When the moment came I was unprepared. Having worked on the Obama campaign in Prince William County, Virginia since mid September, I was determined that I would do my part to help get this man elected. (I'll admit right here that Sarah Palin's selection scared me into action when McCain rose in the polls following the Republican convention.) Before this year, I'd donated neither time nor money to a campaign at any level, but somewhere along the line, say after the South Carolina primary, the race became personal to me. I'd written about this in an earlier post, but I identified with Obama on a gut level, especially with the early charges in the Black community that Obama was not Black enough, a sting that I too had felt during my college years at Brown University.
Early in the year, I became obsessed with political news and even began blogging in this space to record my thoughts. I played with online electoral maps, obsessed over statewide polling numbers on RealClearPolitics.com, treated Chuck Todd like a sage, and made good use of the picture in picture feature on my new TV so that I could watch both MSNBC and CNN at the same time (which drove my partner nuts!).
On election night I knew the only path to victory for McCain lay through Pennsylvania and that Obama's team worked to ensure that they would have more than one path to 270 electoral votes. That was why I volunteered in Virginia to help turn that red state blue after all! But watching the results at Station 9, a restaurant/bar near my home, I really got caught up in the moments. Each state win was greeted with cheers and high fives as if we just couldn't be sure it was going to go our way. But of course the networks all had their plans to call the election at 11:00 p.m. when the polls in California, Oregon, Washington State, and Hawaii closed (77 electoral votes in total). When Pennsylvania and Ohio were called before 10 p.m. Obama had 195 electoral votes, so it was just a matter of waiting for the polls to close on the west coast. When New Mexico (5 electoral votes) and Iowa (7) were called for Obama before 11:00, Obama had 207 so at 11:00, Wolf Blitzer could announce that "Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States!"
The condensed evening on CNN leading up to the big win
A DJ played music like "Celebration" by Kool & the Gang and "Can You Feel It" by the Jacksons, Will.i.am's "Yes We Can" etc. Tears and hugs were free flowing. Everyone danced and pulsed together for 15 minutes. I cried on Brian's shoulder, I looked at the screen, I cried some more (and I know it was an ugly cry!), I danced, I marveled at the sea of younger people surrounding us and just felt so powerfully moved to have been part of such a movement. I'll never forget that night and its historical impact.
We snuck out after McCain's gracious concession speech so that we could watch Obama's first words as president-elect at home. Already fireworks were going off and people were pouring through the streets just letting their joy flow in whatever way they felt appropriate. Horns honked, people beamed, and more hugs went around. During his speech (in which he seemed more somber in tone than I would have expected), again the tears flowed and have been flowing every time I see images like the new first family bedecked in black and red walking out on that stage together.
The next morning, I had to go to the Newseum and see all of the front pages of the country's and the world's newspapers. Others made pilgrimage to the Lincoln memorial. A fellow African-American of my age told me how he'd cried and that he sat his children down at breakfast that morning to say that in America anything is possible with hard work and determination. Again the tears flowed at the power of that notion. A black man is poised to become the most powerful person in the world! I myself, educated at elite institutions, never thought that I would see a black men elected president. I even thought that the first black president would be a Republican like Colin Powell, someone who would not come to the American people with racial grievance in his (or her) history, but I never anticipated Barack Obama. So much of the commentary has been to the effect that Obama's victory marginalizes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton even more. Hallelujah! Let President Barack Obama carry that torch now. He will lead by example that he is president of everyone in the United States and certainly not by overt racial appeals. That's not how he ran and not what the country expects of him. I look forward to crying at his inauguration and taking part in this historic moment fully.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Endorsement Go-Round
Lately I've found myself in tears reading the newspapers (online that is). And the same thing happened yesterday during "Meet the Press." I was overcome with emotion so quickly that I didn't really know how to get control of what was happening within me. Upon reflection I guess I was just feeling in my gut the possibility (the reality?) that these United States might just elect a black man to become president! This is no small achievement for our nation and one that I frankly never thought I would see in my lifetime. But then here comes this Barack Obama seemingly out of nowhere, poised to get rid of the baby boomers and all of their existential angst, 60s idealism, and arguments over who lost the Vietnam War. This is truly a time of generational transformation in our country. It is only fitting that in this referendum on the issues facing our country, this election--like Clinton vs. Bush in 1992--is viewed as the older generation's priorities vs. against the younger generation's. Here, I will keep track of the endorsements thus far, with the most recent first.
11/3/08
How beautiful that Dick Cheney's hometown paper, the Casper Star-Tribune also endorsed Obama! "It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president.
But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one. The next occupant of the White House will inherit a national economy that's collapsing and two wars our nation has been fighting for years, depleting valuable resources we need to fix a multitude of domestic problems. Far too many of our nation's citizens live paycheck to paycheck, worried about whether they'll have a job next week or if a medical crisis will bankrupt them.
What America needs most in these troubled times is a president who will move the country in a positive direction. The candidate who is most likely to chart a new course that will lead us to better days is Obama. Moreover, he is the best candidate for Wyoming."
10/30/08
The Economist: "Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism."
10/26/08
Financial Times: "In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed – not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain’s hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.
The editors of Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama over the Republican ticket that includes Alaska's own governor, stating that electing her "would stretch the governor beyond her range," among other comments:
"Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.
The New York Times endorsed Obama (what a surprise) and criticized McCain, whom the paper endorsed in the Republican primary: "Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.
The most important was from Colin Powel who spoke without notes for about seven minutes. His endorsement is seen as slamming the door on the Republican party who used and abused him in the runup to the war and damaged Powell's reputation in the process. Personally I never understood why he went along when he seemed so unsure, but in the end he was a loyal soldier to his commander-in-chief.
The LA Times first skewered McCain: "Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment."
...And then refuted the "elitism" label: "We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."
The endorsement of Obama by The Eagle of Bryan-College Station, Texas is notable because the paper has never endorsed a democrat for president in its 50 years as a publication, not even Texan native son Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The editors panned McCain's judgment in picking his running mate as well as his intractable stance on ending the war in Iraq. But this time here's the praise for Obama: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan -- these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be.
The one that brought me to tears was the Chicago Tribune, which hasn't endorsed a democratic candidate in all of its 147 years as a publication and boldly compared Obama to Lincoln: "It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States."
10/13/08
The New Yorker (notable for its many other reasons besides Sarah Palin to oppose McCain, but here's the pro-Obama part): "By contrast, Obama’s transformative message is accompanied by a sense of pragmatic calm. A tropism for unity is an essential part of his character and of his campaign. It is part of what allowed him to overcome a Democratic opponent who entered the race with tremendous advantages. It is what helped him forge a political career relying both on the liberals of Hyde Park and on the political regulars of downtown Chicago. His policy preferences are distinctly liberal, but he is determined to speak to a broad range of Americans who do not necessarily share his every value or opinion. For some who oppose him, his equanimity even under the ugliest attack seems like hauteur; for some who support him, his reluctance to counterattack in the same vein seems like self-defeating detachment. Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness."
Here is a selection of the rest of the field, which Obama is garnering at a 3 to 1 ratio, according to Editor & Publisher as of October 13.
Washington Post
Denver Post
Philadelphia Inquirer
Boston Globe
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Philadelphia Inquirer
San Francisco Chronicle
Sacramento Bee
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Detroit Free Press
11/3/08
How beautiful that Dick Cheney's hometown paper, the Casper Star-Tribune also endorsed Obama! "It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president.
But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one. The next occupant of the White House will inherit a national economy that's collapsing and two wars our nation has been fighting for years, depleting valuable resources we need to fix a multitude of domestic problems. Far too many of our nation's citizens live paycheck to paycheck, worried about whether they'll have a job next week or if a medical crisis will bankrupt them.
What America needs most in these troubled times is a president who will move the country in a positive direction. The candidate who is most likely to chart a new course that will lead us to better days is Obama. Moreover, he is the best candidate for Wyoming."
10/30/08
The Economist: "Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism."
10/26/08
Financial Times: "In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed – not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain’s hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.
On foreign policy, where the candidates have often conspired to exaggerate their differences, this contrast in temperaments seems crucial. For all his experience, Mr McCain has seemed too much guided by an instinct for peremptory action, an exaggerated sense of certainty, and a reluctance to see shades of grey.
He has offered risk-taking almost as his chief qualification, but gambles do not always pay off. His choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, widely acknowledged to have been a mistake, is an obtrusive case in point. Rashness is not a virtue in a president. The cautious and deliberate Mr Obama is altogether a less alarming prospect."
10/25/08The editors of Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama over the Republican ticket that includes Alaska's own governor, stating that electing her "would stretch the governor beyond her range," among other comments:
"Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.
Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery."
10/23/08The New York Times endorsed Obama (what a surprise) and criticized McCain, whom the paper endorsed in the Republican primary: "Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.
He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush’s misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform."
10/19/08The most important was from Colin Powel who spoke without notes for about seven minutes. His endorsement is seen as slamming the door on the Republican party who used and abused him in the runup to the war and damaged Powell's reputation in the process. Personally I never understood why he went along when he seemed so unsure, but in the end he was a loyal soldier to his commander-in-chief.
The LA Times first skewered McCain: "Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment."
...And then refuted the "elitism" label: "We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."
The endorsement of Obama by The Eagle of Bryan-College Station, Texas is notable because the paper has never endorsed a democrat for president in its 50 years as a publication, not even Texan native son Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The editors panned McCain's judgment in picking his running mate as well as his intractable stance on ending the war in Iraq. But this time here's the praise for Obama: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan -- these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be.
Barack Obama is such a leader. He doesn't have all the answers, to be sure, but at least he is asking the right questions. While we would like more specificity on his plans as president, we are confident that he can lead us ever forward, casting aside the doubts and fears of recent years.
The one that brought me to tears was the Chicago Tribune, which hasn't endorsed a democratic candidate in all of its 147 years as a publication and boldly compared Obama to Lincoln: "It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States."
10/13/08
The New Yorker (notable for its many other reasons besides Sarah Palin to oppose McCain, but here's the pro-Obama part): "By contrast, Obama’s transformative message is accompanied by a sense of pragmatic calm. A tropism for unity is an essential part of his character and of his campaign. It is part of what allowed him to overcome a Democratic opponent who entered the race with tremendous advantages. It is what helped him forge a political career relying both on the liberals of Hyde Park and on the political regulars of downtown Chicago. His policy preferences are distinctly liberal, but he is determined to speak to a broad range of Americans who do not necessarily share his every value or opinion. For some who oppose him, his equanimity even under the ugliest attack seems like hauteur; for some who support him, his reluctance to counterattack in the same vein seems like self-defeating detachment. Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness."
