Sometimes I'm happy to be wrong. I never thought Obama would get above 51% of the popular vote but he won 53%. That's the largest popular vote margin for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. This is a once in a generation election, and the 2/3 of people under 30 who voted for Obama made a clear statement about what the youngest generation wants for the future of their country.
Conservatives are trying to downplay the significance of the victory and that message is creeping into the mainstream press. They want people to believe that Obama doesn't have a liberal mandate, that it was really a narrow victory despite the numbers, and that he needs to move to the center. They would be arguing the same thing if he won 50 states and 60% of the vote. It's ridiculous.
I was also wrong about Missouri and Indiana. I thought MO would go with their Illinois neighbor (I guess that's still up in the air) but that he had no chance in Indiana. Again, I'm more than happy to be wrong on that one.
I was already saying "Yes we can!" pretty often before election day and now I've gotten a little out of control with it. The difference now is that other people are saying it too instead of just laughing at me.
The Dixie Chicks have a song on their last album called "I Hope" that I've been listening to a lot since Tuesday. Someone put it on YouTube with parts of an Obama speech. This is how I feel about the election.
I won't say "Yes we did!" Things are just getting started.
Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential. Show all posts
November 7, 2008
November 3, 2008
This will be a close election and other thoughts
One of my blogging pet peeves is when I have a thought I want to blog about that I think is a good, original point, but before I write it down, I see a major columnist or TV pundit make the same point. I might make a few posts about the election since today is the last day for procrastinated thoughts.
For the past few months when friends were sounding pessimistic about Obama's chances of winning I'd point out that he'll probably do better than polls predict due to an unusually large turnout among young voters and African-American voters. All polling is based on estimates of how many people in each demographic (party affiliation, age, race, gender etc.) are going to vote. A large influx of new voters makes accurate polling more difficult.
At the same time, when friends sounded confident about Obama winning I cautioned that the Republicans still hadn't launched their ugly attack machine (obviously, that has since happened) so don't get too overconfident. All along I've thought that Obama will probably win but that this will be a very close election.
No Democratic Presidential candidate has won at least 51% of the vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and I don't believe Obama will break that streak. Even Bill Clinton won with less than a full majority in his '96 re-election.
I've heard people make a good argument that it could be an electoral college landslide for Obama even if the popular vote is very close. That's possible, but too many of those swing states where Obama is ahead only show a small lead. Maybe I'm being overly cautious given the recent polls but it's hard not to be only cautiously optimistic after seeing Bush put in office twice.
One last thought on this ramble. I've felt since the primary that one of Obama's biggest strengths was his appeal to Midwestern voters. After winning the Iowa caucus he made Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin safely blue states, which forced the battleground into traditionally Republican territory.
Democrats need to remember this advantage the next time people start talking about nominating another candidate from the east or west coast. I've got friends from the Northeast who are still convinced that Kerry didn't do well in middle America only because it's full of "uneducated hicks." They just don't get it.
I lied. One more thought. There are very few times in history when the public is ready for major change and a capable leader emerges to deliver that change. Obama spoke in the primary about wanting a transformative Presidency that has a more lasting, profound impact on politics than someone like Bill Clinton.
I'm hopeful that this is one of those rare moments in American history when we make a significant and badly needed change of course. I'm hopeful that this will be one of those times that will be referenced years from now as a major turning point, like the Presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, LBJ's Great Society, or Ronald Reagan. We live in interesting times.
Happy voting!
For the past few months when friends were sounding pessimistic about Obama's chances of winning I'd point out that he'll probably do better than polls predict due to an unusually large turnout among young voters and African-American voters. All polling is based on estimates of how many people in each demographic (party affiliation, age, race, gender etc.) are going to vote. A large influx of new voters makes accurate polling more difficult.
At the same time, when friends sounded confident about Obama winning I cautioned that the Republicans still hadn't launched their ugly attack machine (obviously, that has since happened) so don't get too overconfident. All along I've thought that Obama will probably win but that this will be a very close election.
No Democratic Presidential candidate has won at least 51% of the vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and I don't believe Obama will break that streak. Even Bill Clinton won with less than a full majority in his '96 re-election.
