Barack Obama earlier this week.
2 weeks ago
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama's Speech on Race: How It Plays
Note: If you haven't seen Obama's speech, you can access it through the Obama News gadget I've added to the left side column. That should also link you to the text, but if not, it's here.
The praise for Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on the subject of race is almost universal. But the tough talking pundits on cable news channels--who are basically the ones who fed the frenzy that made the speech necessary--now say yeah, we think it's great, but what will that white working class guy in Pennsylvania think?
It happens that within the white working class (or lower middle to middle middle class) in western Pennsylvania is where I grew up. It seemed to me immediately that there were several parts of the speech that will resonate, including one I haven't seen commented on in terms of how it will play with this group: Obama condemned those selected statements of Rev. Wright but he refused to disown his former preacher, in very strong terms. He was loyal, and that resonates. Loyalty is a prized virtue, especially within families and within communities, including "faith communities."
My testimony however is not the only possible evidence that this will resonate. In another and mostly more local controversy--his relationship and dealings with Chicago real estater Tony Rezko--Obama spent hours recently with reporters of the two Chicago dailies, answering literally every one of their questions. He explained to their satisfaction that he'd done nothing wrong or illegal, although he probably should have anticipated the appearance of conflict of interest earlier. He revealed also that his relationship with Rezko was closer than previously known--that they'd been friends.
The Chicago Tribune concluded that Obama's candor set a standard by which other politicians will be judged. But the columnist for the Sun-Times had an additional thought:
The second thing that struck me Friday had to do with loyalty. This could not be a more intense time for Obama as he slugs it out with Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. And it arguably would be a fine time to throw Tony Rezko under the bus.
But Obama remains grateful that Rezko supported him in his failed congressional race against Bobby Rush when, given a relationship with Rush, it wasn’t easy. “That was loyalty that I appreciated,” the senator said.
And so Obama still calls Rezko “a friend, with the caveat that if it turns out the allegations are true, then he’s not who I thought he was, and I’d be very disappointed with that.”
So, candor — though delayed — gives us a clearer view. And friendship — tested but not abandoned — looks more like a virtue than a fault.
By speaking of white working class grievances as well as black, by talking candidly about all of these issues in relationship to his own life, background and experiences, by being calm and direct, and with that hint of emotion when he ended his speech with the story of Ashley, the young white woman who inspired an old black man, Obama connected. But perhaps the most direct connection was this loyalty. Every working class family I know of has had to deal with the frailties or bad acts or mistakes of family members or even views or "lifestyles" they don't agree with, and whether or not to "disown." Mostly nobody gets disowned, even if things aren't ever the same again. Families can't exist otherwise. This extends beyond the family in certain cases, like churches. Even when people can't themselves live up to the ideal, they prize loyalty like this.
The message is about more than loyalty, of course. It is about coming together despite our differences. It is a profoundly Christian message, though not exclusive to that faith or philosophy. It is a profoundly American message. It is an immensely practical message. It is Obama's message, which he embodies.
The question was also raised whether Obama's speech was too complex for the non-elites. Obama talked about what people talk about around the kitchen table. It's elitist to think that non-elites can't handle complexity, especially when it affects their own lives. My last time back home last spring, I sat at the table with family and neighbors and people related in a variety of ways, gathered to celebrate the graduation of one of my nieces from college. They were talking about alternative energy, especially as it bears on the problem of high gasoline prices, with great practicality and interest--without the sort of political slant that's inevitable when such subjects are aired in the media.
Obama's speech was framed inside a very practical message: we have to confront these racial issues to get beyond them, because ultimately we must all work together to concentrate on getting done what needs to be done for everyone. That's something everyone at the kitchen table can understand these days.
Obama hinted that it is among the young that race (like gender and sexual preferences) is no longer a powerful divider. He gave today's public--and the media-- the choice of continuing to dwell on fear-mongering distractions, or getting beyond them to confronting the crucial problems of now. If we don't confront them, and solve them together, we will be destroying the future of those young people, and their children and grandchildren.
If we elect this man as our President, we have a chance to confront the consequences of our own mistakes, misunderstandings and failures. If we don't, we will compound the failures of the past by failing to take advantage of this rare opportunity. And we will have failed the future--the future of my nieces and their children.
The praise for Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on the subject of race is almost universal. But the tough talking pundits on cable news channels--who are basically the ones who fed the frenzy that made the speech necessary--now say yeah, we think it's great, but what will that white working class guy in Pennsylvania think?
It happens that within the white working class (or lower middle to middle middle class) in western Pennsylvania is where I grew up. It seemed to me immediately that there were several parts of the speech that will resonate, including one I haven't seen commented on in terms of how it will play with this group: Obama condemned those selected statements of Rev. Wright but he refused to disown his former preacher, in very strong terms. He was loyal, and that resonates. Loyalty is a prized virtue, especially within families and within communities, including "faith communities."
My testimony however is not the only possible evidence that this will resonate. In another and mostly more local controversy--his relationship and dealings with Chicago real estater Tony Rezko--Obama spent hours recently with reporters of the two Chicago dailies, answering literally every one of their questions. He explained to their satisfaction that he'd done nothing wrong or illegal, although he probably should have anticipated the appearance of conflict of interest earlier. He revealed also that his relationship with Rezko was closer than previously known--that they'd been friends.