Here is a selection of the rest of the field, which Obama is garnering at a 3 to 1 ratio, according to Editor & Publisher as of October 13.
Washington Post
Denver Post
Philadelphia Inquirer
Boston Globe
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Philadelphia Inquirer
San Francisco Chronicle
Sacramento Bee
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Detroit Free Press
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The New York Post Got it Right?
Not that I'm as rabid as Keith Olbermann when it comes to Rupert Murdoch, but I just don't usually turn to Murdoch's media outlets for political news or opinion unless I want to learn how the other side is thinking. However, I've started checking the RealClearPolitics.com homepage every day for the poll numbers since being shown this website by a friend of couple of weeks ago (I apologize for being so far behind everyone else!) and came across a really good piece by the very liberal Kirsten Powers (she often subs for Colmes on Hannity and Colmes) from this morning' NY Post. She lays into both Obama and the national press corps for blowing their response to the Palin nomination with the most cogent analysis thus far. I've a feeling that as a woman, the ostensible dismissal out of hand of this "unknown" governor and the comparisons to Dan Quayle quite incensed liberal women like Powers, who are tired of women being underestimated by the establishment:
"Lured by the McCain camp, Obama supporters engaged in an argument about who had more overall experience - the top of the Democratic ticket or the bottom of the GOP ticket. This diminished Obama.
It's as though my worst fears were realized. See I told you so! The Dems just can't win at presidential politics! And now that I'm of a mind to criticize the Obama campaign and the Dems in general for being caught flat footed regarding the Palin nomination, I was pleased to read Kirsten Powers' piece linked to on the RCP homepage today. I'm reminded that I felt this way during the primaries and my man still came through ultimately, but in watching this campaign rev up, anyonoe can see that the Dems don't play hardball like Republicans do. Republicans care about winning and Democrats care about playing by the rules. Remember that that is how Obama won the nomination, not by dispatching his opponent but by playing a slightly better game and appealing to the judges.
Imagine if Obama loses the "I told you so's" about not picking HRC as his running mate! Even Gloria Steinem might have to retract her statement that "women are never frontrunners." But I doubt she would since she's determined that Sarah Palin is the wrong kind of woman. What arrogance! Palin (I know she's not at the top of the ticket but I've fallen into the conceit that this race is between Palin and Obama, the other two old white men notwithstanding) might just deserve to win because she's shown she's willing to fight for it, unlike our languid candidate. Ironic that Palin's ascent absolutely defies Steinem's setup argument in her NY Times piece, but that's because Steinem ignores the fact that politics is about taking advantage of opportunities, not just being right.
"Lured by the McCain camp, Obama supporters engaged in an argument about who had more overall experience - the top of the Democratic ticket or the bottom of the GOP ticket. This diminished Obama.
"Meanwhile, the media lit up in all their cultural-elite splendor.
"Alaska? they sneered. It has the population of Las Vegas! Funny how the coastal elite only sneers at red states with small populations. Howard Dean hailed from a blue state with almost the same population as Alaska and was a national phenomenon and front-runner for the presidency. Joe Biden's Delaware has a similarly small population - but no mocking was forthcoming there."
It's as though my worst fears were realized. See I told you so! The Dems just can't win at presidential politics! And now that I'm of a mind to criticize the Obama campaign and the Dems in general for being caught flat footed regarding the Palin nomination, I was pleased to read Kirsten Powers' piece linked to on the RCP homepage today. I'm reminded that I felt this way during the primaries and my man still came through ultimately, but in watching this campaign rev up, anyonoe can see that the Dems don't play hardball like Republicans do. Republicans care about winning and Democrats care about playing by the rules. Remember that that is how Obama won the nomination, not by dispatching his opponent but by playing a slightly better game and appealing to the judges.
Imagine if Obama loses the "I told you so's" about not picking HRC as his running mate! Even Gloria Steinem might have to retract her statement that "women are never frontrunners." But I doubt she would since she's determined that Sarah Palin is the wrong kind of woman. What arrogance! Palin (I know she's not at the top of the ticket but I've fallen into the conceit that this race is between Palin and Obama, the other two old white men notwithstanding) might just deserve to win because she's shown she's willing to fight for it, unlike our languid candidate. Ironic that Palin's ascent absolutely defies Steinem's setup argument in her NY Times piece, but that's because Steinem ignores the fact that politics is about taking advantage of opportunities, not just being right.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Well, I'm Back from Summer Holiday! Let the Mud Fly until Election Day!
I haven't read any of my usual pundits in months and not even this morning, but Mrs. Obama knocked it out of the park last night, now didn't she? I hope that there were people watching who hadn't yet been "introduced" to the candidate and his family because how could they not have been moved by first her mother narrating the film, then her brother's introduction, and finally their adorable daughters bantering with their father? One would have to have a heart of stone! She spoke so eloquently and so comfortably in such a heartfelt manner that all of the hateful smears just seem utterly ridiculous. Hers is an American success story as moving as his. These are people who have worked hard for everything they have. And what they have done with the opportunities and gifts they've been afforded! Even if Obama does not become president, he is the first presidential candidate of the 21st century. Elections for decades to come will look at the 2008 election as the first of a new kind.
Watching Michele Obama's moment play out, it was rather emotional for me on at least three levels: First, I kept thinking about my own father, who like Michele Obama's father was the spiritual leader of my family. Her acknowledgment of how her father's values and consistency shaped her thinking and her commitments reminded me of my own relationship with my father. My dad set the bar high for me, but I always knew his love for his family was the deepest love that could ever be felt even when we didn't do as well as he knew we could. I am so comforted by that fact that even though I miss him terribly I know that he instilled in me an abiding sense of what's important and I'm OK with what life may throw my way. I know who I am thanks to my father's love and his strong belief in the loving bonds of family. I tip my hat to her for being able to speak from the heart without her voice even cracking because I know that I could not have done so having lost my father just two years ago this week.
Second, having attended a family gathering of my own African-American family this past weekend, I have the highest regard for Michele's parents. Though they themselves did not have college educations, they did nothing but instill in their children the importance of education and hard work. A man with multiple sclerosis and a job at the city water plant raised two children who went on to graduate from Princeton University. Would that my own extended family had known how to teach that to their children. Looking around at my cousins, aunts, uncles, and the next generation I couldn't help but wonder why folks had missed out on what to many is so obvious and necessary. It's been no secret for decades that education is an opportunity to achieve more. Why had my extended family missed out on this reality? Seeing people with so much potential working so hard to get by and seeking answers from the Kuran that are within themselves made me wonder, why do some folks get it and others don't?
And finally, what ugliness and ignorance is going to be traded in the coming months to try and tear Barack Obama down? Both camps have pledged to campaign on the issues, but both know that negative campaigning works and that smearing, I mean "defining" one's opponent before segments of the electorate get to make up their own minds is the surest path to victory. I idenify with this man so much that I often take attacks on him in some personal way. I so badly want him to win and succeed as president that I would almost rather tune out than watch him suffer the slings and arrows. However, it's so disheartening to consider what's coming that I am finally moved to act! I have to DO something to help this man get elected so that if he doesn't succeed I'll know that at least I did everything possible in my own power to influence the outcome my way. I can accept that people may not want Obama because he's wrong on their issues but if people make choices out of ignorance or unfounded innuendo, then I weep for the nation. Once again we'll get the president we deserve if we vote for the wrong reasons, such as fear.
Watching Michele Obama's moment play out, it was rather emotional for me on at least three levels: First, I kept thinking about my own father, who like Michele Obama's father was the spiritual leader of my family. Her acknowledgment of how her father's values and consistency shaped her thinking and her commitments reminded me of my own relationship with my father. My dad set the bar high for me, but I always knew his love for his family was the deepest love that could ever be felt even when we didn't do as well as he knew we could. I am so comforted by that fact that even though I miss him terribly I know that he instilled in me an abiding sense of what's important and I'm OK with what life may throw my way. I know who I am thanks to my father's love and his strong belief in the loving bonds of family. I tip my hat to her for being able to speak from the heart without her voice even cracking because I know that I could not have done so having lost my father just two years ago this week.
Second, having attended a family gathering of my own African-American family this past weekend, I have the highest regard for Michele's parents. Though they themselves did not have college educations, they did nothing but instill in their children the importance of education and hard work. A man with multiple sclerosis and a job at the city water plant raised two children who went on to graduate from Princeton University. Would that my own extended family had known how to teach that to their children. Looking around at my cousins, aunts, uncles, and the next generation I couldn't help but wonder why folks had missed out on what to many is so obvious and necessary. It's been no secret for decades that education is an opportunity to achieve more. Why had my extended family missed out on this reality? Seeing people with so much potential working so hard to get by and seeking answers from the Kuran that are within themselves made me wonder, why do some folks get it and others don't?
And finally, what ugliness and ignorance is going to be traded in the coming months to try and tear Barack Obama down? Both camps have pledged to campaign on the issues, but both know that negative campaigning works and that smearing, I mean "defining" one's opponent before segments of the electorate get to make up their own minds is the surest path to victory. I idenify with this man so much that I often take attacks on him in some personal way. I so badly want him to win and succeed as president that I would almost rather tune out than watch him suffer the slings and arrows. However, it's so disheartening to consider what's coming that I am finally moved to act! I have to DO something to help this man get elected so that if he doesn't succeed I'll know that at least I did everything possible in my own power to influence the outcome my way. I can accept that people may not want Obama because he's wrong on their issues but if people make choices out of ignorance or unfounded innuendo, then I weep for the nation. Once again we'll get the president we deserve if we vote for the wrong reasons, such as fear.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The "New" Michelle Obama
Our girl kicked it on The View the other morning, folks. She spoke so beautifully and looked so stylish that the dress she wore is flying out of the stores. It's bizarre how she had to be re-imaged and reintroduced and how the Obama campaign has started a website to fight the smears, but anyone who hears her in her own words could not help but be impressed. Though I'm sure her statements are being parsed for cannon fodder that the attack machine can continue to lob at the Obama campaign, I'm also confident that any reasonably open-minded person would see nothing to be frightened of.
I have this theory abut first ladies. We like every other person who is in that role. Getting a new one is like having to buy a new car when you aren't ready to get rid of the one you've got if it's good and reliable. On the other hand if you don't like your car, you're more than happy to get rid of it in favor of a new model. (Maybe that's why people are so brand loyal when it comes to cars. Hmmm...)