I've heard people make a good argument that it could be an electoral college landslide for Obama even if the popular vote is very close. That's possible, but too many of those swing states where Obama is ahead only show a small lead. Maybe I'm being overly cautious given the recent polls but it's hard not to be only cautiously optimistic after seeing Bush put in office twice.
One last thought on this ramble. I've felt since the primary that one of Obama's biggest strengths was his appeal to Midwestern voters. After winning the Iowa caucus he made Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin safely blue states, which forced the battleground into traditionally Republican territory.
Democrats need to remember this advantage the next time people start talking about nominating another candidate from the east or west coast. I've got friends from the Northeast who are still convinced that Kerry didn't do well in middle America only because it's full of "uneducated hicks." They just don't get it.
I lied. One more thought. There are very few times in history when the public is ready for major change and a capable leader emerges to deliver that change. Obama spoke in the primary about wanting a transformative Presidency that has a more lasting, profound impact on politics than someone like Bill Clinton.
I'm hopeful that this is one of those rare moments in American history when we make a significant and badly needed change of course. I'm hopeful that this will be one of those times that will be referenced years from now as a major turning point, like the Presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, LBJ's Great Society, or Ronald Reagan. We live in interesting times.
Happy voting!
October 31, 2008
Yes we can! go out to eat
I've been working Barack Obama's campaign slogan into daily conversations.
For example:
Will's Friend: "Do you think we'll make it to the movie on time?"
Will: "Yes we can!"
Will's Friend: "You are such a dork."
Its good for a cheap laugh and it keeps me positive about the election. For some reason it seems to really irritate Republicans.
Try it yourself sometime. It helps if you point or raise a fist while you say it.
Do you think we can move this sofa up the stairs?
Yes we can!
Would you take out the trash?
Yes we can!
Do you want to go out for Mexican food tonight?
Si Se Pueda!
For example:
Will's Friend: "Do you think we'll make it to the movie on time?"
Will: "Yes we can!"
Will's Friend: "You are such a dork."
Its good for a cheap laugh and it keeps me positive about the election. For some reason it seems to really irritate Republicans.
Try it yourself sometime. It helps if you point or raise a fist while you say it.
Do you think we can move this sofa up the stairs?
Yes we can!
Would you take out the trash?
Yes we can!
Do you want to go out for Mexican food tonight?
Si Se Pueda!
October 27, 2008
MO volunteering MO voting
I went to the St. Louis area with a group of Springfield volunteers for Obama this weekend. I haven't spent much time traveling to other states since the primary so it felt good to knock on doors again. The Obama campaign needs plenty of volunteers both in state and out of state so its not too late to sign up if you have some time between know and the election.
A group of us carpooled to Missouri and got to talking politics. Its funny how much Democrats have to say when they get around a group of like-minded people. Over and over again I hear people say that they can't discuss politics at work because a talk radio listening co-worker will start spouting off something off the wall with no basis in fact, won't listen to what anyone else says, repeats their spoon-fed talking points and will generally make everyone else miserable with their angry rants. So when Democrats get together everyone is practically talking over each other to get out all the ideas they've been keeping pent up inside.
That's another sad side effect (or one of the goals) of a conservative talk radio movement that's based in fear, anger and demonizing the opposition. It makes polite, intelligent discussion of political issues with people who have a different viewpoint nearly impossible. It also makes it less likely that a talk radio listener will hear a viewpoint that differs form their own. I wish the regular press would stop letting themselves be bullied by insincere cries of "liberal bias" and recognize conservative hate-radio for the destructive force that it is.
A group of us carpooled to Missouri and got to talking politics. Its funny how much Democrats have to say when they get around a group of like-minded people. Over and over again I hear people say that they can't discuss politics at work because a talk radio listening co-worker will start spouting off something off the wall with no basis in fact, won't listen to what anyone else says, repeats their spoon-fed talking points and will generally make everyone else miserable with their angry rants. So when Democrats get together everyone is practically talking over each other to get out all the ideas they've been keeping pent up inside.
