, a rerun of 2004 but with a state or two switching columns: Florida, maybe, or Ohio. Obama is aiming for something bigger: a landmark sea-change election, with the kind of high favorability and approval ratings that can drive an agenda forward.
Why should we think he can do it? The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most. Pollster.com shows a series of polls taken in the Democratic campaign. The graphs plotting national polling numbers as well as those in the first four states show a remarkably consistent pattern. Hillary Clinton starts out with either a modest or, more commonly, a massive lead, owing to her superior name recognition and the popularity of the Clinton brand. As the campaign goes forward Clinton's support either climbs slowly, plateaus or dips. But as the actual contest approaches, and voters start paying attention, Obama's support suddenly begins to grow exponentially.
In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It's a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests.
Finally, there's the question of coattails. In many senses there's less difference between the two presidential candidates than there is between a Senate with fifty-one Democrats and one with fifty-six. No Democratic presidential candidate is going to carry, say, Mississippi or Nebraska, but many Democrats in those states fear that the ingrained Clinton hatred would rally the GOP base and/or depress turnout, hurting down-ticket candidates. Over the past few weeks a series of prominent red-state Democrats, most notably Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, have endorsed Obama. When I asked a Democratic Congressional candidate in the Deep South who he preferred at the top of the ticket, he didn't hesitate: "Obama is absolutely the better candidate. Hillary brings a lot of sting; he takes some sting out of them."
For other endorsements, news and post-debate chatter: American Dash.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Obama in Arizona
Barack Obama in Phoenix, with Arizona Governor
Janet Napolitano (who has endorsed him) and
Caroline Kennedy. Obama was also endorsed by
80 volunteer attorneys representing prisoners at
Guantanamo. Campaign news at American Dash.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
From Sen. Ted Kennedy's Endorsement Speech
"He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view. He is tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to "the better angels of our nature."
I am proud to stand here today and offer my help, my voice, my energy and my commitment to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.
We know the true record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth.
With Barack Obama, we will break the old gridlock and finally make health care what it should be in America--a fundamental right for all, not just an expensive privilege for the few. We will make the United States the great leader and not the great roadblock in the fateful fight against global warming.
I know that he's ready to be President on day one. And when he raises his hand on Inauguration Day, at that very moment, we will lift the spirits of our nation and begin to restore America's standing in the world.
There was another time, when another young candidate was running for President and challenging America to cross a New Frontier. He faced public criticism from the preceding Democratic President, who was widely respected in the party. Harry Truman said we needed "someone with greater experience"--and added: "May I urge you to be patient." And John Kennedy replied: "The world is changing. The old ways will not do...It is time for a new generation of leadership."
So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now. I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future.
My friends, I ask you to join in this historic journey -- to have the courage to choose change.It is time again for a new generation of leadership. It is time now for Barack Obama."
at American University
1/28/2008
for more on the Kennedys and California: American Dash.
I am proud to stand here today and offer my help, my voice, my energy and my commitment to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.
We know the true record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth.
With Barack Obama, we will break the old gridlock and finally make health care what it should be in America--a fundamental right for all, not just an expensive privilege for the few. We will make the United States the great leader and not the great roadblock in the fateful fight against global warming.
I know that he's ready to be President on day one. And when he raises his hand on Inauguration Day, at that very moment, we will lift the spirits of our nation and begin to restore America's standing in the world.
There was another time, when another young candidate was running for President and challenging America to cross a New Frontier. He faced public criticism from the preceding Democratic President, who was widely respected in the party. Harry Truman said we needed "someone with greater experience"--and added: "May I urge you to be patient." And John Kennedy replied: "The world is changing. The old ways will not do...It is time for a new generation of leadership."
So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now. I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future.
My friends, I ask you to join in this historic journey -- to have the courage to choose change.It is time again for a new generation of leadership. It is time now for Barack Obama."
at American University
1/28/2008
for more on the Kennedys and California: American Dash.
Barack Obama on the Kennedy Legacy
" Today isn't just about politics for me. It's personal. I was too young to remember John Kennedy and I was just a child when Robert Kennedy ran for President. But in the stories I heard growing up, I saw how my grandparents and mother spoke about them, and about that period in our nation's life - as a time of great hope and achievement. And I think my own sense of what's possible in this country comes in part from what they said America was like in the days of John and Robert Kennedy.
I believe that's true for millions of Americans. I've seen it in offices in this city where portraits of John and Robert hang on office walls or collections of their speeches sit on bookshelves. And I've seen it in my travels all across this country. Because no matter where I go, or who I talk to, one thing I can say for certain is that the dream has never died. "
at American University
1/28/2008
I believe that's true for millions of Americans. I've seen it in offices in this city where portraits of John and Robert hang on office walls or collections of their speeches sit on bookshelves. And I've seen it in my travels all across this country. Because no matter where I go, or who I talk to, one thing I can say for certain is that the dream has never died. "
at American University
1/28/2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."
Caroline Kennedy, endorsing Barack Obama in today's
New York Times.
Caroline Kennedy, endorsing Barack Obama in today's
New York Times.
The Tide
As of Sunday afternoon, multiple news organizations are reporting that Senator Edward Kennedy will formally endorse Barack Obama for President on Monday, at the American University in Washington. (That University will forever be known as place where JFK made one of the most important speeches of the 20th century, an eloquent argument that soon evenuated in the nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union, the first real progress in controlling nuclear weapons.)
The Boston Globe reports that Ted Kennedy will campaign vigorously for Obama in the upcoming Super Tuesday primary states. Here in California, Kennedy's popularity with the Latino community is expected to help Obama, as is the endorsement of California Rep. Xavier Becerra, the highest ranking Latino in the House.
In addition to the endorsement of the Democratic Party's most respected elder statesmen, it's also being reported that Obama will receive the endorsement of one of its rising stars, Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas. Sebelius will give the official Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union address Monday, and it's likely she will endorse Obama on Tuesday, when he will be in Kansas at his mother's birthplace.
For more, and the possibility of another big endorsement, check American Dash, your campaign headquarters, with the best pj-clad political team in blogdom.