It's been about 40 years since we've had two consecutive first ladies that the country has actually taken to: Jacqueline Kennedy followed by Ladybird Johnson, and consider the circumstances that precipitated that transition. I'm sure the country was predisposed to support the Johnsons as the new first family. Then after Mrs. Johnson we had Pat Nixon (disliked), Rosalyn Carter (liked), Nancy Reagan (hated, but now beloved since her husband's death and stunningly impressive funeral), Barbara Bush (liked), Hillary Clinton (despised), Laura Bush (beloved). Hopefully because the Obamas are so Kennedy-esque, Michelle Obama as first lady could harken back to the sixties as the Obamas have on so many other levels, with their young and attractive family, and break this cycle. We shall see!
I have this theory abut first ladies. We like every other person who is in that role. Getting a new one is like having to buy a new car when you aren't ready to get rid of the one you've got if it's good and reliable. On the other hand if you don't like your car, you're more than happy to get rid of it in favor of a new model. (Maybe that's why people are so brand loyal when it comes to cars. Hmmm...)
It's been about 40 years since we've had two consecutive first ladies that the country has actually taken to: Jacqueline Kennedy followed by Ladybird Johnson, and consider the circumstances that precipitated that transition. I'm sure the country was predisposed to support the Johnsons as the new first family. Then after Mrs. Johnson we had Pat Nixon (disliked), Rosalyn Carter (liked), Nancy Reagan (hated, but now beloved since her husband's death and stunningly impressive funeral), Barbara Bush (liked), Hillary Clinton (despised), Laura Bush (beloved). Hopefully because the Obamas are so Kennedy-esque, Michelle Obama as first lady could harken back to the sixties as the Obamas have on so many other levels, with their young and attractive family, and break this cycle. We shall see!
The Obama Sock Puppet
Of course on its face comparing Black people to primates is offensive. But also on its face, the sock monkey is cute and I want to own one too, so there! Some folks might collect buttons, t-shirts, or posters, but I want the sock puppet and the Hillary nutcracker too! Does this make me racist AND sexist? Have I so bought into four centuries of Black degradation that I would gleefully support the latest example of oppression?No, not at all. I simply view it as a manifestation of Obamamania in the most exciting election of my lifetime. I don't like the idea of someone getting rich off the idea if the sock monkey really takes off especially if Black folks give it an OK. But I think that whining about such things sounds weak, like all those Hillary supporters who complained about the nutcrackers being sold in airports. Yes, it was sexist and practically given a pass in a way that the Obama/Curious George t-shirt was not. Yes, no white male candidate had to endure something equally offensive. But as Peggy Noonan wrote so eloquently, women like Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, and Margaret Thatcher knew they were up against the patriarchy yet never complained about sexism: "It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say, 'Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls.'"
So I agree with Jimi Izrael, whom I've been listening to every Friday for months on NPR's Tell Me More. Let's disarm the racists by showing that their objectification of Obama holds no power over us. We define who we are in this day and age. This is 2008, not 1908 and a Black man is at the brink of becoming president! And just ask Barack Obama himself. He's not about to be swift-boated let alone allow some dumb puppet to derail him from his bigger mission. So why don't we measure our collective racial outrage against an event like Hurricane Katrina, for example. In terms of racism and demanding a response, the sock puppet doesn't move the needle even one millimeter.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Once in a lifetime...
I am posting based on a comment I saw on the Obama Blog today:
"The Nashville City Paper reports that superdelegate Lincoln Davis, a Congressman whose district went strongly for Clinton in the promary, has been "slow to endorse Obama." This is not remarkable in its own right, and I'm sure there are other elected officials who are not eager to get out in front of their constituents and endorse a candidate they rejected.Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member representing part of Davis’ district said this:
"Maybe [it’s] the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him," Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. "He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."
WTF?? I don't expect the bubbas and yahoos in my state to all fall into line, but for a Democratic executive to use such a scurrilous attack line against his party's presumptive presidential nominee seems to me to call for some kind of retribution from above. I have no idea whether the DNC has any official sway over the state parties - I suspect not - but Howard Dean or someone needs to call on the state party to reign this guy in.
Here is my response:
Dear Mr. Hobbs,
I am a woman living in Maryland, and I just wanted to make you aware of something I came across as being one of your statements:
"Maybe [it’s] the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him," Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. "He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."
I want to be as open-minded and understanding as possible about these statement. Are you saying that he does not represent democratic values or democratic principles? Please help me follow your train of thoughts about the things he stands for. And when you say we don't know enough about him, what do you mean? What would you like to know more about him? Or are you saying that you don't know someone like him? Or are you saying that him becoming a senator on state and federal level is a farce? Please help me understand your thoughts because I want to atleast understand what you see that I don't. He has a respectable family history with family that served in WWII, his mother raised him with regular American values of work hard and serve others. He helped several families in Chicago overcome some really trying financial times because of steel mills closing. He wants our troops to be respected at home too. He understands the exclusion that so many people feel from our political system.
I can not and will not subscribe to the GOP standards of acceptance (or Clintons to some degree, though I don't think she meant it) of others not like ourselves. "We don't know people like him, so he must be a terrorist or do things as terrorists do..." This is fundamentally wrong! And for me it cuts me deep because that means the same would apply to me, my sons, and anyone else that looks like Mr. Obama or carries himself in a way to respect other that he doesn't agree with or are less than perfect. These are the politics that have made Americans feel cynical about serving as a citizen. You see, it is easy for the GOP to plant seeds like that into peoples head, because America is not use to the new America. America is full of disagreements, full of people that historically don't look like our forefathers and full of people that love this country because it is the land of the free no matter what we look like, sound like, come from, etc.! We must not let the GOP steal our love of country because of the seed planting they have succeeded in doing.
If you are worried about his church issues, let me tell you about my point of view about that. Many times in African American churches, the church is full of a variety of people, some with limited education, some with much, some with criminal backgrounds, some with no such thing, some from wonderful families some from broken homes. The whole gamet is there. Some are angry still over racial differences and want to explain these grievance all the time. Some are not and want those they love to soften up on those issues. See...Barack Obama is a lot like me. He has true compassion for all kinds of people, because that is what he is. I've seen the gamet of people in my life and rather than run away, I stay to understand and hopefully enlighten to a new more open and understanding way of seeing things, black and white. This is what we do as African Americans because we all have one common thread no matter what...exclusion. Exclusion from being a part of mainstream American because of what we like, see and do. The things we like see and do are because of the exclusion. So, we do a dance everyday between being who we are for each other and being enough so that we can be included. So rather than exlude people that are less than perfect we include and hope for change. That is our God given understanding and this is how I choose to believe when it comes to why he stayed in that church for 20 years. It can't be explained easily and I don't expect him to do so.
So, Mr. Hobbs, I request that you seek a new way of thinking by getting to know who he is and what he really stands for with all his imperfections and try to lead your constituents to support a Democrat. This kind of leader comes only once in a life time and I'm banking on him to be a catalyst to a better tomorrow mostly because of the way so many of the excluded view him.
Sincerely,
Ericka McLeod
Human Being
American
Democrat
"The Nashville City Paper reports that superdelegate Lincoln Davis, a Congressman whose district went strongly for Clinton in the promary, has been "slow to endorse Obama." This is not remarkable in its own right, and I'm sure there are other elected officials who are not eager to get out in front of their constituents and endorse a candidate they rejected.Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member representing part of Davis’ district said this:
"Maybe [it’s] the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him," Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. "He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."
WTF?? I don't expect the bubbas and yahoos in my state to all fall into line, but for a Democratic executive to use such a scurrilous attack line against his party's presumptive presidential nominee seems to me to call for some kind of retribution from above. I have no idea whether the DNC has any official sway over the state parties - I suspect not - but Howard Dean or someone needs to call on the state party to reign this guy in.
Here is my response:
Dear Mr. Hobbs,
I am a woman living in Maryland, and I just wanted to make you aware of something I came across as being one of your statements:
"Maybe [it’s] the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him," Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. "He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."
I want to be as open-minded and understanding as possible about these statement. Are you saying that he does not represent democratic values or democratic principles? Please help me follow your train of thoughts about the things he stands for. And when you say we don't know enough about him, what do you mean? What would you like to know more about him? Or are you saying that you don't know someone like him? Or are you saying that him becoming a senator on state and federal level is a farce? Please help me understand your thoughts because I want to atleast understand what you see that I don't. He has a respectable family history with family that served in WWII, his mother raised him with regular American values of work hard and serve others. He helped several families in Chicago overcome some really trying financial times because of steel mills closing. He wants our troops to be respected at home too. He understands the exclusion that so many people feel from our political system.
I can not and will not subscribe to the GOP standards of acceptance (or Clintons to some degree, though I don't think she meant it) of others not like ourselves. "We don't know people like him, so he must be a terrorist or do things as terrorists do..." This is fundamentally wrong! And for me it cuts me deep because that means the same would apply to me, my sons, and anyone else that looks like Mr. Obama or carries himself in a way to respect other that he doesn't agree with or are less than perfect. These are the politics that have made Americans feel cynical about serving as a citizen. You see, it is easy for the GOP to plant seeds like that into peoples head, because America is not use to the new America. America is full of disagreements, full of people that historically don't look like our forefathers and full of people that love this country because it is the land of the free no matter what we look like, sound like, come from, etc.! We must not let the GOP steal our love of country because of the seed planting they have succeeded in doing.
If you are worried about his church issues, let me tell you about my point of view about that. Many times in African American churches, the church is full of a variety of people, some with limited education, some with much, some with criminal backgrounds, some with no such thing, some from wonderful families some from broken homes. The whole gamet is there. Some are angry still over racial differences and want to explain these grievance all the time. Some are not and want those they love to soften up on those issues. See...Barack Obama is a lot like me. He has true compassion for all kinds of people, because that is what he is. I've seen the gamet of people in my life and rather than run away, I stay to understand and hopefully enlighten to a new more open and understanding way of seeing things, black and white. This is what we do as African Americans because we all have one common thread no matter what...exclusion. Exclusion from being a part of mainstream American because of what we like, see and do. The things we like see and do are because of the exclusion. So, we do a dance everyday between being who we are for each other and being enough so that we can be included. So rather than exlude people that are less than perfect we include and hope for change. That is our God given understanding and this is how I choose to believe when it comes to why he stayed in that church for 20 years. It can't be explained easily and I don't expect him to do so.
So, Mr. Hobbs, I request that you seek a new way of thinking by getting to know who he is and what he really stands for with all his imperfections and try to lead your constituents to support a Democrat. This kind of leader comes only once in a life time and I'm banking on him to be a catalyst to a better tomorrow mostly because of the way so many of the excluded view him.