That's another sad side effect (or one of the goals) of a conservative talk radio movement that's based in fear, anger and demonizing the opposition. It makes polite, intelligent discussion of political issues with people who have a different viewpoint nearly impossible. It also makes it less likely that a talk radio listener will hear a viewpoint that differs form their own. I wish the regular press would stop letting themselves be bullied by insincere cries of "liberal bias" and recognize conservative hate-radio for the destructive force that it is.
October 12, 2008
My Project Vote experience
One of the reasons I supported Obama in the 2004 US Senate Democratic Primary was his background in community organizing. I've never had "community organizer" as a job title but I've had organizing jobs where I received training similar to what Obama did. Like Obama, I once worked for Project Vote, which often works with ACORN.
I was director of Project Vote's Little Rock office for part of the 2004 election. We registered over 20,000 African-American and Latino voters in Arkansas in about six months. That's far less than the number of people Obama's Project Vote campaign registered in Illinois during the 1992 election, but I'm proud of what the Arkansas team accomplished. After several months of work I heard that another group began a registration drive targeted at African-Americans and they quickly decided to target the rural areas because everyone they approached in Little Rock had already been registered by Project Vote.
I've been curious to see how the media and Republican attack dogs would deal with Obama's organizing background. Michelle Malkin did a hit piece about Project Vote and ACORN that has been the template for the angry talk radio crowd.
Malkin referenced the prosecution of two ACORN employees for submitting false registrations as evidence that the organization engages in voter fraud. What she didn't mention is that ACORN turned over the two employees and requested prosecution after they caught the employees submitting fake registrations. I guess Malkin appeals to people who believe anything they read as long as it slanders a Democrat.
Any time you pay people to register voters you run the risk of someone faking forms. My office didn't pay on a per-registration basis, but we did require people to be fairly consistent about how many registrations they brought in on a work day. Otherwise you're paying people to do nothing. Some people may not like the idea of paying people to register voters but Project Vote's approach is very effective at registering voters who aren't reached by local governments or volunteer efforts. Most County Clerks are pretty passive about their voter registration efforts, if they do anything at all.
We warned workers about the consequences of submitting false registrations often enough that most people didn't try. But, I did have to fire one person for falsifying forms. I figured out that he had gotten a list of phone numbers and addresses of people he worked with at another job and filled out the forms without their knowledge. He didn't react too well when I fired him but that's another story.
Getting thousands of new African-Americans registered to vote attracts negative attention from conservative groups and politicians who don't like the idea of too many black people voting. That's why they're so quick to make accusations against Project Vote and ACORN.
When I worked for Project Vote we had a three part process for catching false registrations and every form was examined before it was submitted to an election authority. A large part of my job was spending around two hours each night with others verifying forms that had been collected by our crews.
I don't believe Project Vote could have been any more vigilant about ensuring that forms were legitimate and accurately filled out. In fact, by helping people fill out the long form completely and correctly, our standards prevented voters from having their registration disqualified. The Arkansas form can seem long and confusing to someone looking at it for the first time so all of our workers were trained how to make sure each part was filled out correctly in compliance with the law.
(The Clinton Presidential Library was under construction while I lived in Little Rock and opened soon after the election.)
Running a voter registration drive that targeted people of color in an old Jim Crow state was an interesting experience. We got support from many people in the community and the Secretary of State was very helpful. But we also got some opposition. An employee asked permission to register voters outside a store in a small town and was told by the owner that he didn't want "those kind of people getting registered to vote." Those people were his black customers.
In the middle of the drive the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (which has a conservative slant, despite the name) ran an editorial by a regular contributor suggesting that not everyone needs to be registered to vote. He thought there should be a test to see if people are informed enough, perhaps with some questions about the Constitution. No, I'm not kidding. In the middle of a campaign to register African-American and Hispanic voters, the largest paper in Arkansas ran an editorial calling for a Constitutional literacy test as a requirement for voting. The Civil Rights struggle isn't something to read about in history books. It's still happening today.
Like most Southern states, Arkansas voter registration laws must be approved by the federal Justice Department. That makes it much easier to run a registration drive in Arkansas than in Illinois. Illinois laws have improved modestly in the last few years but we still have ridiculous restrictions that make large scale registration drives difficult.