The Boston Globe reports that Ted Kennedy will campaign vigorously for Obama in the upcoming Super Tuesday primary states. Here in California, Kennedy's popularity with the Latino community is expected to help Obama, as is the endorsement of California Rep. Xavier Becerra, the highest ranking Latino in the House.
In addition to the endorsement of the Democratic Party's most respected elder statesmen, it's also being reported that Obama will receive the endorsement of one of its rising stars, Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas. Sebelius will give the official Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union address Monday, and it's likely she will endorse Obama on Tuesday, when he will be in Kansas at his mother's birthplace.
For more, and the possibility of another big endorsement, check American Dash, your campaign headquarters, with the best pj-clad political team in blogdom.
Yes, We Can
The dimensions of Barack Obama's victory in the South Carolina primary Saturday are astonishing. The numbers are mind-boggling. He got more than twice the votes as the second place finisher, Hillary Clinton. He was the first candidate in a contested primary to win over half the total votes--55%.
The sheer number of votes also reflects the number of voters he inspired to the polls. The turnout was huge, and in a state with a much higher number of registered Republicans than Democrats, Obama alone got more than the combined votes that John McCain and Mike Huckabee got in their S.C. primary last week. Obama's vote total alone was greater than the total of all votes in the 2004 Democratic SC primary.
He got 4/5 of African American voters, and he was even with the others among white men, winning about a quarter of the total white vote. He won most age groups and income groups, and he won young voters overwhelmingly, including more than half of the white voters under 30.
The exit polling was replete with revelations. Voters essentially repudiated the Billary attack strategy. They found Obama the most electable in November, and they wanted change more than anything else. But they also rated him first on how to handle the economy and foreign policy.
Obama's victory speech was masterful. It turned the Billary attack strategy against them, as examples of the kind of politics Americans no longer want, and can no longer afford. Looking to February 5 primaries, he warned his supporters that the way ahead is still going to be hard.
"So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We are up against the belief that it's ok for lobbyists to dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore.
We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.
We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it's one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all."
But once again he articulated his compelling vision:
The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.
The sheer number of votes also reflects the number of voters he inspired to the polls. The turnout was huge, and in a state with a much higher number of registered Republicans than Democrats, Obama alone got more than the combined votes that John McCain and Mike Huckabee got in their S.C. primary last week. Obama's vote total alone was greater than the total of all votes in the 2004 Democratic SC primary.
He got 4/5 of African American voters, and he was even with the others among white men, winning about a quarter of the total white vote. He won most age groups and income groups, and he won young voters overwhelmingly, including more than half of the white voters under 30.
The exit polling was replete with revelations. Voters essentially repudiated the Billary attack strategy. They found Obama the most electable in November, and they wanted change more than anything else. But they also rated him first on how to handle the economy and foreign policy.
Obama's victory speech was masterful. It turned the Billary attack strategy against them, as examples of the kind of politics Americans no longer want, and can no longer afford. Looking to February 5 primaries, he warned his supporters that the way ahead is still going to be hard.
"So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We are up against the belief that it's ok for lobbyists to dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore.
We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.
We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it's one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all."
But once again he articulated his compelling vision:
The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.
More from Caroline Kennedy: A President Like My Father
"OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible. We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama."
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible. We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama."
An Impressive Command: from SF Chronicle Endorsement
There are those who are attracted to Barack Obama's vision, but they are unsure of his command of substance. The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board grilled Obama on the issues, and this is part of what they said in today's
endorsement of Barack Obama:
"America deserves better than these cycles of vengeance and retribution. Its possibilities are too great, its challenges too daunting, for partisan pettiness. In a Jan. 17 meeting with our editorial board, Obama demonstrated an impressive command of a wide variety of issues. He listened intently to the questions. He responded with substance. He did not control a format without a stopwatch on answers or constraints on follow-up questions, yet he flourished in it.
He radiated the sense of possibility that has attracted the votes of independents and tapped into the idealism of young people during this campaign. He exuded the aura of a 46-year-old leader who could once again persuade the best and the brightest to forestall or pause their grand professional goals to serve in his administration.Of all the candidates who talk about change, Barack Obama has made the case most forcefully and most convincingly. He gets our endorsement for the Democratic nomination."
Obama was endorsed today also by the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Chicago Tribune and Philadelphia Inquirer.
endorsement of Barack Obama:
"America deserves better than these cycles of vengeance and retribution. Its possibilities are too great, its challenges too daunting, for partisan pettiness. In a Jan. 17 meeting with our editorial board, Obama demonstrated an impressive command of a wide variety of issues. He listened intently to the questions. He responded with substance. He did not control a format without a stopwatch on answers or constraints on follow-up questions, yet he flourished in it.
He radiated the sense of possibility that has attracted the votes of independents and tapped into the idealism of young people during this campaign. He exuded the aura of a 46-year-old leader who could once again persuade the best and the brightest to forestall or pause their grand professional goals to serve in his administration.Of all the candidates who talk about change, Barack Obama has made the case most forcefully and most convincingly. He gets our endorsement for the Democratic nomination."
Obama was endorsed today also by the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Chicago Tribune and Philadelphia Inquirer.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Clintons' Secret Gender War
There are a trio of powerful videos on YouTube that the national press hasn't caught onto that expose the Clintons' scurrilous attacks on Barack Obama in order to win the votes of progressive women.
The videos feature Lorna Brett Howard, former President of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization of Women, where she also worked with Planned Parenthouse, and she is currently on the board and the political action committee of a large pro-choice organization in New York. She has personal knowledge of Obama's strong pro-choice record in Illinois, and says that later when the call went out to U.S. Senators to help fight against the South Dakota legislation to criminalize abortions, only one Senator answered the call and helped: not HC of New York, but Barack Obama.
What makes this statement powerful at this moment is that she was a Hillary supporter, who says she witnessed Hillary falsely telling women in Iowa that Obama was weak on choice as a state senator, when Howard knew for a fact he wasn't from having worked with him at the time, and then she was shown a direct mail piece from the Clinton campaign making the same charges in New Hampshire. At that point she switched her support from Hillary to Obama. "This line of attack on an issue I care about so deeply is not acceptable to me," Howard said. She ends her video statements with the words: "Barack Obama, 100% pro-choice, 100% honest."