Sincerely,
Ericka McLeod
Human Being
American
Democrat
Friday, June 6, 2008
What a Difference a Month Makes!
Or a day or a week or an hour in this highly charged campaign! In reading my last post a MONTH AGO, I can't believe how much things have changed and how happy I am right now vs. then! Our man did it! He beat the Clinton machine! Something Republicans couldn't do even when he was impeached! The magnitude of this accomplishment is staggering. No wonder Hillary couldn't concede. She's in shock that she was beaten by such an upstart! The rest of us are as euphoric as Oprah! Even the conservatives are giddy that the democrats have finally voted to impeach the Clintons. And principled conservatives like George Will studiously backed Obama's decision to make his vice-presidential selection his own:"Obama's choice of a running mate will be the first important decision he makes with the whole country watching, so it will be a momentous act of self-definition. If he chooses her, it will be an act of self-diminishment, especially now that some of her acolytes are aggressively suggesting that some unwritten rule of American politics stipulates that anyone who finishes a strong second in the nomination contest is entitled to second place on the ticket."
And her surrogates like Lanny Davis circulating a petition to make her the VP and Bob Johnson pressuring the Congressional Black Caucus to do the same! Another case of the "audacity of audacity" as Gail Collins put it. Thank God Charlie Rangel, Ed Rendell, and some others said, "Enough!" In the end, the superdelegates acted superbly. These people know that what is good for the party is not necessarily what's good for Mrs. (or Mr.) Clinton.
But as usual Peggy Noonan said it best: "They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn't lose because she had no money or organization, she didn't lose because she had no fame or name, she didn't lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don't like that, I don't like the way she does it, I'm not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in.
But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done.
May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party."
I already know that Obama's success may have the power to change the course of our nation. Even if he doesn't become president, he has shown us that it is possible for America to live up to its creed. Millions will mobilize for his campaign and for their own future campaigns. Hillary's supporters will doubtless do the same. Hope is alive! Do we now all get what Michele Obama meant? Many may oppose Obama for president, but most can't help but feel something major has happened in our land. We have held up a mirror to ourselves and there may be a few wrinkles or graying hairs out of place, but I think we look pretty good today. We can certainly be proud that in this era, our democracy is atop the list of Japan and the western nations where we usually find ourselves lacking. To the good ol' U.S. of A!Monday, May 5, 2008
If I Were a Superdelegate...
I wouldn't know what the hell to do! (Except that I wouldn't want them to run together!)
But I seriously can't take watching Barack lose another primary and then having to watch Hillary Clinton with those apple-y cheeks and a big fake smile on her face and saying crap like, "You may have helped me win tonight, but your votes are really a win for America." I looked to you, Barack, because I would seriously like to know what it feels like to cast a vote for a winner. Not just someone who wins but someone with the political skills to make things for the good of the country happen in his or her favor , i.e. a real winner. The country is in a mood to support the next President regardless of who that is because we are all (except for 28% in the Republican base) so over George W. Bush. Inspire and connect. I believe you can do it. Besides, you'll have to do both in the fall.
I haven't voted for a winner in a presidential contest since 1992. That's because I keep supporting the democrats, who, by the way, have lost seven of the last ten presidential elections. Other than Bill Clinton, the dems haven't had a president win re-election since FDR! Ponder that a moment. That would mean that since the Great Depression and World War II--that would be the war that John Wayne made famous in those black and white movies that come on PBS on random Saturday nights (What, you don't remember all those great John Wayne movies about WWII? What, well neither do I, but ask your great grandparents about what things were like back then), the Democrats have not figured out how to appeal to the majority of Americans. The NYT's John Harwood has a theory and guess what? It has to do with race!*
Meanwhile Hillary is coming on like gangbusters! She is clearly the better campaigner, while he has run the better campaign. She was pilloried for calling the hard campaign "the fun part," but anyone can see she is clearly enjoying the fight. Criticize her gas tax holiday and she'll tell you why it's good in the short term and the long term. Appear on Bill O'Reilly and legitmize the entire network and get the Democratic establishment to realize that yes, it's just another television network. Now that she's won four of the last five (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, but he won Vermont!) Obama needs to regroup and shake up the campaign staff with some new blood and some new approaches to the race as it needs to be run right now. Learn a thing or two from your opponents. Both Clinton and McCain fired people when they were losing. Well, guess what, Barack? You've been losing.
The first advice I might give is to take the gimme questions and run with them. When Tim Russert gives you a chance to talk about your sense of patriotism, it's wonderful to talk about your grandparents and World War II, but what values did they instill in you? Some Midwestern values that you could perhaps share with us and help you connect with the white working class? Right now all we know about your grandmother is that she loved you but she said things that made you cringe. It's great that Michele's dad was a hardworking shift employee with MS, but besides instilling in his children the importance of education, did she really grow up without ever having a proud moment as an American? If so, then explain why in a way that people will understand, otherwise is it really that hard to come up with an example? The Bi-Centennial Year? The Centennial Celebration of the Statue of Liberty? The U.S. defeating the Soviet hockey team in 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympics? Michele's remarks have been out there just waiting for Barack to be named the presumptive nominee so the Republicans can paint you both as elitist and unpatriotic. Remember you'll be running against a former POW--an Annapolis grad who is the son and grandson of admirals--who chose to remain in a Vietnamese prison camp instead of leaving without his fellow sailors. Start selling yourself as patriotic and not just becaues you're likely to be the first African-American to win the democratic presidential nomination.
And now let's talk about Rev. Wright. Something does not ring true. I think I understand the why's of it all, but not not the what's. I don't think you've been honest about what went down at various flashpoints. Just because you may be ready to move forward and talk about issues that the American people care about, your enemies--and that's what they are, not mere opponents with differing philosophies of governing--will gladly keep reminding the voters that you sat in the pews of this church for 20 years without questioning some of the more radical ideas coming out of the pulpit. That's not leadership. I think that in an 8,000 member congregation there are doubtless numerous ministers on rotation and maybe Wright only preached there once a month. I take you at your word that you weren't there for certain sermons, but did you really not know the particulars of the man's reputation?
Well, you seem to have been able to take cover on that one. But what made you disinvite Wright from your campaign announcement? What was it that was so red hot that you were willing to insult a man who was like family to you? Did he understand why and gladly move to the background or did he smolder? Was he offended, as Al Sharpton was, that you would make such a calculating move? You wanted to avoid something, but what was it? Will you fully explain, or will you act like a politician on this one as well? You told Matt Lauer on the Today Show this morning that you have now distanced yourself from Wright (permanently I presume) because he had an opportunity to contextualize his remarks and instead he only amplified them. Are you really surprised that he actually meant what he said? His behavior showed that you didn't know him so well and he apparently didn't know you so well either. I guess that could be true, but I would think that any pastor, but especially one of Wright's standing in religous circles, would make it his business to get to know a congregant who is a U.S. Senator. But Wright prides himself on speaking truth to power so maybe your political ascent itself forced some distance between you two. But still he married you and Michele, baptized your daughters, and blessed your newly purchased home. Over those twenty years did you so poorly misjudge the man that you were shocked at his ideas, truly?
For me, the biggest outrage is that you knew something was up over a year ago, and you let it slide, which points to sheer political miscalculation. You had a chance to introduce yourself as a man of faith. Did you not learn that talking about faith and the path that brought you to your church and to Jesus Christ are extremely important to voters in the current political climate? Remember Tim Kaine, John F. Kennedy, and even Mitt Romney? Yet instead of taking the opportunity to get in front of this story and define yourself, you waited for it to explode. How then can we supporters of you accept your misjudgment of Wright but believe that you have the proper judgment to function decisively as president of the United States?
I still support you, Barack, but I really liked supporting you as a winner. Can you get it back on point? Please show me that you're learning from your mistakes. We have a president who thinks changing course is a sign of weakness. Show me that he's wrong and that learning from mistakes and not repeating them is a strength that you possess.
-----------------------------------
*Technically, I also helped re-elect Clinton in 1996, after he lost the Congress to Newt Gingrich in 1994 and before he went off the rails with "that woman" and got himself impeached.
- Barack or Hillary?
- Hope vs. Experience?
- Idealism vs. Pragmatism?
- Fight to Win or Fight the Good Fight?
- Baby Boom vs. Post Civil Rights?
- Black Man vs. a White Woman?
- Hillary or Barack?
But I seriously can't take watching Barack lose another primary and then having to watch Hillary Clinton with those apple-y cheeks and a big fake smile on her face and saying crap like, "You may have helped me win tonight, but your votes are really a win for America." I looked to you, Barack, because I would seriously like to know what it feels like to cast a vote for a winner. Not just someone who wins but someone with the political skills to make things for the good of the country happen in his or her favor , i.e. a real winner. The country is in a mood to support the next President regardless of who that is because we are all (except for 28% in the Republican base) so over George W. Bush. Inspire and connect. I believe you can do it. Besides, you'll have to do both in the fall.
I haven't voted for a winner in a presidential contest since 1992. That's because I keep supporting the democrats, who, by the way, have lost seven of the last ten presidential elections. Other than Bill Clinton, the dems haven't had a president win re-election since FDR! Ponder that a moment. That would mean that since the Great Depression and World War II--that would be the war that John Wayne made famous in those black and white movies that come on PBS on random Saturday nights (What, you don't remember all those great John Wayne movies about WWII? What, well neither do I, but ask your great grandparents about what things were like back then), the Democrats have not figured out how to appeal to the majority of Americans. The NYT's John Harwood has a theory and guess what? It has to do with race!*
Meanwhile Hillary is coming on like gangbusters! She is clearly the better campaigner, while he has run the better campaign. She was pilloried for calling the hard campaign "the fun part," but anyone can see she is clearly enjoying the fight. Criticize her gas tax holiday and she'll tell you why it's good in the short term and the long term. Appear on Bill O'Reilly and legitmize the entire network and get the Democratic establishment to realize that yes, it's just another television network. Now that she's won four of the last five (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, but he won Vermont!) Obama needs to regroup and shake up the campaign staff with some new blood and some new approaches to the race as it needs to be run right now. Learn a thing or two from your opponents. Both Clinton and McCain fired people when they were losing. Well, guess what, Barack? You've been losing.