The Chicago Tribune concluded that Obama's candor set a standard by which other politicians will be judged. But the columnist for the Sun-Times had an additional thought:
The second thing that struck me Friday had to do with loyalty. This could not be a more intense time for Obama as he slugs it out with Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. And it arguably would be a fine time to throw Tony Rezko under the bus.
But Obama remains grateful that Rezko supported him in his failed congressional race against Bobby Rush when, given a relationship with Rush, it wasn’t easy. “That was loyalty that I appreciated,” the senator said.
And so Obama still calls Rezko “a friend, with the caveat that if it turns out the allegations are true, then he’s not who I thought he was, and I’d be very disappointed with that.”
So, candor — though delayed — gives us a clearer view. And friendship — tested but not abandoned — looks more like a virtue than a fault.
By speaking of white working class grievances as well as black, by talking candidly about all of these issues in relationship to his own life, background and experiences, by being calm and direct, and with that hint of emotion when he ended his speech with the story of Ashley, the young white woman who inspired an old black man, Obama connected. But perhaps the most direct connection was this loyalty. Every working class family I know of has had to deal with the frailties or bad acts or mistakes of family members or even views or "lifestyles" they don't agree with, and whether or not to "disown." Mostly nobody gets disowned, even if things aren't ever the same again. Families can't exist otherwise. This extends beyond the family in certain cases, like churches. Even when people can't themselves live up to the ideal, they prize loyalty like this.
The message is about more than loyalty, of course. It is about coming together despite our differences. It is a profoundly Christian message, though not exclusive to that faith or philosophy. It is a profoundly American message. It is an immensely practical message. It is Obama's message, which he embodies.
The question was also raised whether Obama's speech was too complex for the non-elites. Obama talked about what people talk about around the kitchen table. It's elitist to think that non-elites can't handle complexity, especially when it affects their own lives. My last time back home last spring, I sat at the table with family and neighbors and people related in a variety of ways, gathered to celebrate the graduation of one of my nieces from college. They were talking about alternative energy, especially as it bears on the problem of high gasoline prices, with great practicality and interest--without the sort of political slant that's inevitable when such subjects are aired in the media.
Obama's speech was framed inside a very practical message: we have to confront these racial issues to get beyond them, because ultimately we must all work together to concentrate on getting done what needs to be done for everyone. That's something everyone at the kitchen table can understand these days.
Obama hinted that it is among the young that race (like gender and sexual preferences) is no longer a powerful divider. He gave today's public--and the media-- the choice of continuing to dwell on fear-mongering distractions, or getting beyond them to confronting the crucial problems of now. If we don't confront them, and solve them together, we will be destroying the future of those young people, and their children and grandchildren.
If we elect this man as our President, we have a chance to confront the consequences of our own mistakes, misunderstandings and failures. If we don't, we will compound the failures of the past by failing to take advantage of this rare opportunity. And we will have failed the future--the future of my nieces and their children.
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
"Do I have to be 94 years old to remember these names? Are they otherwise erased from history?"
Studs Terkel, who at 94 complains that not even the recent past is remembered in what he calls the United States of Alzheimer's.
Studs Terkel, who at 94 complains that not even the recent past is remembered in what he calls the United States of Alzheimer's.
Cultural Genocide
The Dalai Lama calls for an international probe into
cultural genocide in Tibet, as China cracks down
with violence.
Big Trouble in Tibet
What's really going on in Tibet is not precisely known, but it's likely to be very, very bad. Protests against what the Dalai Lama called "cultural genocide" have resulted in threats and violence by the Chinese government. According to Tibetan exile groups in India ( who "have provided some of the only reporting" from Tibet "since last Monday" said an ABC story), many have been killed.
"People have been saying they're shooting our people like dogs," Tenzin Norgay, the spokesman for the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, told ABC News, citing his sources inside Tibet.
The Times of London is reporting close to to 1,000 Tibetans are under arrest. Now the Dalai Lama says if Tibetans engage in violence he will resign.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government is accusing the Dalai Lama of ordering the rebellion, charging as well that it is an attempt to stop the Olympics from being held in China. China is also blocking YouTube so that Chinese can't see the only video coming out of Tibet. So the situation doesn't look like it's going to get better soon, and may get a great deal worse.
Over the recent past, China has been busily destroying ancient Tibetan structures, especially those associated with Buddhism, and turning cities like Lhasa into perverse imitation Tibetan shopping malls for tourists. They've apparently murdered thousands of Buddhist monks in the process.
China has proven that capitalism and totalitarian iron-fisted rule work pretty well together. They make most of what Americans buy, and they've financed the Bushite wars and tax cuts for the wealthy by buying up federal government debt. So it's no wonder that the Bushites recently removed China from the list of the world's top ten human rights violators.
"People have been saying they're shooting our people like dogs," Tenzin Norgay, the spokesman for the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, told ABC News, citing his sources inside Tibet.
The Times of London is reporting close to to 1,000 Tibetans are under arrest. Now the Dalai Lama says if Tibetans engage in violence he will resign.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government is accusing the Dalai Lama of ordering the rebellion, charging as well that it is an attempt to stop the Olympics from being held in China. China is also blocking YouTube so that Chinese can't see the only video coming out of Tibet. So the situation doesn't look like it's going to get better soon, and may get a great deal worse.
Over the recent past, China has been busily destroying ancient Tibetan structures, especially those associated with Buddhism, and turning cities like Lhasa into perverse imitation Tibetan shopping malls for tourists. They've apparently murdered thousands of Buddhist monks in the process.