With the first woman to run for President contending with the first African American running for President, issues of race and gender--the so-called "identity politics"--were bound to be factors. But it seems clear that the Clintons are forcing these issues with their conscious distortions, and doing so dishonestly. It remains to be seen how effectively.
The videos feature Lorna Brett Howard, former President of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization of Women, where she also worked with Planned Parenthouse, and she is currently on the board and the political action committee of a large pro-choice organization in New York. She has personal knowledge of Obama's strong pro-choice record in Illinois, and says that later when the call went out to U.S. Senators to help fight against the South Dakota legislation to criminalize abortions, only one Senator answered the call and helped: not HC of New York, but Barack Obama.
What makes this statement powerful at this moment is that she was a Hillary supporter, who says she witnessed Hillary falsely telling women in Iowa that Obama was weak on choice as a state senator, when Howard knew for a fact he wasn't from having worked with him at the time, and then she was shown a direct mail piece from the Clinton campaign making the same charges in New Hampshire. At that point she switched her support from Hillary to Obama. "This line of attack on an issue I care about so deeply is not acceptable to me," Howard said. She ends her video statements with the words: "Barack Obama, 100% pro-choice, 100% honest."
These outright lies told by Hillary and her campaign in their direct mail literature aimed at women surfaced in a Washington Post story. The Clintons got what the Washington Post describes as "two dozen" prominent women to sign an open letter faulting Obama for being "soft on abortion rights." Now three of those same women have signed another letter proclaiming that Obama is "strongly pro choice," and one of the signers--Katie Wheeler, a former state senator--has called out the Clinton campaign for misleading her and issuing this lie:
"It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice," said Wheeler, a founder of the New Hampshire chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."
It's possible that Hillary won New Hampshire with such last minute lies, especially considering the boost in her votes among women. It's also clear that the Clintons' strategies are dividing the Democratic party.
The conclusion that Obama is weak on choice--not something that Hillary says directly in debates--is apparently based on his votes in the Illinois legislature when he voted "present" on some bills involving women's issues. That these were tactical, and sometimes at the expressed wishes of Planned Parenthood and the National Organization of Women, has been known for months, and recent media fact checks haven't altered that conclusion. So the Clintons are knowingly using this to falsely characterize Obama as weak on the choice issue. But they don't come out and say it, because it would be very flimsy evidence even if credible.
Some people believe that the Clintons deliberately raised racial issues, calculating that there are more white voters than black in the primaries overall, and probably that black voters remember the Clinton years fondly, and anyway will have nowhere else to go in the general election but to vote for a Democrat. Others dispute this. But it seems clear, though mostly unreported, that the Clintons have aimed several of their deliberate distortions towards winning the women's vote. That's probably even a subtext of their scurrilous attack on Obama's musings in an interview about Republican ideas, thoroughly discredited now, especially as more of Clintons' own words saying pretty much the same thing surface (Bill Clinton back in 1991 for instance, when he was running for President). Columnist E. J. Dionne concludes: "And with both Clintons on record saying kind things about Reagan, why go after Obama on the point? Honestly: If Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander. " But being in favor of Reaganistic ideas is in part code for being anti-choice for women, which could be the rationale for what otherwise seems irrational.
With the first woman to run for President contending with the first African American running for President, issues of race and gender--the so-called "identity politics"--were bound to be factors. But it seems clear that the Clintons are forcing these issues with their conscious distortions, and doing so dishonestly. It remains to be seen how effectively.
Billary
Bill Clinton came to the North Coast recently, and he was very big news. All the newspapers put him on the front page, including the weekly and the college student weekly. There is apparently controversy about how the event was handled, with overflow crowds upset that they couldn't get closer.
I saw a Bill Clinton speech in Market Square in Pittsburgh, and shook his hand afterwards. But that was in 1992 when he was first running for President. I'd done some work for his campaign in Pittsburgh. Now he's an international celebrity, and his every word makes news. For older Democrats he's the man they won with, who they fought for in tough times and came out of it with a better country. For younger people, he's the only Democratic President they've ever known.
Hillary Clinton was a high profile First Lady, and their relationship is like a national myth. So these are two very powerful--and very audible--people. Which makes their conduct of the current primary campaign all the more disgraceful.
The Billary conscious and intended distortions and attacks on Barack Obama have earned widespread rebuttal and rebuke. (If you're interested in details, I've followed this over at American Dash.) Today they're both backing down a bit, especially Bill. But it's mostly disingenuous (and timed for the last day before voting in South Carolina, when campaigns usually try for a public last "positive" push, while the dirty work is done with flyers, emails and robocalls.) It wasn't just Billary's aggressive rhetoric, but their advertising and direct mail that carried their scurrilous messages.
Many have been reminded of all the conflict the Clintons stir up, and of the potential for another tumultuous Clinton presidency. Because of Bill's prominence in Hillary's campaign, there's suspicion of whether Bill is running for co-President. Perhaps this is partly responsible for Obama climbing in (some) national polls. But there's a lot of hubris in this from the Clinton superstars. It seems pretty calculating. They're counting on Democratic unity in the fall no matter what, and on the usual amnesia in the public at large.
Time will tell how much Bill Clinton has damaged his international reputation. If he has it will be too bad, because his efforts have been positive and future oriented. The best thing that can happen for him is for Barack Obama to win the nomination and the presidency. And probably the best thing for us and for the future.
I saw a Bill Clinton speech in Market Square in Pittsburgh, and shook his hand afterwards. But that was in 1992 when he was first running for President. I'd done some work for his campaign in Pittsburgh. Now he's an international celebrity, and his every word makes news. For older Democrats he's the man they won with, who they fought for in tough times and came out of it with a better country. For younger people, he's the only Democratic President they've ever known.
Hillary Clinton was a high profile First Lady, and their relationship is like a national myth. So these are two very powerful--and very audible--people. Which makes their conduct of the current primary campaign all the more disgraceful.