The first advice I might give is to take the gimme questions and run with them. When Tim Russert gives you a chance to talk about your sense of patriotism, it's wonderful to talk about your grandparents and World War II, but what values did they instill in you? Some Midwestern values that you could perhaps share with us and help you connect with the white working class? Right now all we know about your grandmother is that she loved you but she said things that made you cringe. It's great that Michele's dad was a hardworking shift employee with MS, but besides instilling in his children the importance of education, did she really grow up without ever having a proud moment as an American? If so, then explain why in a way that people will understand, otherwise is it really that hard to come up with an example? The Bi-Centennial Year? The Centennial Celebration of the Statue of Liberty? The U.S. defeating the Soviet hockey team in 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympics? Michele's remarks have been out there just waiting for Barack to be named the presumptive nominee so the Republicans can paint you both as elitist and unpatriotic. Remember you'll be running against a former POW--an Annapolis grad who is the son and grandson of admirals--who chose to remain in a Vietnamese prison camp instead of leaving without his fellow sailors. Start selling yourself as patriotic and not just becaues you're likely to be the first African-American to win the democratic presidential nomination.
And now let's talk about Rev. Wright. Something does not ring true. I think I understand the why's of it all, but not not the what's. I don't think you've been honest about what went down at various flashpoints. Just because you may be ready to move forward and talk about issues that the American people care about, your enemies--and that's what they are, not mere opponents with differing philosophies of governing--will gladly keep reminding the voters that you sat in the pews of this church for 20 years without questioning some of the more radical ideas coming out of the pulpit. That's not leadership. I think that in an 8,000 member congregation there are doubtless numerous ministers on rotation and maybe Wright only preached there once a month. I take you at your word that you weren't there for certain sermons, but did you really not know the particulars of the man's reputation?
Well, you seem to have been able to take cover on that one. But what made you disinvite Wright from your campaign announcement? What was it that was so red hot that you were willing to insult a man who was like family to you? Did he understand why and gladly move to the background or did he smolder? Was he offended, as Al Sharpton was, that you would make such a calculating move? You wanted to avoid something, but what was it? Will you fully explain, or will you act like a politician on this one as well? You told Matt Lauer on the Today Show this morning that you have now distanced yourself from Wright (permanently I presume) because he had an opportunity to contextualize his remarks and instead he only amplified them. Are you really surprised that he actually meant what he said? His behavior showed that you didn't know him so well and he apparently didn't know you so well either. I guess that could be true, but I would think that any pastor, but especially one of Wright's standing in religous circles, would make it his business to get to know a congregant who is a U.S. Senator. But Wright prides himself on speaking truth to power so maybe your political ascent itself forced some distance between you two. But still he married you and Michele, baptized your daughters, and blessed your newly purchased home. Over those twenty years did you so poorly misjudge the man that you were shocked at his ideas, truly?
For me, the biggest outrage is that you knew something was up over a year ago, and you let it slide, which points to sheer political miscalculation. You had a chance to introduce yourself as a man of faith. Did you not learn that talking about faith and the path that brought you to your church and to Jesus Christ are extremely important to voters in the current political climate? Remember Tim Kaine, John F. Kennedy, and even Mitt Romney? Yet instead of taking the opportunity to get in front of this story and define yourself, you waited for it to explode. How then can we supporters of you accept your misjudgment of Wright but believe that you have the proper judgment to function decisively as president of the United States?
I still support you, Barack, but I really liked supporting you as a winner. Can you get it back on point? Please show me that you're learning from your mistakes. We have a president who thinks changing course is a sign of weakness. Show me that he's wrong and that learning from mistakes and not repeating them is a strength that you possess.
-----------------------------------
*Technically, I also helped re-elect Clinton in 1996, after he lost the Congress to Newt Gingrich in 1994 and before he went off the rails with "that woman" and got himself impeached.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Our political process is a drag!
Elitist, out of touch, soft, not a fighter, too black, not black enough, terrorist, no experience...it goes on and on.
I'm sick to death of this election. It is depressing. In my opinion, why don't we all vote for McCain and make Hillary the VP. Seems to me that's what America wants.
All Obama's negatives above don't equate to what a presidency would be like under the two opponents. I can't tell what America wants. Do they want a president that had to tell people things that seem good at the moment and then do what ever they want when in office? Or do they want the truth of what is really going on? I'm on one side of this split personality and I'm starting to believe that I many think I shouldn't believe in a better government. A working government. It seems to me this country is happy with government just the way it is. I do believe all this extra is more damning to the needs of regular people than I have before. It really keeps people's minds busy with things not meaningful to their daily lives.
My biggest beef with this election is the way the media creates self-fulfilling prophecies. You know how a parent may say to their child, "I don't want you to date outside of your race, because you will face challenges. Those challenges will be too much so I don't want you to date that person." In this example the parent is the problem! Joe Scarface said the other day that it is elitist to reject the gas tax...ignoring the fact that just by saying that he is making it so. It's bs like this that angers me. He doesn't believe that half a tank of gas could really pay for going to the beach, does he? Or a trip to Six Flags...give me a break! It's just a ploy to say SOMETHING was done, even if it has long term ramifications. If a half a tank of gas on average would make that much of a difference in your summer, than you probably don't have a car anyway! It is so condescending and cheating of regular people! But maybe the people like the emotional high from it...The stimulus package was better because of the amount, but kind of the same thing. I'm not using it to pay for new stuff. I'm paying down debt! I feel like because we are such a free society it makes it easy to play on that to manipulate people. And thus, here lies why I think politics is a drag.
My choice for POTUS is now really clear, but if America doesn't agree, then I guess I'll be stuck with 4 more years of McBush and McBush in the form of a Clinton. To me that is the choice.
I'm sick to death of this election. It is depressing. In my opinion, why don't we all vote for McCain and make Hillary the VP. Seems to me that's what America wants.
All Obama's negatives above don't equate to what a presidency would be like under the two opponents. I can't tell what America wants. Do they want a president that had to tell people things that seem good at the moment and then do what ever they want when in office? Or do they want the truth of what is really going on? I'm on one side of this split personality and I'm starting to believe that I many think I shouldn't believe in a better government. A working government. It seems to me this country is happy with government just the way it is. I do believe all this extra is more damning to the needs of regular people than I have before. It really keeps people's minds busy with things not meaningful to their daily lives.
My biggest beef with this election is the way the media creates self-fulfilling prophecies. You know how a parent may say to their child, "I don't want you to date outside of your race, because you will face challenges. Those challenges will be too much so I don't want you to date that person." In this example the parent is the problem! Joe Scarface said the other day that it is elitist to reject the gas tax...ignoring the fact that just by saying that he is making it so. It's bs like this that angers me. He doesn't believe that half a tank of gas could really pay for going to the beach, does he? Or a trip to Six Flags...give me a break! It's just a ploy to say SOMETHING was done, even if it has long term ramifications. If a half a tank of gas on average would make that much of a difference in your summer, than you probably don't have a car anyway! It is so condescending and cheating of regular people! But maybe the people like the emotional high from it...The stimulus package was better because of the amount, but kind of the same thing. I'm not using it to pay for new stuff. I'm paying down debt! I feel like because we are such a free society it makes it easy to play on that to manipulate people. And thus, here lies why I think politics is a drag.
My choice for POTUS is now really clear, but if America doesn't agree, then I guess I'll be stuck with 4 more years of McBush and McBush in the form of a Clinton. To me that is the choice.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Thank You, Peggy Noonan!
If I could have a roundtable of my favorite editorial page writers, Peggy Noonan would be first on my list (followed by Eugene Robinson, Maureen Dowd, E.J. Dionne, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins, Bob Herbert, Howard Kurtz, Richard Cohen, Frank Rich, and Charles Krauthammer in case you were going to ask). In an earlier blog post, I pointed out that she gets it with feeling tired of the Clintons. Today she showed that she gets it with Reverend Wright in a way I haven't yet read, and I honestly felt like crying at the end. Really! It must be that I'm feeling disillusioned with Barack Obama. I've been supporting and defending and explaining him so ardently because I want him to win. But lately I've seen evidence that he's got the smarts, but not the guts to take it all the way. His opponents are defining him before he's had a chance to define himself and I start to worry, maybe he can't win. Am I buying into the Clintonistas' argument?
And then, Hillary Clinton goes one on one with Bill O'Reilly, knocking it out of the park, garnering favorable press, and making Fox News look like the only network worth watching. They talked politics just like we all do, in raised voices cutting each other off mid-sentence. It was refreshing to see a debate executed in the informal style we all use when arguing with friends, family, and co-workers. O'Reilly was rude to her as he usually is with guests he doesn't agree with, labelling her a socialist and interrupting her before she could finish an explanation, but she parried right back and showed her mastery of the issues right there in the lion's den. Obama is going on Meet the Press this Sunday to show his mettle with Tim Russert, but does anyone really think that he could go one on one with O'Reilly and break even? He couldn't even handle some tough questions at the very staid ABC debate or push back against the moderators to get them to change the page.
And this whole Reverend Wright thing! After reading in the New York Times about how this whole horrible misunderstanding may have come about between Obama and Wright, my heart was breaking. But then along came Peggy to explain it all. It's just so wonderful to read something so artfully expressed that I wished I'd written it myself. And while one might expect Reagan's speech writer to be shocked at Rev. Wright's rantings, she's just not. Yes, some of his ideas are anti-American, but what of it...seriously? What a breath of fresh air! She put his lunacy into context without apologizing, just identifying it for what it is and then dismissing it because his most repellant ideas are of marginal consequence even if you believe as he does. She doesn't blame Obama either, and I daresay I detect a whiff of support. She seems to have taken over the Maureen Dowd role in coaching along the neophyte in how he's perceived and what he's got to do to win. Thank you again!
And then, Hillary Clinton goes one on one with Bill O'Reilly, knocking it out of the park, garnering favorable press, and making Fox News look like the only network worth watching. They talked politics just like we all do, in raised voices cutting each other off mid-sentence. It was refreshing to see a debate executed in the informal style we all use when arguing with friends, family, and co-workers. O'Reilly was rude to her as he usually is with guests he doesn't agree with, labelling her a socialist and interrupting her before she could finish an explanation, but she parried right back and showed her mastery of the issues right there in the lion's den. Obama is going on Meet the Press this Sunday to show his mettle with Tim Russert, but does anyone really think that he could go one on one with O'Reilly and break even? He couldn't even handle some tough questions at the very staid ABC debate or push back against the moderators to get them to change the page.