China has proven that capitalism and totalitarian iron-fisted rule work pretty well together. They make most of what Americans buy, and they've financed the Bushite wars and tax cuts for the wealthy by buying up federal government debt. So it's no wonder that the Bushites recently removed China from the list of the world's top ten human rights violators.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
U.S.: End Iraq War Marches Saturday
Photos from a few of what have sorrowfully become annual marches across the U.S. against the Iraq war--from Eureka and Hollywood, California; and Washington, D.C.
Marches Around the World Saturday
Photos (by A
P) from a few marches Saturday in Barcelona, Madrid, London and Istanbul.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Dreaming Up Daily Image
"Salmon Cycle" by Joseph Wilson (Coast Salish)
at Inuit.com. Salmon continues to be a big issue
here on the North Coast and in the Klamath area.
After few salmon last year, this year is expected to
be even worse.
Five Years of War
Today there are marches across America to remind the country that the Bush McCain war in Iraq has been killing, maiming, destroying and burning trillions of dollars for five long years.
Even though most Americans aren't aware of it, nearly 4,000 American armed personnel have been killed there. Civilian deaths in Iraq are increasing.
Politicians aren't talking about it so much. The media is not reporting it, and continues to soft-peddling the truth of it. But it continues to destroy the lives of many people here and in Iraq, while it systematically destroys our future and our ability to respond to future challenges.
It must not be forgotten. It must be ended, as Barack Obama promises, in 2009.
Even though most Americans aren't aware of it, nearly 4,000 American armed personnel have been killed there. Civilian deaths in Iraq are increasing.
Politicians aren't talking about it so much. The media is not reporting it, and continues to soft-peddling the truth of it. But it continues to destroy the lives of many people here and in Iraq, while it systematically destroys our future and our ability to respond to future challenges.
It must not be forgotten. It must be ended, as Barack Obama promises, in 2009.
"No Shock Barack. No Drama Obama.”
It's been a dizzying week in the U.S. political campaign. I've been monitoring the ins and outs at American Dash, but the charges and countercharges, a party seemingly tearing itself apart over race and identity politics--it's all been superheated.
Except for one of the people in the eye of the storm: Barack Obama. Still cool, calm, cogent. Forceful in making his points, but rational and even-handed.
These qualities, obvious in the latest rounds of controversy over his former minister and a big contributor to past campaigns, were noted by a number of military leaders early in the week as they assessed and endorsed Obama for Commander in Chief.
General McPeak said the steady temperament that Mr. Obama has demonstrated during the campaign would serve him well as commander in chief... Said General Merrill McPeak (whose had his own problems with getting too excited in his campaign statements) “Senator Obama was up in Iowa, maybe not so up in New Hampshire, but he was the same Barack Obama “Steady, reliable, ‘No shock, Barack. No drama Obama.”
They spoke about his judgment. And while others--including a counsel in the Clinton White House--question Hillary's claims to experience, Keith Olbermann provided some historical perspective: FDR had served only six years as governor and state senator before he became President. Teddy Roosevelt had four and a half years of "experience" before the White House. Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks.
While on the other hand, before they became president Richard Nixon had 14 years in Washington, and Calvin Coolidge 25.
And while the pundits shout and people like me are half crazed with all the possible impacts of this thing and that, Obama is quietly moving closer to the nomination. His victories in Wyoming and Mississippi have more than made up delegates he lost on March 4, he's added 100,000 to his popular vote lead, and since Super Tuesday he has been endorsed by 47 super-delegates, while Hillary has lost a net of 7. Update: Saturday Obama picked up at least 7 delegates in Iowa, formerly for John Edwards. Second update: Obama picked up 9, Clinton lost 1--a net Obama gain of 10.
Even if Hillary wins PA by 15%, she can't catch Obama in delegates--in the contests to come, including PA, she has to average more than 64% of the delegates (meaning getting like 70% of the vote) while Obama only has to get about 45%. And on Friday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that if super-delegates "overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party." A very polite shot across the bow of the Hillary campaign.
But Obama is winning super-delegates anyway. He's doing especially well with elected officials. Hillary is desperately trying to insist that only the big states she wins should count, while super-delegates in other states--many of whom hold office, and would like to keep doing so--are seeing that Obama is committed to campaigning and strengthening the party everywhere, and that he wants a big congressional majority. Some studying the subject think he has the best chance to deliver it. Moreover, it's becoming noticed that Hillary has won almost exclusively in states where she was backed by the existing political machinery of the party. That machinery will function for any Democrat, so that's not much of an argument for Hillary's electability.
After Hillary's post-Ohio bounce, Obama has returned to leading in the national polls--he's led now for seven straight days and has broken the 50% barrier on Friday, leading by 6 points. He continues to be the more likely to beat McCain in November, and Democrats continue to consider him the more electable.
Obama has been inspirational with what he says and how he says it. But his cool inspires confidence, too. I've said it before, but it bears repeating because it's so important. Somebody like Barack Obama doesn't come along very often in political life. We are so lucky at this critical time to be able to elect him President.
Except for one of the people in the eye of the storm: Barack Obama. Still cool, calm, cogent. Forceful in making his points, but rational and even-handed.
These qualities, obvious in the latest rounds of controversy over his former minister and a big contributor to past campaigns, were noted by a number of military leaders early in the week as they assessed and endorsed Obama for Commander in Chief.