The Billary conscious and intended distortions and attacks on Barack Obama have earned widespread rebuttal and rebuke. (If you're interested in details, I've followed this over at American Dash.) Today they're both backing down a bit, especially Bill. But it's mostly disingenuous (and timed for the last day before voting in South Carolina, when campaigns usually try for a public last "positive" push, while the dirty work is done with flyers, emails and robocalls.) It wasn't just Billary's aggressive rhetoric, but their advertising and direct mail that carried their scurrilous messages.
Many have been reminded of all the conflict the Clintons stir up, and of the potential for another tumultuous Clinton presidency. Because of Bill's prominence in Hillary's campaign, there's suspicion of whether Bill is running for co-President. Perhaps this is partly responsible for Obama climbing in (some) national polls. But there's a lot of hubris in this from the Clinton superstars. It seems pretty calculating. They're counting on Democratic unity in the fall no matter what, and on the usual amnesia in the public at large.
Time will tell how much Bill Clinton has damaged his international reputation. If he has it will be too bad, because his efforts have been positive and future oriented. The best thing that can happen for him is for Barack Obama to win the nomination and the presidency. And probably the best thing for us and for the future.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
No Other Hope
South Carolina's largest newspaper, The State, endorsed Barack Obama for President. The editorial said in part:
"The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.
Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.
Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.
Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.
Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.
And America certainly has things to get done. From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.
He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary. "
[political junkies, why not try a dash of American Dash? You'll be glad you did!]
"The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.
Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.
Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.
Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.
Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.
And America certainly has things to get done. From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.
He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary. "
[political junkies, why not try a dash of American Dash? You'll be glad you did!]
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Dream Today
Senator Barack Obama, speaking at Dr. Martin Luther King's church on Sunday:
Update: This speech is now on YouTube, where it currently is the fourth most watched video in the world.
"Unity is the great need of the hour" is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome. What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake. If a few more women were willing to do what Rosa Parks had done, maybe the cracks would start to show. If teenagers took freedom rides from North to South, maybe a few bricks would come loose. Maybe if white folks marched because they had come to understand that their freedom too was at stake in the impending battle, the wall would begin to sway. And if enough Americans were awakened to the injustice; if they joined together, North and South, rich and poor, Christian and Jew, then perhaps that wall would come tumbling down, and justice would flow like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans. I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.
We have an empathy deficit when we're still sending our children down corridors of shame – schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can't afford a doctor when their children get sick.We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.
We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own. So we have a deficit to close. We have walls – barriers to justice and equality – that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.
Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe that it can be purchased on the cheap. We've come to believe that racial reconciliation can come easily – that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved.
All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick. We long for unity, but are unwilling to pay the price. But of course, true unity cannot be so easily won.
It starts with a change in attitudes – a broadening of our minds, and a broadening of our hearts. It's not easy to stand in somebody else's shoes. It's not easy to see past our differences. We've all encountered this in our own lives.
But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart – that puts up walls between us. We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.
For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system. And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity. Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.
So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others – all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face – war and poverty; injustice and inequality.
We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late. Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.
But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.
The Scripture tells us that we are judged not just by word, but by deed. And if we are to truly bring about the unity that is so crucial in this time, we must find it within ourselves to act on what we know; to understand that living up to this country's ideals and its possibilities will require great effort and resources; sacrifice and stamina.
And that is what is at stake in the great political debate we are having today. The changes that are needed are not just a matter of tinkering at the edges, and they will not come if politicians simply tell us what we want to hear. All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.
That is how we will bring about the change we seek. That is how Dr. King led this country through the wilderness. He did it with words – words that he spoke not just to the children of slaves, but the children of slave owners. Words that inspired not just black but also white; not just the Christian but the Jew; not just the Southerner but also the Northerner.
He led with words, but he also led with deeds. He also led by example. He led by marching and going to jail and suffering threats and being away from his family. He led by taking a stand against a war, knowing full well that it would diminish his popularity. He led by challenging our economic structures, understanding that it would cause discomfort.
Dr. King understood that unity cannot be won on the cheap; that we would have to earn it through great effort and determination.That is the unity – the hard-earned unity – that we need right now. It is that effort, and that determination, that can transform blind optimism into hope – the hope to imagine, and work for, and fight for what seemed impossible before.
The stories that give me such hope don't happen in the spotlight. They don't happen on the presidential stage. They happen in the quiet corners of our lives. They happen in the moments we least expect. Let me give you an example of one of those stories.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organizes for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She's been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and the other day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there. And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat. She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
So Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children. But it is where we begin. It is why the walls in that room began to crack and shake.
And if they can shake in that room, they can shake in Atlanta. And if they can shake in Atlanta, they can shake in Georgia. And if they can shake in Georgia, they can shake all across America. And if enough of our voices join together; we can bring those walls tumbling down. The walls of Jericho can finally come tumbling down. That is our hope – but only if we pray together, and work together, and march together.
Brothers and sisters, we cannot walk alone. In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone. In the struggle for opportunity and equality, we cannot walk alone In the struggle to heal this nation and repair this world, we cannot walk alone. So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all. May God bless the memory of the great pastor of this church, and may God bless the United States of America
Update: This speech is now on YouTube, where it currently is the fourth most watched video in the world.
"Unity is the great need of the hour" is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome. What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake. If a few more women were willing to do what Rosa Parks had done, maybe the cracks would start to show. If teenagers took freedom rides from North to South, maybe a few bricks would come loose. Maybe if white folks marched because they had come to understand that their freedom too was at stake in the impending battle, the wall would begin to sway. And if enough Americans were awakened to the injustice; if they joined together, North and South, rich and poor, Christian and Jew, then perhaps that wall would come tumbling down, and justice would flow like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans. I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.
We have an empathy deficit when we're still sending our children down corridors of shame – schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can't afford a doctor when their children get sick.We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.
We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own. So we have a deficit to close. We have walls – barriers to justice and equality – that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.
Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe that it can be purchased on the cheap. We've come to believe that racial reconciliation can come easily – that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved.