And this whole Reverend Wright thing! After reading in the New York Times about how this whole horrible misunderstanding may have come about between Obama and Wright, my heart was breaking. But then along came Peggy to explain it all. It's just so wonderful to read something so artfully expressed that I wished I'd written it myself. And while one might expect Reagan's speech writer to be shocked at Rev. Wright's rantings, she's just not. Yes, some of his ideas are anti-American, but what of it...seriously? What a breath of fresh air! She put his lunacy into context without apologizing, just identifying it for what it is and then dismissing it because his most repellant ideas are of marginal consequence even if you believe as he does. She doesn't blame Obama either, and I daresay I detect a whiff of support. She seems to have taken over the Maureen Dowd role in coaching along the neophyte in how he's perceived and what he's got to do to win. Thank you again!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
He Did It...Finally!
Yesterday, Obama turned a corner, or, in campaign parlance, he successfully pivoted his campaign away from Rev. Wright and got himself some much needed positive press in the process. Even Joe Scarborough was effusive! Listening to Newt Gingrich this morning on Fox, Obama's jettisoning of the good Reverend was too little too late. None of Wright's outlandish statements of the last few days that Obama categorically denounced is that different from the sound bites chosen from selected sermons when they first burst onto the landscape. But most lauded Obama's actions and words as both left and right were ready to skewer the good reverend.
So what changed to make Obama take such decisive action? Many factors bear further examination:
So what changed to make Obama take such decisive action? Many factors bear further examination:
- Wright clearly turned on Obama. One can only speculate as to why, but it seemed pretty clear that Wright sought to undermine Obama's campaign itself by claiming that the Senator was speaking "as a politician." He first made this claim in the Bill Moyers interview, but on Monday he clearly implied that Obama does not speak the truth (as Wright does as a man of the cloth?) as a candidate and he'll say what he needs to for political expediency.
- African-American pundits and superdelegates were (rightly) offended at Wright's posturing and withdrew their support for the minister. Obama may have wanted to have broken more decisively with Wright back in March when the controversy first erupted. He certainly seemed to have been aware that Wright was a time bomb by disinviting him from giving the invocation at the campaign kickoff. But throwing his pastor and "spiritual mentor" under the bus would have raised further questions of his authenticity within the black community. He would have had a hard time justifying turning his back on a church leader who'd become so important to his spiritual evolution and to his family. I suspect many Blacks would have turned suspicious of Obama had he caved to the political pressure at the time, so instead he gave the speech in Philadelphia on race that raised the racial dialogue to a higher level and put the Wright issue behind him.
- Wright provided Obama with the chance to show some fire in his belly. With the whole country (including superdelegates) wondering, "What the heck is wroing with Rev. Wright?" Obama knew he needed a Sista Souljah or Dan Rather moment. Recall that in 1992 when Bill Clinton criticized rapper Sista Souljah he gained political points with whites for identifying some of the rap star's lyrics as racist. In 1988, George H.W. Bush was in danger of being defined as a wimp until he used an interview with Dan Rather over Iran Contra to prove his toughness. Wright actually presented Obama with an opportunity to repudiate not only Wright's controversial words but also the divisive man behind them. Presidents have to make tough choices and Obama did so. Hopefully, Obama has performed such that questions of his temperament and decisiveness are officially put to bed.
So, having proven his bona fides, our man is back in play and hopefully the voters in Indiana will give him props on Tuesday.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wright is not my Reverend
I am so distraught over all this Obama/Wright stuff. I feel like I am seeing a battle going on between old generation and new generation black empowerment! I am a 37 year old, black woman living in Maryland working in DC. What is going on!!! Here we are about to get a chance at leveling the playing ground for empowerment and some elders are blocking passage. I'm so disappointed in all the hype. I believe the Rev has the right to defend himself but...for crying out loud!!!! We need power in this country before we can change it.
Obama can't transcend racial divide is the message I'm getting from this election. Not with all this drama! Is this what the sixties were about? Are the advocates of old angry with some of us younger blacks thinking we have given in because we allowed our selves to blend in? Is it true that for a Black man to be President he has to fight white prejudice and fear as well as black anger and fear and greed for power? I'm blown out of the water. Obama is getting heat from all sides and I believe him that he wants our country to get past the racial divisions of the past. I feel like if he makes it to the White House it will only be the most heart wrenching and anxiety filled experience for me, more so than this election cycle. I see why so many have become disillusioned by politics. It displays the best and worst in America all in one day. Just reading the comments on your article makes me feel hopeless that a unified America could emerge.
I can't believe how hard this really is.
I will vote for Barack Obama and I will not stand for being marginalized by black folks internal conflict exploited by outsiders or white folks fear.
Frustrated and wanting some peace!
Obama can't transcend racial divide is the message I'm getting from this election. Not with all this drama! Is this what the sixties were about? Are the advocates of old angry with some of us younger blacks thinking we have given in because we allowed our selves to blend in? Is it true that for a Black man to be President he has to fight white prejudice and fear as well as black anger and fear and greed for power? I'm blown out of the water. Obama is getting heat from all sides and I believe him that he wants our country to get past the racial divisions of the past. I feel like if he makes it to the White House it will only be the most heart wrenching and anxiety filled experience for me, more so than this election cycle. I see why so many have become disillusioned by politics. It displays the best and worst in America all in one day. Just reading the comments on your article makes me feel hopeless that a unified America could emerge.
I can't believe how hard this really is.
I will vote for Barack Obama and I will not stand for being marginalized by black folks internal conflict exploited by outsiders or white folks fear.
Frustrated and wanting some peace!
Are We Just Crabs in the Barrel?
After the Iowa caucuses in January I had brunch in New York with a good friend who is the one and only born and bred Iowan I know. (I actually know her sister and brother as well, but "Beth" is a good friend of mine from business school back in the late 90s.) Rather condescendingly (in retrospect), I told her that I was quite impressed that Iowa--a state that is 97% white--had so strongly supported Barack Obama and basically turned him into the first viable African American presidential candidate. She dressed me down for my presumptuousness about Iowans, but props to her for showing this Northeasterner that Iowans take their politics seriously.
At the time I was neutral in the democratic race but starting to pay attention as I'd heard so much about this Barack Obama. I'd heard essays on NPR refuting the charge within the African-American community that Obama "wasn't black enough." My friend Beth strongly supports Clinton because she believes she's the most qualified and she wants to see a woman in the White House. With the charge of "not being black enough," I felt kinship with Obama because I too have felt the sting of that charge from other African-Americans my whole life and I too wanted a president who reflected my life experience as a black man making it in a white world.
In considering Obama as a candidate, I was also dismayed that some (Andrew Young et al) in the previous generation of civil rights leaders were throwing their support to Clinton or hesitating to support Obama, stating that they were being loyal to their friend Clinton and that it wasn't Obama's turn. Never mind that Obama's candidacy is the embodiment of Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of America's future! That's politics though. Loyalty to one's friends is important and everyone who wanted a seat at the table surely expected Clinton to emerge decisively as the democratic nominee. Pity poor John Lewis if Clinton pulls it out!
Personally, I explained to my friend that day that some of the old guard were acting like "crabs in a barrel," a phrase that is used in the black community when we pull down a brother or a sister because we don't want them to get above or ahead of us, like crabs in a barrel clawing at each other to try and come out on top. Now I see this same dynamic writ large with the re-emergence of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In his speech in Philadelphia, Obama went to great lengths not to disown Rev. Wright, much to the dismay of some critics who thought that he'd ducked the most important question: How can you explain and condone your relationship with a man who said such hateful and patently false things? Obama no doubt felt that he had provided a full contextual explanation, but now that Wright has spoken up for himself in such an angry and self-aggrandizing way, Obama will have to address the role his "spiritual mentor" has played in his life.
The real questions are twofold:
At the time I was neutral in the democratic race but starting to pay attention as I'd heard so much about this Barack Obama. I'd heard essays on NPR refuting the charge within the African-American community that Obama "wasn't black enough." My friend Beth strongly supports Clinton because she believes she's the most qualified and she wants to see a woman in the White House. With the charge of "not being black enough," I felt kinship with Obama because I too have felt the sting of that charge from other African-Americans my whole life and I too wanted a president who reflected my life experience as a black man making it in a white world.
In considering Obama as a candidate, I was also dismayed that some (Andrew Young et al) in the previous generation of civil rights leaders were throwing their support to Clinton or hesitating to support Obama, stating that they were being loyal to their friend Clinton and that it wasn't Obama's turn. Never mind that Obama's candidacy is the embodiment of Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of America's future! That's politics though. Loyalty to one's friends is important and everyone who wanted a seat at the table surely expected Clinton to emerge decisively as the democratic nominee. Pity poor John Lewis if Clinton pulls it out!
Personally, I explained to my friend that day that some of the old guard were acting like "crabs in a barrel," a phrase that is used in the black community when we pull down a brother or a sister because we don't want them to get above or ahead of us, like crabs in a barrel clawing at each other to try and come out on top. Now I see this same dynamic writ large with the re-emergence of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In his speech in Philadelphia, Obama went to great lengths not to disown Rev. Wright, much to the dismay of some critics who thought that he'd ducked the most important question: How can you explain and condone your relationship with a man who said such hateful and patently false things? Obama no doubt felt that he had provided a full contextual explanation, but now that Wright has spoken up for himself in such an angry and self-aggrandizing way, Obama will have to address the role his "spiritual mentor" has played in his life.
The real questions are twofold:
- How are we to believe that Obama has good judgment in aligning himself with Rev. Wright? His pastor has so actively denigrated the chances for one of his flock to rise to the greatest political office in the world. Yet Obama proudly declared that he could no sooner disown Wright than he could his white grandmother, a woman who raised him for a time when he was young. He must provide some explanation to all Americans, especially those in Indiana who will vote next week. Frankly, I don't think he has the time to fully explain and turn the tide before next Tuesday.
- Can Obama rise to the challenge of defusing this situation and move on politically? This is something he must demonstrate to the superdelegates lest they start to buy into Clinton's argument that he is not ready for the fall and he cannot win. It is completely within Barack Obama's power to win on this if he's willing to dissociate himself from the reverend and answer the questions before him. My sense is that he wants to put this behind him by acting as though the reverend doesn't have great influence on him politically or that this is political noise not worthy of his attention. This may be true, but if he thinks his opponents are going to let slide a chance to weaken him, he's crazy! And if the voters in Indiana don't buy his explanations, Hillary Clinton will have even greater evidence that "he can't win" demonstrated emprically because he will have failed to win over voters.
The bottom line for me is starting to become that if Obama is not willing to fight for this, then maybe he truly doesn't deserve to win. There. I said it and I hope I don't regret it. Hillary, reincarnated as a political version of The Terminator, has shown she keeps on fighting when knocked down. What kind of fight is Obama going to show the American people?