General McPeak said the steady temperament that Mr. Obama has demonstrated during the campaign would serve him well as commander in chief... Said General Merrill McPeak (whose had his own problems with getting too excited in his campaign statements) “Senator Obama was up in Iowa, maybe not so up in New Hampshire, but he was the same Barack Obama “Steady, reliable, ‘No shock, Barack. No drama Obama.”
They spoke about his judgment. And while others--including a counsel in the Clinton White House--question Hillary's claims to experience, Keith Olbermann provided some historical perspective: FDR had served only six years as governor and state senator before he became President. Teddy Roosevelt had four and a half years of "experience" before the White House. Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks.
While on the other hand, before they became president Richard Nixon had 14 years in Washington, and Calvin Coolidge 25.
And while the pundits shout and people like me are half crazed with all the possible impacts of this thing and that, Obama is quietly moving closer to the nomination. His victories in Wyoming and Mississippi have more than made up delegates he lost on March 4, he's added 100,000 to his popular vote lead, and since Super Tuesday he has been endorsed by 47 super-delegates, while Hillary has lost a net of 7. Update: Saturday Obama picked up at least 7 delegates in Iowa, formerly for John Edwards. Second update: Obama picked up 9, Clinton lost 1--a net Obama gain of 10.
Even if Hillary wins PA by 15%, she can't catch Obama in delegates--in the contests to come, including PA, she has to average more than 64% of the delegates (meaning getting like 70% of the vote) while Obama only has to get about 45%. And on Friday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that if super-delegates "overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party." A very polite shot across the bow of the Hillary campaign.
But Obama is winning super-delegates anyway. He's doing especially well with elected officials. Hillary is desperately trying to insist that only the big states she wins should count, while super-delegates in other states--many of whom hold office, and would like to keep doing so--are seeing that Obama is committed to campaigning and strengthening the party everywhere, and that he wants a big congressional majority. Some studying the subject think he has the best chance to deliver it. Moreover, it's becoming noticed that Hillary has won almost exclusively in states where she was backed by the existing political machinery of the party. That machinery will function for any Democrat, so that's not much of an argument for Hillary's electability.
After Hillary's post-Ohio bounce, Obama has returned to leading in the national polls--he's led now for seven straight days and has broken the 50% barrier on Friday, leading by 6 points. He continues to be the more likely to beat McCain in November, and Democrats continue to consider him the more electable.
Obama has been inspirational with what he says and how he says it. But his cool inspires confidence, too. I've said it before, but it bears repeating because it's so important. Somebody like Barack Obama doesn't come along very often in political life. We are so lucky at this critical time to be able to elect him President.
Meanwhile, as the world turns...
While the current political campaign is important and certainly absorbing, but it's worth mentioning that while all that money and all those words are being thrown around, the American economy is falling fast, oil has shot up beyond $1.10 a barrel and gas prices are moving up as well, unemployment is up, the stock market is tanking, consumer spending is way down, and at least one big bank is in danger of failing.
In case anyone has forgotten, Bush is still President, and besides warbling tasteless country song parodies about the Iraq war, he's the apparent leader of an administration that is still doing its damndest to screw civil liberties and ruin the air and the climate.
As for the Climate Crisis, scientists are signalling a new urgency. A Washington Post article last week said, these scientists say new studies indicate that the situation is so dire that the world needs to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades... Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.
As a further sign of what kind of creek we're up, the EU has been struggling mightily to get agreement on a plan to cut emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020, which is a start, but hardly enough. The hope has been that in creating and institutionalizing the changes necessary to do that much, there will be greater change and infrastructure to do what really needs to be done--an 80% reduction by 2050. Except, of course, these scientists are saying even that may not be enough.
And of course, the US is not even close to doing what the EU wants to do. Both Dem candidates talk about green jobs and green energy, with Barack Obama making it his first campaign issue in Pennsylvania. He's calling for a 10 year effort of investment. This to me is a primary reason I'm backing Obama. It will take transformative leadership, able to make sense to people across party and ideological lines, with enough of an elected power base in Washington and elsewhere to get it done. He has the better chance of doing that, by a long shot. Frankly, it may not be a great chance. But it's possible. With Hillary, not so much.
In case anyone has forgotten, Bush is still President, and besides warbling tasteless country song parodies about the Iraq war, he's the apparent leader of an administration that is still doing its damndest to screw civil liberties and ruin the air and the climate.
As for the Climate Crisis, scientists are signalling a new urgency. A Washington Post article last week said, these scientists say new studies indicate that the situation is so dire that the world needs to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades... Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.
As a further sign of what kind of creek we're up, the EU has been struggling mightily to get agreement on a plan to cut emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020, which is a start, but hardly enough. The hope has been that in creating and institutionalizing the changes necessary to do that much, there will be greater change and infrastructure to do what really needs to be done--an 80% reduction by 2050. Except, of course, these scientists are saying even that may not be enough.
And of course, the US is not even close to doing what the EU wants to do. Both Dem candidates talk about green jobs and green energy, with Barack Obama making it his first campaign issue in Pennsylvania. He's calling for a 10 year effort of investment. This to me is a primary reason I'm backing Obama. It will take transformative leadership, able to make sense to people across party and ideological lines, with enough of an elected power base in Washington and elsewhere to get it done. He has the better chance of doing that, by a long shot. Frankly, it may not be a great chance. But it's possible. With Hillary, not so much.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
“She felt that somehow, wandering through uncharted territory, we might stumble upon something that will, in an instant, seem to represent who we are at the core. That was very much her philosophy of life — to not be limited by fear or narrow definitions, to not build walls around ourselves and to do our best to find kinship and beauty in unexpected places.”