All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick. We long for unity, but are unwilling to pay the price. But of course, true unity cannot be so easily won.
It starts with a change in attitudes – a broadening of our minds, and a broadening of our hearts. It's not easy to stand in somebody else's shoes. It's not easy to see past our differences. We've all encountered this in our own lives.
But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart – that puts up walls between us. We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.
For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system. And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity. Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.
So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others – all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face – war and poverty; injustice and inequality.
We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late. Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.
But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.
The Scripture tells us that we are judged not just by word, but by deed. And if we are to truly bring about the unity that is so crucial in this time, we must find it within ourselves to act on what we know; to understand that living up to this country's ideals and its possibilities will require great effort and resources; sacrifice and stamina.
And that is what is at stake in the great political debate we are having today. The changes that are needed are not just a matter of tinkering at the edges, and they will not come if politicians simply tell us what we want to hear. All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.
That is how we will bring about the change we seek. That is how Dr. King led this country through the wilderness. He did it with words – words that he spoke not just to the children of slaves, but the children of slave owners. Words that inspired not just black but also white; not just the Christian but the Jew; not just the Southerner but also the Northerner.
He led with words, but he also led with deeds. He also led by example. He led by marching and going to jail and suffering threats and being away from his family. He led by taking a stand against a war, knowing full well that it would diminish his popularity. He led by challenging our economic structures, understanding that it would cause discomfort.
Dr. King understood that unity cannot be won on the cheap; that we would have to earn it through great effort and determination.That is the unity – the hard-earned unity – that we need right now. It is that effort, and that determination, that can transform blind optimism into hope – the hope to imagine, and work for, and fight for what seemed impossible before.
The stories that give me such hope don't happen in the spotlight. They don't happen on the presidential stage. They happen in the quiet corners of our lives. They happen in the moments we least expect. Let me give you an example of one of those stories.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organizes for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She's been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and the other day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there. And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat. She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
So Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children. But it is where we begin. It is why the walls in that room began to crack and shake.
And if they can shake in that room, they can shake in Atlanta. And if they can shake in Atlanta, they can shake in Georgia. And if they can shake in Georgia, they can shake all across America. And if enough of our voices join together; we can bring those walls tumbling down. The walls of Jericho can finally come tumbling down. That is our hope – but only if we pray together, and work together, and march together.
Brothers and sisters, we cannot walk alone. In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone. In the struggle for opportunity and equality, we cannot walk alone In the struggle to heal this nation and repair this world, we cannot walk alone. So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all. May God bless the memory of the great pastor of this church, and may God bless the United States of America
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Dreaming Up Daily Image
This is a beach scene. The blue at the top is the
ocean waves, glowing with luminicent life. The
red strip is the pollution known as the red tide.
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
"We all seem doomed to a freedom to choose between indifference and sadness."
James Wright
James Wright
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
To Stop It: Not Easy But Easier
People in the developed world, and specifically in America, are showing their concern for the Climate Crisis and related energy issues by trying to do something about it. (After all, the Toyota Prius hybrid outsold the Ford Explorer SUV here in 2007.) Though the eventual need will likely be nothing short of transformational, there are places to start that could have profound effects on lessening greenhouse gas pollution, and on lower energy costs at every level, including to families and individuals.
In Tuesday's Democratic debate, Barack Obama brought up energy conservation as such a strategy. He mentioned replacing light bulbs with more efficient florescents, and various design changes to increase efficiency and use renewable energy. He referred to these as the "low hanging fruit"--that is, the easiest alternatives to harvest.
I have to admit that although I am transitioning to florescent light bulbs, I didn't quite realize the magnitude of what such a switch can mean. Here is what Lester Brown of the WorldWatch Institute writes about it (as excerpted in Sentient Times ), with my emphases:
Perhaps the quickest, easiest, and most profitable way to reduce electricity use worldwide—thus cutting carbon emissions—is simply to change light bulbs. Replacing the inefficient incandescent light bulbs that are still widely used today with new compact fluorescents (CFLs) can reduce electricity use by three fourths. The energy saved by replacing a 100-watt incandescent bulb with an equivalent CFL over its lifetime is sufficient to drive a Toyota Prius hybrid car from New York to San Francisco. ..
Shifting to CFLs in homes, to the most advanced linear fluorescents in office buildings, commercial outlets, and factories, and to LEDs in traffic lights would cut the world share of electricity used for lighting from 19 percent to 7 percent.
Here in California, CFLs are practically free, as the result of a state program. So except for lamps and fixtures that don't accept the current designs, there's no excuse not to switch--even given the disposal problems. By the time a new CFL gives out, they may have improved design to deal with that.
My latest conservation efforts have been in turning off as many appliances that are always on (in standby mode, like computers, TVs etc.) as practical, by plugging them into power strips, and switching off the power when not in use. We saw results in the electric bill immediately.
On a slightly larger scale, there are changes in home and workplace design, and eventually in community design as talked about in Lester Brown's article, and advocated by many, including writers Kim Stanley Robinson and James Howard Kuntsler. But again, the cumulative effect of gradually going green when repairs and replacements are necessary, and maybe making one major change every so often (like solar panels) when that's practical, can add up.
Then there are the decisions by communities that inevitably become political ones, that can have major consequences. To its advocacy for green design, a group called Architecture 2030 is calling for a complete end to building new coal-fired electrical plants. John Edwards advocated the same at the Tuesday debate.
This site has often emphasized the bad news and the likely outcomes if we don't change, as a way to emphasize the urgency of changing. (And more of that is coming, unfortunately.) But while the necessary changes are ultimately major, they can start with what's easy, and then what's maybe not easy but easier than ultimate change, which can come step by step. In fact, the people who deal with figuring out the details of solutions are much more hopeful that the necessary changes are doable than those who deny the causes of the Climate Crisis and then add that it's too difficult to deal with anyway.
Unfortunately a lot of these science and design types are not great communicators to the many of us who are not. (Lester Brown is one of the exceptions, so I refer you back to that article.) And while all the video and poster contests are probably helpful in getting young people involved, they need to do a little more towards informing and inspiring the adults who can actually do something now.