- Update: I purposely wrote my post above without reading my usual media sources to gather perspective. I wanted to get my own ideas down before turning to the web to see what else is being written. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, no friend to Obama's candidacy certainly, summed it up the best: "Rev. Wright is exacerbating [racial politics] in a way not seen in recent years. Barack Obama cannot remain on both sides of this. He has to make a decision. He is not running for national Mediator. He is running for President. In time, that job brings tough decisions. He's there now." Conservatives might oppose Obama philosophically, but I'm sure many, George Will and Sean Hannity excepted, do not wish the nation's first viable Black presidential candidate to be brought low like this.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Democratic Party and It's Split Personality
The Democratic Party has an illness of split personality. We have those that believe tradition will see us through and feels safe and a those that believe the past has held us back from getting what we want. These "folks" have been split by education, race, age and gender. It is amazing what a choice between a black man and a white woman could do to an ideology. But the funny thing is I don't think it's about race and gender as much as it is about principles. If you believe that a good hard fight with a some good wounds is okay as long as you win (more work), you vote Clinton. If you believe a good hard fight is getting to the fundamental truth of what's wrong and believe that the more engaged the country is the more things will change (smart work), you are an Obama supporter. This is fundamentally huge differences between A types and B types in personality.
Let's look at this further. These are two extremely different points of view! The opposite if you will. Obama has not brought his message to a simple digestible state for Hillary's experienced fighters to grasp and Hillary hasn't touched the intellect of the educated with her brawling. It's split and only a few will cross over because it is simple personality. I think we will see more of this in the Fall. If Obama wins, the brawlers may find comfort in a military man. If Clinton wins, the intellects will have no where to go and stay home. This doesn't bode well for Democrats.
But if for a moment the brawlers and the intellects could just get together and find the common ground of economic woes, they will see that McCain does not suit their interests. Who can deliver that message best?
Now for reality meets myth.
Myth: Why can't Obama knock her out?
Fact: Why can't Clinton knock him out? The previous question is always asked as if there is something wrong with Obama. As if there is this expectation of perfection. When did coming from NO WHERE become so trivial! Clinton is losing!!! Losing! There is no pleasant way for her to win. Trust me if Obama was broke, behind in every concievable aspect of how to win the nomination with out the Superdelegates, he would not still be in the race! Clinton has failed. She represents the party establishment and couldn't hold off a rooky with a funny name from taking 11 states in a row that pushed his lead to a sizable gap that she can not overcome. HER FAULT! In fighting, no money, negativity is all created by her campaign. The only way for her to win is to convince superdelegates that he is unelectable. The only way she can do that is by trying to make him unelectable. The only way she can do that is by wrecking his creditbility as a new kind of politics. She should not conceed the race, and nor should Obama. But she is not doing anything bigger or better than he is either...except dragging the party into a not so good place to start the fight for the Fall.
Here is some juicy info on why Obama is ahead so far. He has won 15 contests above 60 points! Clinton has won 1. Obama's overall points average to 54 and Clintons is 41. He is on average beating her by 13 points! This is why he is ahead.
Let me repeat. Out of the 30 states of 45 Obama has won, he has won 15 of them with more than 20 points! This is amazing considering he is a rooky with a funny name and "association" baggage. He is winning. More people want Obama! She should have blown out PA since that is like his HI (He won 76 to 24). The same for NY. she won 57 to 40. Where in IL he won 65 to 33. These are things to compare. How do the people that know you vote? I won't even mention Kansas and Arkansas. Okay I will. His spread was 48 to her 44. The largest spread of this run for office has been 80 to 17 in Idaho for Obama. WOW!!!
Have faith my fellow Obama supports. This will be over soon. Change is wanted and Obama is that change.
Let's look at this further. These are two extremely different points of view! The opposite if you will. Obama has not brought his message to a simple digestible state for Hillary's experienced fighters to grasp and Hillary hasn't touched the intellect of the educated with her brawling. It's split and only a few will cross over because it is simple personality. I think we will see more of this in the Fall. If Obama wins, the brawlers may find comfort in a military man. If Clinton wins, the intellects will have no where to go and stay home. This doesn't bode well for Democrats.
But if for a moment the brawlers and the intellects could just get together and find the common ground of economic woes, they will see that McCain does not suit their interests. Who can deliver that message best?
Now for reality meets myth.
Myth: Why can't Obama knock her out?
Fact: Why can't Clinton knock him out? The previous question is always asked as if there is something wrong with Obama. As if there is this expectation of perfection. When did coming from NO WHERE become so trivial! Clinton is losing!!! Losing! There is no pleasant way for her to win. Trust me if Obama was broke, behind in every concievable aspect of how to win the nomination with out the Superdelegates, he would not still be in the race! Clinton has failed. She represents the party establishment and couldn't hold off a rooky with a funny name from taking 11 states in a row that pushed his lead to a sizable gap that she can not overcome. HER FAULT! In fighting, no money, negativity is all created by her campaign. The only way for her to win is to convince superdelegates that he is unelectable. The only way she can do that is by trying to make him unelectable. The only way she can do that is by wrecking his creditbility as a new kind of politics. She should not conceed the race, and nor should Obama. But she is not doing anything bigger or better than he is either...except dragging the party into a not so good place to start the fight for the Fall.
Here is some juicy info on why Obama is ahead so far. He has won 15 contests above 60 points! Clinton has won 1. Obama's overall points average to 54 and Clintons is 41. He is on average beating her by 13 points! This is why he is ahead.
Let me repeat. Out of the 30 states of 45 Obama has won, he has won 15 of them with more than 20 points! This is amazing considering he is a rooky with a funny name and "association" baggage. He is winning. More people want Obama! She should have blown out PA since that is like his HI (He won 76 to 24). The same for NY. she won 57 to 40. Where in IL he won 65 to 33. These are things to compare. How do the people that know you vote? I won't even mention Kansas and Arkansas. Okay I will. His spread was 48 to her 44. The largest spread of this run for office has been 80 to 17 in Idaho for Obama. WOW!!!
Have faith my fellow Obama supports. This will be over soon. Change is wanted and Obama is that change.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Here's the Rub on the Final Debate
Obama didn't do well in the last debate. In fact, this debate may indeed be the last as he has indicated little interest in another proposed debate ahead of the North Carolina primary. I don't think skipping a debate is a good idea because he should end on a high note. Why allow your last debate performance to be one that was nearly universally panned?
Much rancor has been aimed at the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, for doing a shoddy job in the first 45 minutes and waiting until the debate was half over to get into the "real issues that voters care about." Are these same complainers at all chastened that for such a supposedly shoddy job done by the moderators, this was the highest rated debate so far this election cycle? Perhaps people care more than the media elite can measure.
While I can agree that Obama took fire from both Clinton and the moderators, he certainly did not show that he can perform under pressure. The White House press corps is not known for playing patty cake with the President. Yes, the questions were inane and not about the issues, but they were certainly about topics that have been in the headlines, the editorial pages and on the blogs. Our man seemed not only agitated but also ill prepared. Does he have feet of clay? Can he not take a difficult situation and use his political skills to turn the situation to his advantage? We saw him do that the day after, brushing himself off (talk about seeming pompous!) and decrying Washington tactics, but the job he is applying for is in Washington. It will take leadership to change the culture of Washington, more leadership and political skill than he showed on Wednesday.
He was so off his game from the beginning of the debate that when the discussion did turn to policies he was wrongheaded or decidedly impolitic in some of his answers:
Much rancor has been aimed at the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, for doing a shoddy job in the first 45 minutes and waiting until the debate was half over to get into the "real issues that voters care about." Are these same complainers at all chastened that for such a supposedly shoddy job done by the moderators, this was the highest rated debate so far this election cycle? Perhaps people care more than the media elite can measure.
While I can agree that Obama took fire from both Clinton and the moderators, he certainly did not show that he can perform under pressure. The White House press corps is not known for playing patty cake with the President. Yes, the questions were inane and not about the issues, but they were certainly about topics that have been in the headlines, the editorial pages and on the blogs. Our man seemed not only agitated but also ill prepared. Does he have feet of clay? Can he not take a difficult situation and use his political skills to turn the situation to his advantage? We saw him do that the day after, brushing himself off (talk about seeming pompous!) and decrying Washington tactics, but the job he is applying for is in Washington. It will take leadership to change the culture of Washington, more leadership and political skill than he showed on Wednesday.
He was so off his game from the beginning of the debate that when the discussion did turn to policies he was wrongheaded or decidedly impolitic in some of his answers:
- Does he really think that the nuclear umbrella must extend beyond Israel to our other Middle Eastern allies like Saudi Arabia (with whom most Americans do not identify culturally)? This is new foreign policy seeminly concocted on the spot by both candidates.
- If keeping the capital gains tax low brings in more revenues, what is the point of raising the capital gains? To punish people who invest in American companies (who are not all super wealthy by the way)? Many of us who have 401(k)s have been told that we need to invest in stocks to receive the best returns. Why punish ordinary folks trying to build their retirement income? And besides, he might have to lower the capital gains tax to zero if he wishes to entice Republicans to pass health care reform.
- Why would he commit to removing troops from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground and advice from his generals? No one believes that he has enough information at this moment to make such a promise. How about a little wiggle room please?
- And a no new taxes pledge? Ridiculous! Bill Clinton went back on his proposed middle class tax cut as soon as he took office and got a better understanding of the state of the economy in light of his economic goals (see #3 regarding committing before knowing all the facts). Clinton's flip flop came after bludgeoning Bush the father in the campaign for going back on his reversal of his "read my lips" pledge. Again, answer in a way that still provides cover.
I take solace only in the fact that the real campaign has not yet been joined. Once the presumptive democratic nominee has a chance to define himself to the general electorate in contrast to John McCain, we'll see a much better measure of Obama's political skills under duress. But what a shame that Obama's final debate performance was also his worst.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
It's Painful but Necessary to Keep Going
Maureen Dowd, who has no love lost for the Clintons, has been like a journalistic mentor to Barack Obama. I can imagine her following him around on his campaign stops, sitting in back of his plane listening to him talking with the media and then going back to her laptop and writing her columns explaining the political universe to him. She writes in a rather literary style, sometimes referring to classical opera or even Harry Potter for her good vs. evil view of Obama vs. Clinton.