Maya Soetoro-Ng, speaking in the New York Times today of her mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, who was also the mother of Barack Obama. Maya is Barack's half-sister.
Maya Soetoro-Ng, speaking in the New York Times today of her mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, who was also the mother of Barack Obama. Maya is Barack's half-sister.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A Very Serious Moment
But also today the most blatant indication that
the Clinton campaign is forcing racial divisions
with the potential of very serious political and
social problems ahead if Party elders don't renounce
these Clinton tactics. More of what I mean here.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Obama Wins Wyoming
Barack Obama won the Wyoming caucuses
today, 61% to 38%, taking 7 delegates to
Clinton's 4. This Rolling Stone cover, by
the way, comes with a feature story and
an endorsement.
Obama Won Texas
Though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by
about 3% in Texas, Obama now has an insurmountable
lead in Texas caucus votes still being counted and certified,
and he will win more total delegates from Texas than Hillary.
And he got 4 additional delegates from the just certified
California primary results, while Hillary lost 4. Plus he got
a half dozen super-delegates (Hillary lost one), so it looks like
he's actually ending the week with a bigger lead in delegates--before the Wyoming caucus results.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Hey, PA--Here's your 3AM
This is who you want answering the red phone in
the White House at 3AM? Props to Larry David
for finding this collage. The original site is very
Republican--but if Hillary prefers McBush to Obama
as she's been saying, turnabout is fair play. Think
about it, Pennsylvania.
Hillary or McBush: Which Monster Do You Want in the White House?
Hillary Clinton has said many times now that she and John McCain are fit to be commander in chief, but Barack Obama is not. And she says that the national security issue will dominate the general election campaign.
This is not just traitorous to the Democratic party and incredibly insulting to Obama, it's stupid politics. If by some miraculous misfortune Clinton became the nominee, she will have given away her chief issue.
By now stipulating that John McCain is fit to be commander in chief, how is she going to argue that he isn't later?
And she's doing it at precisely the time that the media is discovering: hey, this guy may not actually be a fit commander-in chief.
It's coming out in this story. It's already come out in this story. McCain's Republican colleagues in the Senate and high ranking military officers are telling reporters that McCain isn't temperamentally fit to have his finger poised over the button--or to be answering the red phone. He goes nuts. He loses judgment.
And one of these story appeared on the same day that McBush lost his temper with a reporter asking him a fairly simple question.
But Clinton can't say a word about it, now or later, because she's too busy trying to destroy Obama, a fellow Democrat, so she can face Republican McCain, who she has now insulated from the most important charges possible. Not only politically, but in terms of being a trustworthy commander in chief and president of the United States.
What did Samantha Powers say, that prompted Clinton to demand she be fired? Oh yeah, she said Hillary would stoop to do anything to win.
This is not just traitorous to the Democratic party and incredibly insulting to Obama, it's stupid politics. If by some miraculous misfortune Clinton became the nominee, she will have given away her chief issue.
By now stipulating that John McCain is fit to be commander in chief, how is she going to argue that he isn't later?
And she's doing it at precisely the time that the media is discovering: hey, this guy may not actually be a fit commander-in chief.
It's coming out in this story. It's already come out in this story. McCain's Republican colleagues in the Senate and high ranking military officers are telling reporters that McCain isn't temperamentally fit to have his finger poised over the button--or to be answering the red phone. He goes nuts. He loses judgment.
And one of these story appeared on the same day that McBush lost his temper with a reporter asking him a fairly simple question.
But Clinton can't say a word about it, now or later, because she's too busy trying to destroy Obama, a fellow Democrat, so she can face Republican McCain, who she has now insulated from the most important charges possible. Not only politically, but in terms of being a trustworthy commander in chief and president of the United States.
What did Samantha Powers say, that prompted Clinton to demand she be fired? Oh yeah, she said Hillary would stoop to do anything to win.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Focus
I hardly had time to get thoroughly depressed before this arrived in my inbox:
We may not know the final outcome of today's voting until morning, but the results so far make one thing clear. When the dust settles from today's contests, we will maintain our substantial lead in delegates. And thanks to millions of people standing for change, we will keep adding delegates and capture the Democratic nomination.
We knew from the day we began this journey that the road would be long. And we knew what we were up against. We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we'd see of the politics we're trying to end -- the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter to people's lives, the stunts and the tactics that ask us to fear instead of hope.
But this time -- this year -- it will not work. The challenges are too great. The stakes are too high.
Americans need real change.
In the coming weeks, we will begin a great debate about the future of this country with a man who has served it bravely and loves it dearly. And we will offer two very different visions of the America we see in the twenty-first century.
John McCain has already dismissed our call for change as eloquent but empty.
But he should know that it's a call that did not begin with my words. It's the resounding call from every corner of this country, from first-time voters and lifelong cynics, from Democrats and Republicans alike.
And together you and I are going to grow this movement to deliver that change in November.
Thank you,
Barack
We may not know the final outcome of today's voting until morning, but the results so far make one thing clear. When the dust settles from today's contests, we will maintain our substantial lead in delegates. And thanks to millions of people standing for change, we will keep adding delegates and capture the Democratic nomination.