For example, in order for a person to register voters as a deputy registrar they must be sponsored for a training session by an established political party, campaign or other political organization, and they're still only allowed to register voters in that one county. I may be able to register voters in Springfield but I still wouldn't be able to register voters in Chicago. The alternative to that system is using motor voter forms, which the Illinois Board of Elections shamefully fought against for years and many County Clerks still discourage people from using them.
In Arkansas, I was able to get as many free voter registration forms as I needed from the Secretary of State. When I approached the Illinois Board of Elections for voter registration forms in 2004 an employee told me, "I might get in trouble for giving you these." After talking to several people someone finally agreed to give me about 30 forms, twelve of which were in Mandarin Chinese.
The boogie man of fraudulent registrations keeps thousands of people disenfranchised in every election. There are no modern cases of people being prosecuted for voting multiple times with false registrations in Illinois but in every election I see people denied their right to vote because we have needless restrictions and no election-day registration.
The Illinois system is designed to keep established political powers in charge of who votes, and that's one reason why Obama's wildly successful 1992 drive was so impressive and politically significant. It shows that he has excellent management skills and the dedication to work long hours at a difficult job that empowers people in their own communities. Obama has every reason to be proud of his work for Project Vote.
I was director of Project Vote's Little Rock office for part of the 2004 election. We registered over 20,000 African-American and Latino voters in Arkansas in about six months. That's far less than the number of people Obama's Project Vote campaign registered in Illinois during the 1992 election, but I'm proud of what the Arkansas team accomplished. After several months of work I heard that another group began a registration drive targeted at African-Americans and they quickly decided to target the rural areas because everyone they approached in Little Rock had already been registered by Project Vote.
I've been curious to see how the media and Republican attack dogs would deal with Obama's organizing background. Michelle Malkin did a hit piece about Project Vote and ACORN that has been the template for the angry talk radio crowd.
Malkin referenced the prosecution of two ACORN employees for submitting false registrations as evidence that the organization engages in voter fraud. What she didn't mention is that ACORN turned over the two employees and requested prosecution after they caught the employees submitting fake registrations. I guess Malkin appeals to people who believe anything they read as long as it slanders a Democrat.
Any time you pay people to register voters you run the risk of someone faking forms. My office didn't pay on a per-registration basis, but we did require people to be fairly consistent about how many registrations they brought in on a work day. Otherwise you're paying people to do nothing. Some people may not like the idea of paying people to register voters but Project Vote's approach is very effective at registering voters who aren't reached by local governments or volunteer efforts. Most County Clerks are pretty passive about their voter registration efforts, if they do anything at all.
We warned workers about the consequences of submitting false registrations often enough that most people didn't try. But, I did have to fire one person for falsifying forms. I figured out that he had gotten a list of phone numbers and addresses of people he worked with at another job and filled out the forms without their knowledge. He didn't react too well when I fired him but that's another story.
Getting thousands of new African-Americans registered to vote attracts negative attention from conservative groups and politicians who don't like the idea of too many black people voting. That's why they're so quick to make accusations against Project Vote and ACORN.
When I worked for Project Vote we had a three part process for catching false registrations and every form was examined before it was submitted to an election authority. A large part of my job was spending around two hours each night with others verifying forms that had been collected by our crews.
I don't believe Project Vote could have been any more vigilant about ensuring that forms were legitimate and accurately filled out. In fact, by helping people fill out the long form completely and correctly, our standards prevented voters from having their registration disqualified. The Arkansas form can seem long and confusing to someone looking at it for the first time so all of our workers were trained how to make sure each part was filled out correctly in compliance with the law.
(The Clinton Presidential Library was under construction while I lived in Little Rock and opened soon after the election.)
Running a voter registration drive that targeted people of color in an old Jim Crow state was an interesting experience. We got support from many people in the community and the Secretary of State was very helpful. But we also got some opposition. An employee asked permission to register voters outside a store in a small town and was told by the owner that he didn't want "those kind of people getting registered to vote." Those people were his black customers.