In Tuesday's Democratic debate, Barack Obama brought up energy conservation as such a strategy. He mentioned replacing light bulbs with more efficient florescents, and various design changes to increase efficiency and use renewable energy. He referred to these as the "low hanging fruit"--that is, the easiest alternatives to harvest.
I have to admit that although I am transitioning to florescent light bulbs, I didn't quite realize the magnitude of what such a switch can mean. Here is what Lester Brown of the WorldWatch Institute writes about it (as excerpted in Sentient Times ), with my emphases:
Perhaps the quickest, easiest, and most profitable way to reduce electricity use worldwide—thus cutting carbon emissions—is simply to change light bulbs. Replacing the inefficient incandescent light bulbs that are still widely used today with new compact fluorescents (CFLs) can reduce electricity use by three fourths. The energy saved by replacing a 100-watt incandescent bulb with an equivalent CFL over its lifetime is sufficient to drive a Toyota Prius hybrid car from New York to San Francisco. ..
Shifting to CFLs in homes, to the most advanced linear fluorescents in office buildings, commercial outlets, and factories, and to LEDs in traffic lights would cut the world share of electricity used for lighting from 19 percent to 7 percent.
Here in California, CFLs are practically free, as the result of a state program. So except for lamps and fixtures that don't accept the current designs, there's no excuse not to switch--even given the disposal problems. By the time a new CFL gives out, they may have improved design to deal with that.
My latest conservation efforts have been in turning off as many appliances that are always on (in standby mode, like computers, TVs etc.) as practical, by plugging them into power strips, and switching off the power when not in use. We saw results in the electric bill immediately.
On a slightly larger scale, there are changes in home and workplace design, and eventually in community design as talked about in Lester Brown's article, and advocated by many, including writers Kim Stanley Robinson and James Howard Kuntsler. But again, the cumulative effect of gradually going green when repairs and replacements are necessary, and maybe making one major change every so often (like solar panels) when that's practical, can add up.
Then there are the decisions by communities that inevitably become political ones, that can have major consequences. To its advocacy for green design, a group called Architecture 2030 is calling for a complete end to building new coal-fired electrical plants. John Edwards advocated the same at the Tuesday debate.
This site has often emphasized the bad news and the likely outcomes if we don't change, as a way to emphasize the urgency of changing. (And more of that is coming, unfortunately.) But while the necessary changes are ultimately major, they can start with what's easy, and then what's maybe not easy but easier than ultimate change, which can come step by step. In fact, the people who deal with figuring out the details of solutions are much more hopeful that the necessary changes are doable than those who deny the causes of the Climate Crisis and then add that it's too difficult to deal with anyway.
Unfortunately a lot of these science and design types are not great communicators to the many of us who are not. (Lester Brown is one of the exceptions, so I refer you back to that article.) And while all the video and poster contests are probably helpful in getting young people involved, they need to do a little more towards informing and inspiring the adults who can actually do something now.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Stop the Silliness: Campaign Notes
Update, Tuesday night: After the Democratic debate in Nevada and the Republican primary in Michigan with the third winner in three contests, it feels great to be a Democrat. Trapper John liveblogging the debate at Kos said it best: "We've got three potential presidents up there -- they've got Lord of the Flies."
The three Democratic candidates came together to make the Democratic party stronger going into the decisive part of the primary campaigns and especially into the general election against the Republicans. This will help whoever the nominee will be, and also it will help elect a more Democratic and progressive Congress, which each will need to govern effectively.
Individually, I thought each had moments that helped them and hurt them, but on balance they all helped themselves. I feel better, although I don't think I'll soon forget how the Clintons behaved when they felt they were losing, in contrast to how Obama has behaved since his loss in New Hampshire. (There's more at American Dash.) END OF UPDATE.
On Monday Barack Obama held a press conference, at which he said: “I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”
“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”
“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.”
"I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think they care about the African-American community and that they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and justice in this country.”
This was the first bit of sanity in several intense days in which identity politics reared its ugly head with charges and countercharges of racism and sexism whizzing back and forth. Though many of the charges were made, on and off the record, by staff and "surrogates" (an inaccurate use of the word, but that's the one everyone uses), Hillary and Bill Clinton did a lot of this to themselves by their clumsy statements, and their refusal to admit the statements were clumsy (though they wound up backtracking.) While I can see the points they were trying to make, and I understand that they were tired and perhaps desperate when they made some of these statements, they still reveal to me a small-mindedness and willingness to distort for political advantage that simply sickens me.
It seems a classic case of having suffered the vicious distortions of the right wing conspiracy, they've taken up the weapons of their erstwhile enemies. The irony of the week was that in the crossfire of statements by Democrats that might or might not have been conscious racial codewords, few noticed Karl Rove's overt use of racial codewords in his column. He must be pleased as punch.
The Clintons continue to distort Obama's record on the Iraq war, to the extent that his fellow Illinois Senator Durbin called it swift-boating. Obama himself didn't go that far, but he did say: "I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election."
The Offensive
This amidst a week of controversy over remarks that offend African Americans, including by a "feminist" defending Hillary. Controvery over remarks about Hillary that offend women, including remarks by other women. Hillary and her people were lambasted for being divisive, and defended as victims of a sensation-hungry media. Her staff and supporters are accused of engaging in racial politics. Then Hillary accused "the Obama campaign" of keeping alive the controversy over her remarks about Martin Luther King and LBJ. Yet it is her own words that haunt her.
One of her defenders specifically noted that the New York Times and other media are lifting her remark out of context. That does happen to be a nasty habit of our arrogant, theme-driven, cliche-making media. But here is the full quote as he produces it:
"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."
So this is supposed to make it better. Actually, I grasped the point she was trying to make the first time--it may take a village but in the end it takes a President, and in a narrow framework, I agree. That's why we need a President who will lead on the Climate Crisis in particular, but also many other issues.
It's a metaphor for a legitimate if insulting point, which is-- Obama (King): poet, dreamer, who can't get things done. Hillary (LBJ): no poetry but ready to execute. There's no real evidence this is so, but it does state an assertion of why she should get the nomination.