We knew from the day we began this journey that the road would be long. And we knew what we were up against. We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we'd see of the politics we're trying to end -- the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter to people's lives, the stunts and the tactics that ask us to fear instead of hope.
But this time -- this year -- it will not work. The challenges are too great. The stakes are too high.
Americans need real change.
In the coming weeks, we will begin a great debate about the future of this country with a man who has served it bravely and loves it dearly. And we will offer two very different visions of the America we see in the twenty-first century.
John McCain has already dismissed our call for change as eloquent but empty.
But he should know that it's a call that did not begin with my words. It's the resounding call from every corner of this country, from first-time voters and lifelong cynics, from Democrats and Republicans alike.
And together you and I are going to grow this movement to deliver that change in November.
Thank you,
Barack
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The Dreaming Up Daily Image
I caught some of the American Masters portrait of Pete Seeger on
PBS Sunday night. What a man, what a life! That's him with Woody
Guthrie, and then with Bob Dylan. His singing and activism continued,
and was instrumental (okay, bit of a pun) in getting the Hudson River
cleaned up. "Surround hate until it surrenders" is the motto on his
banjo. In his mid-80s he's still at it, and it looks like he has a wonderful
life.
Day of Hope and Heart and the Young
Update: Young voters and campaigners did their part, it appears, but people of my generation didn't. Once again Americans voted their fears, succumbed to the regression that brought us Bush the Dad, and now Hillary the hectoring Mom who will protect you as long as you give up dreaming of a better world, and daring to work for it. The future took a hit today, but not a fatal one--let's hope.
Ever since my generation reached 21 (which was the legal voting age then), the power of youth has been highly touted but in the end not enough. George McGovern got huge crowds of young people in 1972, and lost every state but Massachusetts. The young early Internet adopters were the hope of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, but they weren't enough. Though young voters came out at a higher percentage for John Kerry in November, not enough of them did for clear victory. Or so it's said.
This year we've seen young voters and young people working for the Obama campaign make a real difference, and really come out in large numbers to vote. That phenomenon will be put to its biggest test today, when four states vote in what Keith Olbermann calls the VOTR primaries (Vermont, Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.)
The only reason that Rhode Island is still considered a possibility for Obama are these numbers: 20,000 newly registered voters, mostly young, and a crowd of 10,000 that came out to hear Obama, one of the largest crowds ever assembled in that state.
Young voters and Obama get out the vote workers along with union supporters and a larger than expected outpouring from black communities are the keys for Obama in Ohio. But nowhere are they more important than in Texas.
As the Obama ground game, they are up against the older, more experienced party regulars for Clinton. They are the key to getting Obama voters to the polls, and to expanding the voting base that's necessary for him to win.
Nowhere are young people more important in Texas than in the Latino communities. Several seasoned observers noted weeks ago that an age split was developing, with younger Latinos moving to Obama, but such has not shown up in the polls so far. Yet there are those who believe it has been happening, and is happening right now. In fact, this is one of the key groups that Al Giordano at The Field now sees giving Obama a big victory in Texas.
Al is really sticking his neck out in predicting Obama will get 53% of the vote, though he insists that's a conservative estimate. He is in Texas, and sees real movement towards Obama in two key groups: the aforementioned young Latinos, and among white men (who he says are responding to Clinton's 3 a.m. phone call fear mongering ad in exactly the opposite way as her campaign intends.)
White men in East Texas have been considered the group that could swing the results either way in the popular vote. Al makes his case that Obama is winning more white male voters, particularly crossover Independents and Republicans, in rural areas as well as cities.
But young people have another task in Texas. The election there is more than the popular vote. The caucuses in the evening are as least as important, and probably more so. That's where young people have come through for Obama best in previous elections, and they will have to come through this time, big time. A lot of rumors are floating around about planned dirty tricks and voter suppression by the older Clinton people. This will be a big test for those young Obama enthusiasts. And their big opportunity to show the power of heart and hope.
All of this demographic theory is speculation and to some extent conventional wisdom--there is no single group that is likely to make the difference. But this certainly is going to be a test, and an opportunity, for young voters to make a very big difference for the future.
They will be the ones who must come out to vote, and must get out the vote, even in rain or snow in Ohio, and ice storms in Rhode Island. But perhaps most of all in Texas. If Obama wins Texas, it will be a repudiation of Clinton's negative campaigning, and will move Obama much closer to the nomination, before there's any further damage to the Democratic party's chances in November.
Ever since my generation reached 21 (which was the legal voting age then), the power of youth has been highly touted but in the end not enough. George McGovern got huge crowds of young people in 1972, and lost every state but Massachusetts. The young early Internet adopters were the hope of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, but they weren't enough. Though young voters came out at a higher percentage for John Kerry in November, not enough of them did for clear victory. Or so it's said.
This year we've seen young voters and young people working for the Obama campaign make a real difference, and really come out in large numbers to vote. That phenomenon will be put to its biggest test today, when four states vote in what Keith Olbermann calls the VOTR primaries (Vermont, Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.)
The only reason that Rhode Island is still considered a possibility for Obama are these numbers: 20,000 newly registered voters, mostly young, and a crowd of 10,000 that came out to hear Obama, one of the largest crowds ever assembled in that state.
Young voters and Obama get out the vote workers along with union supporters and a larger than expected outpouring from black communities are the keys for Obama in Ohio. But nowhere are they more important than in Texas.