In the middle of the drive the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (which has a conservative slant, despite the name) ran an editorial by a regular contributor suggesting that not everyone needs to be registered to vote. He thought there should be a test to see if people are informed enough, perhaps with some questions about the Constitution. No, I'm not kidding. In the middle of a campaign to register African-American and Hispanic voters, the largest paper in Arkansas ran an editorial calling for a Constitutional literacy test as a requirement for voting. The Civil Rights struggle isn't something to read about in history books. It's still happening today.
Like most Southern states, Arkansas voter registration laws must be approved by the federal Justice Department. That makes it much easier to run a registration drive in Arkansas than in Illinois. Illinois laws have improved modestly in the last few years but we still have ridiculous restrictions that make large scale registration drives difficult.
For example, in order for a person to register voters as a deputy registrar they must be sponsored for a training session by an established political party, campaign or other political organization, and they're still only allowed to register voters in that one county. I may be able to register voters in Springfield but I still wouldn't be able to register voters in Chicago. The alternative to that system is using motor voter forms, which the Illinois Board of Elections shamefully fought against for years and many County Clerks still discourage people from using them.
In Arkansas, I was able to get as many free voter registration forms as I needed from the Secretary of State. When I approached the Illinois Board of Elections for voter registration forms in 2004 an employee told me, "I might get in trouble for giving you these." After talking to several people someone finally agreed to give me about 30 forms, twelve of which were in Mandarin Chinese.
The boogie man of fraudulent registrations keeps thousands of people disenfranchised in every election. There are no modern cases of people being prosecuted for voting multiple times with false registrations in Illinois but in every election I see people denied their right to vote because we have needless restrictions and no election-day registration.
The Illinois system is designed to keep established political powers in charge of who votes, and that's one reason why Obama's wildly successful 1992 drive was so impressive and politically significant. It shows that he has excellent management skills and the dedication to work long hours at a difficult job that empowers people in their own communities. Obama has every reason to be proud of his work for Project Vote.
October 10, 2008
Can we have one election that isn't about Vietnam?
Every Presidential election in my adult life as been about what the candidates were doing during Vietnam. I constantly heard about Bill Clinton and George Bush using their connections to avoid being sent. I heard about John Kerry's and Al Gore's service in Vietnam. I saw the '04 election dominated by Republicans slandering the service of a war hero. Half of the '08 Republican convention was about John McCain being a POW, but at least Democrats aren't trying to dishonor his service with a swift-boat style attack.
And through it all I never cared what any of them were doing during a war that started over a decade before I was born. I just don't give to cents about it.
One of the things I like about Obama is that he's the first candidate that doesn't have to tell stories or make excuses about what he was doing during Vietnam. This is also the first time I've felt like a major party candidate isn't ignoring my generation and the issues we care about most. Republican strategists don't like that.
(Obama's nefarious activities in the early days of the Vietnam War)
You see, Republican strategists want elections to be about Vietnam and the old battles of the 60's. They want to keep fighting the "culture war" against the hippies. It's a winning strategy for them since 1968. That's why they keep bringing up William Ayers and the Weather Underground.
If the Ayers story was really about painting Obama as too liberal they could be talking about community organizing and ACORN instead. That's much better than a weak guilt by association argument. But that's also dangerous territory for conservative leaders because they don't want too many people knowing about a non-Marxist political movement that seeks to empower middle and working class people against the wealthy special interests who dominate the Republican party.
McCain and the hate-radio hosts aren't bringing up Ayers because it relates to terrorism or what Obama believes about any issues. It doesn't have anything to do with any of that. This is their last ditch effort to win another election on the culture war of the 60's. They can't attack Obama for what he did during Vietnam so they're attacking him for what someone he knows did during Vietnam.
I'll be happy if it doesn't work and this is the last time I have to suffer through another campaign about 40 year old grudges.
And through it all I never cared what any of them were doing during a war that started over a decade before I was born. I just don't give to cents about it.
One of the things I like about Obama is that he's the first candidate that doesn't have to tell stories or make excuses about what he was doing during Vietnam. This is also the first time I've felt like a major party candidate isn't ignoring my generation and the issues we care about most. Republican strategists don't like that.