She has been gently prodding him over the last several months to administer the knockout blow to his rival not just to make sure that she stays down, but to prove to everyone that he could actually do it. We Americans like our presidents to be tough and resolute and the campaign is the forum to show one's mettle. Ms. Clinton gambled from the beginning that being on the Armed Services Committee, voting in favor of the Iraq War Resolution and refusing to repudiate her vote would make her look tough. Instead, she reminds me of another decider who's just as intractable. Much as I favor Obama, he just hasn't shown me such toughness. He's a smart, scrappy fighter, but after seeing him bowl a 37 in Altoona (while wearing a tie no less!), he just doesn't look so tough to me. And at the South Carolina debate where she brought up Rezko, Clinton was--at that point anyway--looking like someone who was ready to do what it takes to win, in stark contrast to her opponent.
Dowd has written that Obama needs to slay the dragon, that the Clintons lie like nobody's business, and that they'll do anything to win the presidency despite Obama's upstart campaign. One might suspect that as a woman, Dowd would have some empathy for Ms. Clinton, the smart girl getting upstaged by the star athlete (bowling excluded) once again! But only another woman could get away with writing some of the most patroninizing (matronizing?) things about Ms. Clinton, some of which I've read with dropped jaw: "Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem." Dowd really exemplifies what Peggy Noonan wrote recently of how many in the press are so dismayed by the Clintons' lack of scruples that they can't bear the idea of covering for four more years someone for whom they have such little respect. (Was Peggy reading my mind or what?)
This morning's column took a different tack as Dowd advised her political charge that this long drawn out primary has been good for him. After reminding us that the point of a presidential campaign is to WIN and not just fight the good fight, she tells Obama that he has been toughened up by battling Team Clinton and made into a better candidate for it. This idea has been much repeated, but Dowd of course revels in taking potshots at Ms. Clinton's "helpfulness" before concluding that "Hillary’s work is done only when she is done, because the best way for Obama to prove he’s ready to stare down Ahmadinejad is by putting away someone even tougher."
She has been gently prodding him over the last several months to administer the knockout blow to his rival not just to make sure that she stays down, but to prove to everyone that he could actually do it. We Americans like our presidents to be tough and resolute and the campaign is the forum to show one's mettle. Ms. Clinton gambled from the beginning that being on the Armed Services Committee, voting in favor of the Iraq War Resolution and refusing to repudiate her vote would make her look tough. Instead, she reminds me of another decider who's just as intractable. Much as I favor Obama, he just hasn't shown me such toughness. He's a smart, scrappy fighter, but after seeing him bowl a 37 in Altoona (while wearing a tie no less!), he just doesn't look so tough to me. And at the South Carolina debate where she brought up Rezko, Clinton was--at that point anyway--looking like someone who was ready to do what it takes to win, in stark contrast to her opponent.
Dowd has written that Obama needs to slay the dragon, that the Clintons lie like nobody's business, and that they'll do anything to win the presidency despite Obama's upstart campaign. One might suspect that as a woman, Dowd would have some empathy for Ms. Clinton, the smart girl getting upstaged by the star athlete (bowling excluded) once again! But only another woman could get away with writing some of the most patroninizing (matronizing?) things about Ms. Clinton, some of which I've read with dropped jaw: "Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem." Dowd really exemplifies what Peggy Noonan wrote recently of how many in the press are so dismayed by the Clintons' lack of scruples that they can't bear the idea of covering for four more years someone for whom they have such little respect. (Was Peggy reading my mind or what?)
This morning's column took a different tack as Dowd advised her political charge that this long drawn out primary has been good for him. After reminding us that the point of a presidential campaign is to WIN and not just fight the good fight, she tells Obama that he has been toughened up by battling Team Clinton and made into a better candidate for it. This idea has been much repeated, but Dowd of course revels in taking potshots at Ms. Clinton's "helpfulness" before concluding that "Hillary’s work is done only when she is done, because the best way for Obama to prove he’s ready to stare down Ahmadinejad is by putting away someone even tougher."
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The View from Around the Web on Obama's Speech
Needing to address head on the repugnance felt by most Americans to comments made by his pastor of 20 years, Barack Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia and repudiated the divisive, anti-American tone of Rev. Wright's most extreme comments while standing by the man. Harkening back to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, he built on the idea of what it means "to form a more perfect union" and deal head on with the nagging issue of race, describing it as America's original sin. Politically, he may not have gained the support of those working class whites with whom he showed great empathy in parts of his speech, but still, most are acknowledging it as the most profound speech on race since the generation of Martin Luther King Jr. Having written the speech himself, Obama put to rest any notion that his speeches are just words. Words do matter.
Below is a smattering of opinions from around the web. Most are laudatory, but Obama will always have his detractors.The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has a daily roundup of headlines from the newspapers and blogs. It's the first thing I read every morning, especially the day after a major political event. Naturally his column the day after Obama's speech was devoted to Obama's speech: "Barack Obama didn't take the easy route. The safe course would have been to just denounce the ugly comments of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and move on to a generalized appeal for racial unity. But he didn't do that. He said he could no more disown his pastor than he could his white grandmother. He talked about how Wright came from a generation of African Americans that was understandably angry about racism and segregation in this country. Then he pivoted and talked about white anger, about resentment toward affirmative action. He also took a couple of swipes at the media before reaffirming his belief that America can still make racial progress."
NY Times Editorial: "There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with."
NY Times' Maureen Dowd: "In many ways, Barack Obama’s speech on race was momentous and edifying. You could tell it was personal, that he had worked hard on it, all weekend and into the wee hours Tuesday. Overriding aides who objected to putting race center stage, he addressed a painful, difficult subject straightforwardly with a subtlety and decency rare in American politics."
Wall Street Journal Editorial: "In Philadelphia yesterday, the Senator tried to explain his puzzling 20-year attendance at Reverend Wright's Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, while also using his nearly 5,000-word address to elaborate on the themes that have energized his candidacy. It was an instructive moment, though not always in the way the Senator intended."
Shelby Steele in the WSJ: "The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this."
LA Times Editorial: "It may have begun as an exercise in political damage control, but Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on 'A More Perfect Union' was that rarity in American political discourse: a serious discussion of racial division, distrust and demonization. Whether or not the speech defuses the controversy about some crackpot comments by Obama's longtime pastor, it redefines our national conversation about race and politics and lays down a challenge to the cynical use of the 'race card.' "
LA Times' Tim Rutten: "Just as every seasoned political hand in 1960 knew that, sooner or later, Kennedy would have to tackle the question of his Catholicism head-on, it's been clear for some time that Obama would have to speak explicitly to the question of race in this campaign. Still, polished orator that he may be, no one could have predicted an address of quite this depth and scope."
Washington Post Editorial: "Mr. Obama then described the resentment among some whites over affirmative action, busing, crime and a shrinking job base, saying those feelings also 'are grounded in legitimate concerns.' He talked about the need for whites to recognize the lingering problem of racial discrimination -- and for blacks to embrace the 'quintessentially American -- and yes, conservative -- notion of self-help.' "
Washington Post's Eugene Robinson: "Yesterday morning, in what may be remembered as a landmark speech regardless of who becomes the next president, Obama established new parameters for a dialogue on race in America that might actually lead somewhere -- that might break out of the sour stasis of grievance and countergrievance, of insensitivity and hypersensitivity, of mutual mistrust."
Washington Post's Michael Gerson: "Obama's speech in Philadelphia yesterday made this argument as well as it could be made. He condemned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's views in strong language -- and embraced Wright as a wayward member of the family. He made Wright and his congregation a symbol of both the nobility and 'shocking ignorance' of the African American experience -- and presented himself as a leader who transcends that conflicted legacy. The speech recognized the historical reasons for black anger -- and argued that the best response to those grievances is the adoption of Obama's own social and economic agenda. It was one of the finest political performances under pressure since John F. Kennedy at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. It also fell short in significant ways."
Politico.com's Roger Simon: "Where it was strongest was in appealing to the better angels of the American spirit: the notion that we can all come together. Where it was weakest was in explaining the very reason for the speech: how the inflammatory, even repugnant, comments of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are understandable."
Can we get past race with politics?
Here is a man that presented a speech about his experience of being biracial and the best thing people get from it is that he threw his grandmother under the bus! I just can not wrap my brain around how focused people are in finding fault! Why are the standards that he has to achieve so much higher and demanding? I guess some will relate to this historic moment and some will not. Will he win the presidency? I don't know. Is what he said needed to be said? Absolutely! He put a lot of trust in the American people, black, brown, and white, to take the high road.
Now about Rev Wrights words being Anti-American. They sucked! But that is the beauty of our country! People have free speech and the right to disagree and think that our country has done and does bad things! I can't be sure, but because most Americans (mostly white) are not use to a black image saying such things. The man has become a threat some how? I can say those that condemn homosexuality and say that we are turning into sodom and gamora and God condemns America instills in me an uneasiness. Yet these preachers are not condemned. The opinions of this issue are part of the race problem. Can we fix it all now? No. But we can start by being more aware and objective and admit that prejudice exists on all sides? We need to recognize our own contributions to the problem! Is this what Obama wanted us to see? But if you look at him with untrusting eyes, nothing he has said will move you towards healing wounds...discounting the truths of race in this country could be Anti-American. Wanting to ignore that we have a problem is not the kind of American values for me! There is no answer to correcting the past...except to pass on to the next generation hope that we can overcome this problem that has been a weight on us all. I love my country. I love my freedom. I love my fellow Americans...the good and the bad that comes with all of it. I am thankful that the worst conditions I deal with is a few misconceptions of what I'm about.
Be aware of your own contribution to making change...Mr. Obama made us aware and once you are aware it becomes difficult to turn away.
Now about Rev Wrights words being Anti-American. They sucked! But that is the beauty of our country! People have free speech and the right to disagree and think that our country has done and does bad things! I can't be sure, but because most Americans (mostly white) are not use to a black image saying such things. The man has become a threat some how? I can say those that condemn homosexuality and say that we are turning into sodom and gamora and God condemns America instills in me an uneasiness. Yet these preachers are not condemned. The opinions of this issue are part of the race problem. Can we fix it all now? No. But we can start by being more aware and objective and admit that prejudice exists on all sides? We need to recognize our own contributions to the problem! Is this what Obama wanted us to see? But if you look at him with untrusting eyes, nothing he has said will move you towards healing wounds...discounting the truths of race in this country could be Anti-American. Wanting to ignore that we have a problem is not the kind of American values for me! There is no answer to correcting the past...except to pass on to the next generation hope that we can overcome this problem that has been a weight on us all. I love my country. I love my freedom. I love my fellow Americans...the good and the bad that comes with all of it. I am thankful that the worst conditions I deal with is a few misconceptions of what I'm about.
Be aware of your own contribution to making change...Mr. Obama made us aware and once you are aware it becomes difficult to turn away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)