As the Obama ground game, they are up against the older, more experienced party regulars for Clinton. They are the key to getting Obama voters to the polls, and to expanding the voting base that's necessary for him to win.
Nowhere are young people more important in Texas than in the Latino communities. Several seasoned observers noted weeks ago that an age split was developing, with younger Latinos moving to Obama, but such has not shown up in the polls so far. Yet there are those who believe it has been happening, and is happening right now. In fact, this is one of the key groups that Al Giordano at The Field now sees giving Obama a big victory in Texas.
Al is really sticking his neck out in predicting Obama will get 53% of the vote, though he insists that's a conservative estimate. He is in Texas, and sees real movement towards Obama in two key groups: the aforementioned young Latinos, and among white men (who he says are responding to Clinton's 3 a.m. phone call fear mongering ad in exactly the opposite way as her campaign intends.)
White men in East Texas have been considered the group that could swing the results either way in the popular vote. Al makes his case that Obama is winning more white male voters, particularly crossover Independents and Republicans, in rural areas as well as cities.
But young people have another task in Texas. The election there is more than the popular vote. The caucuses in the evening are as least as important, and probably more so. That's where young people have come through for Obama best in previous elections, and they will have to come through this time, big time. A lot of rumors are floating around about planned dirty tricks and voter suppression by the older Clinton people. This will be a big test for those young Obama enthusiasts. And their big opportunity to show the power of heart and hope.
All of this demographic theory is speculation and to some extent conventional wisdom--there is no single group that is likely to make the difference. But this certainly is going to be a test, and an opportunity, for young voters to make a very big difference for the future.
They will be the ones who must come out to vote, and must get out the vote, even in rain or snow in Ohio, and ice storms in Rhode Island. But perhaps most of all in Texas. If Obama wins Texas, it will be a repudiation of Clinton's negative campaigning, and will move Obama much closer to the nomination, before there's any further damage to the Democratic party's chances in November.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The Dreaming Up Daily Image
M31, the closest spiral galaxy to ours. From Kitt
Peak Observatory. Space.com.
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
"It is the largest part of a man that is not inventoried. He has many enumerable parts: he is social, professional, political, sectarian, literary, and is this or that set and corporation. But after the most exhausting census has been made, there remains as much more which no tongue can tell. And this remainder is that which interests. For the better part of every mind is not that which he knows, but that which hovers in gleams, suggestions, tantalizing, unpossessed, before him. This dancing chorus of thoughts and hopes is the quarry of the future, is his possibility."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Clinton and the Media: Just the Same Old Story
The apparently intense resentment the Clinton campaign is expressing for how the media is covering the campaign spilled into Tuesday's debate in a fairly bizarre way, with Hillary attacking the questioners for--of all things--always asking her questions first. That this is a disadvantage is by no means obvious.
But on the larger point, it's true that the Clinton campaign is getting a bad press these days. Why? Because they're losing.
For much of this year, the media narrative was Clinton the Inevitable, the virtual incumbent, with unbeatable credentials, political machine, message discipline, etc. Well, as I've pointed out many times before, the media knows only one story arc: the rise, the fall, the resurrection. It's their version of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl (with the appropriate 21st century gender variations.)
So they gave her months of 'the rise to dominance', and then the story was 'alone at the top, swatting the knats around the throne.' But "happily ever after" is boring, and once that clearly was no longer the way things were going, then the Clinton story became "the fall," while the Obama story took over the "rise" storyline. With 11 straight victories, most of them lopsided, the rise of Obama was kind of a no-brainer, especially for the news media.
Sure, the fall of Hillary Clinton liberated some bias, both conscious and unconscious, against women, but also liberated resentment against the Clintons (especially when Bill Clinton got so deeply involved), and specifically against how Hillary's campaign hectors the press, responds to questions by belittling the question itself, and so on. People will take that as long as they have to, when they were covering the rise of the Inevitable. Now they don't have to.
The media is covering dissension within the Clinton campaign and among her supporters. Nobody cares much about dissension in a winning campaign, where there is likely to be less anyway, though reporters store up those stories for later use. (There was a story recently about the Obama campaign being less accessible to the press: expect this to be resurrected... if he starts to "fall.")
At the debate, Tim "The Ferret" Russert turned his beady eyes and gleaming teeth on Hillary early and often, partly because she's been making the most provocative statements and exhibiting the most provocative behavior. What she's been saying and doing is new and news. I don't discount a certain amount of payback, and I don't like Russert in the first place (if you couldn't tell.) But if she's such a fighter and a survivor, she can't also be the victim.
Insofar as the pushback by the Clinton campaign is tactical, trying to force the press into different behavior, good luck. Clinton can get better press by changing the storyline. And she can only do that by winning Texas and Ohio by Obama-sized margins next Tuesday. Then they're happily off to the Resurrection. The story continues.
For more on the debate and campaign news: American Dash.
But on the larger point, it's true that the Clinton campaign is getting a bad press these days. Why? Because they're losing.
For much of this year, the media narrative was Clinton the Inevitable, the virtual incumbent, with unbeatable credentials, political machine, message discipline, etc. Well, as I've pointed out many times before, the media knows only one story arc: the rise, the fall, the resurrection. It's their version of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl (with the appropriate 21st century gender variations.)