People are upset because she disses Dr. King, who did a lot more than make speeches, when and where even making speeches was pretty courageous and important. They are upset by the implication that black people are dreamers who aren't competent executives, and that black people always need white people to do the heavy lifting. I don't think they're impressed by the quite believable statement that this isn't what Hillary intended to say. They suspect unconscious racism.
But what did she intend to say? She was specifically countering the power of Obama's message of "hope." Hope isn't enough, she was saying, and she talked about failed hopes. And in this context, the statement actually gets worse.
Leave aside Dr. King for a moment--look at this part of the statement:
" when he [LBJ] was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do..."
That's when she utters the codeword hope. The implication is that here we have another dreamer, President Kennedy, able to inspire a generation and he makes eloquent speeches, but --let's straighten out her grammar for her--he only hoped to pass Civil Rights legislation, but apparently he failed. It took experienced pro LBJ to do it.
Well, it's true that JFK proposed the legislation that became the Civil Rights Act. But I wouldn't exactly call it a failure of leadership. It was more along the lines of somebody killed him.
So for my money, her expanded quote not only insults Martin Luther King, Jr., it insults John F. Kennedy.
And once again I remind her and you that the one experience in raising hopes that Hillary is known for was to bring universal health care to the U.S. in 1993 when it was a very popular idea. She was the point person on getting it done, and she failed. I don't think it was all her fault, but the fact is, the Clintons raised hopes, and those remain failed hopes, and people like me are affected by that failure. Kind of ironic, huh?
Are you experienced?
When you get to the nub of many of these charges and distortions the Clintons had engaged in since just before the New Hampshire vote, the intent on the face of it seems to be to support Hillary's claim of being experienced, while Obama is not.
It seems reasonable to talk about one's specific experience and how it contrasts or compares with the experience(s) of someone else also seeking the presidency. But Hillary's argument that she is qualified because she is Experienced and Obama is Inexperienced raises the basic question: what is she talking about? What experience?
Hillary was never elected to anything until the year 2000. Before that, she had accomplishments on various issues, as did Barack Obama. Obama was elected to the state legislature in 1997. Hillary has roughly four more years than he does in the U.S. Senate, while he has roughly three more years as an elected public servant. They both have specific accomplishments as Senators.
Yet Hillary is Experienced and Obama is not-- stated most offensively by Gloria Steinem who insisted that a woman with as little experience as Obama would never be considered for President. Only a man. Which apparently means that this society hates the idea of a woman President so much that it would even rather have an unqualified black man. How offensive is that? Steinem is having a very ugly 70s flashback.
But Steinem glosses over the uncomfortable fact that most of Hillary's "experience" is of being what she was so caustic about in the past: a wife. Hillary was the wife of the President of the United States, after being the wife of a Governor. She can claim all she wants to claim about what she did there, but on the face of it, this is the qualification for President of Laura Bush.
Hillary may be able to tell us what's specifically relevant about the direct experiences of a First Lady and the indirect experiences of observing what people with responsibilities as elected or appointed officials did. But as a general claim of experience, it just doesn't work for me. What probably qualifies Hillary even more these days in the minds of many--and Steinem must really be galled by this--is that electing Hillary is also electing someone with actual experience of the responsibility of the office, her husband. He seems to be running just as much as she is.
I don't argue with Hillary's qualifications to be President, especially compared to the guy in there now. I certainly don't argue against it on the basis of gender, and women--especially women running for office-- have specific "damned if they do/damned if they don't" problems due to stupid gender stereotypes. Though how the Clinton campaign plays the gender card is a fascinating and not altogether praiseworthy story. Right here I simply maintain that the "I'm experienced and he isn't" argument is false and insulting. And incidentally, would be ripped to shreds in the general election.
I agree with what Obama said in his peacemaking statement. But the last couple of weeks has reduced my respect for the Clintons markedly. I'll vote for her if she is nominated because we only get to hire one of two people for the job in November (although if Al Gore were to run at the head of a third party ticket, I would probably vote for him.)
On the other hand, as long as we're doing identity politics, maybe I should vote for Giuliani. It's true there's never been a woman or an African American elected President. There also has never been an Italian American elected President. You know, fuggedabadit.
It saddens me to say that I believe--more now than even two weeks ago--that I don't see anything really changing if the Clintons are returned, except perhaps somewhat reducing the damage Bush has done, but that's not enough to save the future. At this point I would vote for Hillary but without hope.
I'll vote my hopes for the possibility of what John Kerry calls a "transformative presidency" when I vote for Obama in the California primary.
The three Democratic candidates came together to make the Democratic party stronger going into the decisive part of the primary campaigns and especially into the general election against the Republicans. This will help whoever the nominee will be, and also it will help elect a more Democratic and progressive Congress, which each will need to govern effectively.
Individually, I thought each had moments that helped them and hurt them, but on balance they all helped themselves. I feel better, although I don't think I'll soon forget how the Clintons behaved when they felt they were losing, in contrast to how Obama has behaved since his loss in New Hampshire. (There's more at American Dash.) END OF UPDATE.
On Monday Barack Obama held a press conference, at which he said: “I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”
“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”
“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.”
"I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think they care about the African-American community and that they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and justice in this country.”
This was the first bit of sanity in several intense days in which identity politics reared its ugly head with charges and countercharges of racism and sexism whizzing back and forth. Though many of the charges were made, on and off the record, by staff and "surrogates" (an inaccurate use of the word, but that's the one everyone uses), Hillary and Bill Clinton did a lot of this to themselves by their clumsy statements, and their refusal to admit the statements were clumsy (though they wound up backtracking.) While I can see the points they were trying to make, and I understand that they were tired and perhaps desperate when they made some of these statements, they still reveal to me a small-mindedness and willingness to distort for political advantage that simply sickens me.
It seems a classic case of having suffered the vicious distortions of the right wing conspiracy, they've taken up the weapons of their erstwhile enemies. The irony of the week was that in the crossfire of statements by Democrats that might or might not have been conscious racial codewords, few noticed Karl Rove's overt use of racial codewords in his column. He must be pleased as punch.