So they gave her months of 'the rise to dominance', and then the story was 'alone at the top, swatting the knats around the throne.' But "happily ever after" is boring, and once that clearly was no longer the way things were going, then the Clinton story became "the fall," while the Obama story took over the "rise" storyline. With 11 straight victories, most of them lopsided, the rise of Obama was kind of a no-brainer, especially for the news media.
Sure, the fall of Hillary Clinton liberated some bias, both conscious and unconscious, against women, but also liberated resentment against the Clintons (especially when Bill Clinton got so deeply involved), and specifically against how Hillary's campaign hectors the press, responds to questions by belittling the question itself, and so on. People will take that as long as they have to, when they were covering the rise of the Inevitable. Now they don't have to.
The media is covering dissension within the Clinton campaign and among her supporters. Nobody cares much about dissension in a winning campaign, where there is likely to be less anyway, though reporters store up those stories for later use. (There was a story recently about the Obama campaign being less accessible to the press: expect this to be resurrected... if he starts to "fall.")
At the debate, Tim "The Ferret" Russert turned his beady eyes and gleaming teeth on Hillary early and often, partly because she's been making the most provocative statements and exhibiting the most provocative behavior. What she's been saying and doing is new and news. I don't discount a certain amount of payback, and I don't like Russert in the first place (if you couldn't tell.) But if she's such a fighter and a survivor, she can't also be the victim.
Insofar as the pushback by the Clinton campaign is tactical, trying to force the press into different behavior, good luck. Clinton can get better press by changing the storyline. And she can only do that by winning Texas and Ohio by Obama-sized margins next Tuesday. Then they're happily off to the Resurrection. The story continues.
For more on the debate and campaign news: American Dash.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
This North Coast Place: Interregnum
Places in the northeast and midwestern states have been having their late winter snow storms, but the weather is also a little confused here. It's been raining and blowing here for more than 12 hours straight. Normally we would call this a winter storm, which aren't abnormal in late February. Seasons are kind of indefinite here in the first place, at least along this coastal strip where the difference between summer and winter temperatures is on the order of ten degrees. At any given moment of the year, something here is blooming.
But things do seem a little unhinged. This storm started very early this morning with thunder. We were guests for dinner in a house overlooking Arcata our first year here (Sept. 1996) with a fine vantage point to view some lightning. Our host told us to enjoy it, because we wouldn't be seeing much of it here. He was right. If we saw lightning or heard thunder once a year, it was a lot. But a few years ago, that was no longer true. Thunder and lightning storms aren't frequent or even seasonal, as they were in my western Pennsylvania summers. But they are no longer rare, and they occur at any time of the year.
Earlier this week there was ample sun and spring-like warmth. Which came after a series of rain storms, our brief winter a bit late this year. So it's both spring and winter, and therefore neither. At least the rain held off until after the candlelight Vigil last evening commemorating Indian Island. That's always a beautiful occasion and I'm sorry I missed it this year.
I've noted that our hummingbirds are still here. The last time I saw two was about 10 days ago, but I saw one yesterday, and the day before. I'm not a good enough observer to say if it was the same one, but I would guess it wasn't. My recollection is that in past years I started not seeing them around Valentine's Day, when the feeder would be untouched, the red liquid slowly losing its color over the following months.
The total eclipse of the moon the other night was unaccountably visible here. At this time of year especially, but even in the summer, you learn not to get your hopes up about observing celestial phenomena because the nights are often cloudy or blanketed with high fog. The clouds and fog hover at the horizon even more often, but the big rising moon was clearly visible as the eclipse began: quite a sight. I was doing errands in Eureka, and the moon was dead ahead of me as I started driving home. Later I could see the eclipse ending over the house across the street. Pretty neat. I still remember the first eclipse I saw as a boy, peering out my parent's bedroom window, and the awe I felt trying to get my mind around what I was seeing.
But things do seem a little unhinged. This storm started very early this morning with thunder. We were guests for dinner in a house overlooking Arcata our first year here (Sept. 1996) with a fine vantage point to view some lightning. Our host told us to enjoy it, because we wouldn't be seeing much of it here. He was right. If we saw lightning or heard thunder once a year, it was a lot. But a few years ago, that was no longer true. Thunder and lightning storms aren't frequent or even seasonal, as they were in my western Pennsylvania summers. But they are no longer rare, and they occur at any time of the year.
Earlier this week there was ample sun and spring-like warmth. Which came after a series of rain storms, our brief winter a bit late this year. So it's both spring and winter, and therefore neither. At least the rain held off until after the candlelight Vigil last evening commemorating Indian Island. That's always a beautiful occasion and I'm sorry I missed it this year.
I've noted that our hummingbirds are still here. The last time I saw two was about 10 days ago, but I saw one yesterday, and the day before. I'm not a good enough observer to say if it was the same one, but I would guess it wasn't. My recollection is that in past years I started not seeing them around Valentine's Day, when the feeder would be untouched, the red liquid slowly losing its color over the following months.
The total eclipse of the moon the other night was unaccountably visible here. At this time of year especially, but even in the summer, you learn not to get your hopes up about observing celestial phenomena because the nights are often cloudy or blanketed with high fog. The clouds and fog hover at the horizon even more often, but the big rising moon was clearly visible as the eclipse began: quite a sight. I was doing errands in Eureka, and the moon was dead ahead of me as I started driving home. Later I could see the eclipse ending over the house across the street. Pretty neat. I still remember the first eclipse I saw as a boy, peering out my parent's bedroom window, and the awe I felt trying to get my mind around what I was seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