The Clintons continue to distort Obama's record on the Iraq war, to the extent that his fellow Illinois Senator Durbin called it swift-boating. Obama himself didn't go that far, but he did say: "I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election."
The Offensive
This amidst a week of controversy over remarks that offend African Americans, including by a "feminist" defending Hillary. Controvery over remarks about Hillary that offend women, including remarks by other women. Hillary and her people were lambasted for being divisive, and defended as victims of a sensation-hungry media. Her staff and supporters are accused of engaging in racial politics. Then Hillary accused "the Obama campaign" of keeping alive the controversy over her remarks about Martin Luther King and LBJ. Yet it is her own words that haunt her.
One of her defenders specifically noted that the New York Times and other media are lifting her remark out of context. That does happen to be a nasty habit of our arrogant, theme-driven, cliche-making media. But here is the full quote as he produces it:
"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."
So this is supposed to make it better. Actually, I grasped the point she was trying to make the first time--it may take a village but in the end it takes a President, and in a narrow framework, I agree. That's why we need a President who will lead on the Climate Crisis in particular, but also many other issues.
It's a metaphor for a legitimate if insulting point, which is-- Obama (King): poet, dreamer, who can't get things done. Hillary (LBJ): no poetry but ready to execute. There's no real evidence this is so, but it does state an assertion of why she should get the nomination.
People are upset because she disses Dr. King, who did a lot more than make speeches, when and where even making speeches was pretty courageous and important. They are upset by the implication that black people are dreamers who aren't competent executives, and that black people always need white people to do the heavy lifting. I don't think they're impressed by the quite believable statement that this isn't what Hillary intended to say. They suspect unconscious racism.
But what did she intend to say? She was specifically countering the power of Obama's message of "hope." Hope isn't enough, she was saying, and she talked about failed hopes. And in this context, the statement actually gets worse.
Leave aside Dr. King for a moment--look at this part of the statement:
" when he [LBJ] was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do..."
That's when she utters the codeword hope. The implication is that here we have another dreamer, President Kennedy, able to inspire a generation and he makes eloquent speeches, but --let's straighten out her grammar for her--he only hoped to pass Civil Rights legislation, but apparently he failed. It took experienced pro LBJ to do it.
Well, it's true that JFK proposed the legislation that became the Civil Rights Act. But I wouldn't exactly call it a failure of leadership. It was more along the lines of somebody killed him.
So for my money, her expanded quote not only insults Martin Luther King, Jr., it insults John F. Kennedy.
And once again I remind her and you that the one experience in raising hopes that Hillary is known for was to bring universal health care to the U.S. in 1993 when it was a very popular idea. She was the point person on getting it done, and she failed. I don't think it was all her fault, but the fact is, the Clintons raised hopes, and those remain failed hopes, and people like me are affected by that failure. Kind of ironic, huh?
Are you experienced?
When you get to the nub of many of these charges and distortions the Clintons had engaged in since just before the New Hampshire vote, the intent on the face of it seems to be to support Hillary's claim of being experienced, while Obama is not.
It seems reasonable to talk about one's specific experience and how it contrasts or compares with the experience(s) of someone else also seeking the presidency. But Hillary's argument that she is qualified because she is Experienced and Obama is Inexperienced raises the basic question: what is she talking about? What experience?
Hillary was never elected to anything until the year 2000. Before that, she had accomplishments on various issues, as did Barack Obama. Obama was elected to the state legislature in 1997. Hillary has roughly four more years than he does in the U.S. Senate, while he has roughly three more years as an elected public servant. They both have specific accomplishments as Senators.
Yet Hillary is Experienced and Obama is not-- stated most offensively by Gloria Steinem who insisted that a woman with as little experience as Obama would never be considered for President. Only a man. Which apparently means that this society hates the idea of a woman President so much that it would even rather have an unqualified black man. How offensive is that? Steinem is having a very ugly 70s flashback.
But Steinem glosses over the uncomfortable fact that most of Hillary's "experience" is of being what she was so caustic about in the past: a wife. Hillary was the wife of the President of the United States, after being the wife of a Governor. She can claim all she wants to claim about what she did there, but on the face of it, this is the qualification for President of Laura Bush.
Hillary may be able to tell us what's specifically relevant about the direct experiences of a First Lady and the indirect experiences of observing what people with responsibilities as elected or appointed officials did. But as a general claim of experience, it just doesn't work for me. What probably qualifies Hillary even more these days in the minds of many--and Steinem must really be galled by this--is that electing Hillary is also electing someone with actual experience of the responsibility of the office, her husband. He seems to be running just as much as she is.
I don't argue with Hillary's qualifications to be President, especially compared to the guy in there now. I certainly don't argue against it on the basis of gender, and women--especially women running for office-- have specific "damned if they do/damned if they don't" problems due to stupid gender stereotypes. Though how the Clinton campaign plays the gender card is a fascinating and not altogether praiseworthy story. Right here I simply maintain that the "I'm experienced and he isn't" argument is false and insulting. And incidentally, would be ripped to shreds in the general election.
I agree with what Obama said in his peacemaking statement. But the last couple of weeks has reduced my respect for the Clintons markedly. I'll vote for her if she is nominated because we only get to hire one of two people for the job in November (although if Al Gore were to run at the head of a third party ticket, I would probably vote for him.)
On the other hand, as long as we're doing identity politics, maybe I should vote for Giuliani. It's true there's never been a woman or an African American elected President. There also has never been an Italian American elected President. You know, fuggedabadit.
It saddens me to say that I believe--more now than even two weeks ago--that I don't see anything really changing if the Clintons are returned, except perhaps somewhat reducing the damage Bush has done, but that's not enough to save the future. At this point I would vote for Hillary but without hope.
I'll vote my hopes for the possibility of what John Kerry calls a "transformative presidency" when I vote for Obama in the California primary.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Dreaming Up Daily Image
an unidentified floating creature in the unknownworld of the deep (very deep) blue seas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