(Obama's nefarious activities in the early days of the Vietnam War)
You see, Republican strategists want elections to be about Vietnam and the old battles of the 60's. They want to keep fighting the "culture war" against the hippies. It's a winning strategy for them since 1968. That's why they keep bringing up William Ayers and the Weather Underground.
If the Ayers story was really about painting Obama as too liberal they could be talking about community organizing and ACORN instead. That's much better than a weak guilt by association argument. But that's also dangerous territory for conservative leaders because they don't want too many people knowing about a non-Marxist political movement that seeks to empower middle and working class people against the wealthy special interests who dominate the Republican party.
McCain and the hate-radio hosts aren't bringing up Ayers because it relates to terrorism or what Obama believes about any issues. It doesn't have anything to do with any of that. This is their last ditch effort to win another election on the culture war of the 60's. They can't attack Obama for what he did during Vietnam so they're attacking him for what someone he knows did during Vietnam.
I'll be happy if it doesn't work and this is the last time I have to suffer through another campaign about 40 year old grudges.
August 25, 2008
1968 v 2008
I'm not sure why there's so much media discussion of the 1968 Democratic convention. I don't see many parallels. That comparison might have made sense if Democrats had nominated someone who supported the war in Iraq.
Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, had some advice for those who protested the '68 convention. In Rules for Radicals he wrote:
In 2008 Jerry Kellman, an Alinsky style activist and early mentor to Obama, spoke inside the convention about the anti-Iraq War Democratic nominee who he trained as a community organizer. Mission accomplished.
I'm sure Obama isn't exactly the same now as he was when he worked as a community organizer. But anyone who has done similar work will recognize the familiar themes of building consensus and uniting a community for change. Some people hear those words and are reminded of Clintonian third way rhetoric. I hear echoes of the training I received in the community organizing tradition. I hear Alinsky's advice to accept people where they are and encourage them to take the next realistic step forward.
I recently got an email from the campaign encouraging people to join Camp Obama to get the same kind of training Obama received as a community organizer. I've seen how this campaign conducted itself in the early primary states. This is the first major Presidential campaign run on community organizing principles and its working very well.
Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, had some advice for those who protested the '68 convention. In Rules for Radicals he wrote:
In the midst of the gassing and violence by the Chicago Police and National Guard during the 1968 Democratic Convention many students asked me, "Do you still believe we should try to work inside our system?"
These were students who had been with Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire and followed him across the country. Some had been with Robert Kennedy when he was killed in Los Angeles. Many of the tears that were shed in Chicago were not from gas. "Mr. Alinsky, we fought in primary after primary and the people voted no on Vietnam. Look at the convention. They're not paying any attention to the vote. Look at your police and the army. You still want us to work in the system?"
It hurt me to see the American army with drawn bayonets advancing on American boys and girls. But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: "Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing--but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates."
In 2008 Jerry Kellman, an Alinsky style activist and early mentor to Obama, spoke inside the convention about the anti-Iraq War Democratic nominee who he trained as a community organizer. Mission accomplished.
I'm sure Obama isn't exactly the same now as he was when he worked as a community organizer. But anyone who has done similar work will recognize the familiar themes of building consensus and uniting a community for change. Some people hear those words and are reminded of Clintonian third way rhetoric. I hear echoes of the training I received in the community organizing tradition. I hear Alinsky's advice to accept people where they are and encourage them to take the next realistic step forward.
I recently got an email from the campaign encouraging people to join Camp Obama to get the same kind of training Obama received as a community organizer. I've seen how this campaign conducted itself in the early primary states. This is the first major Presidential campaign run on community organizing principles and its working very well.
August 23, 2008
More Jobama Event Pictures
Some pictures of things going on before the big speeches by Biden and Obama.
Uniformed security were on the tops of buildings to make people feel safe...or paranoid, depending on the person. You can click on these to enlarge.
Illinois' Senior Senator Dick Durbin did interviews on the press platform and received enthusiastic applause even without introduction.
State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is interviewed by a local reporter.
Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin spoke first before everyone recited the pledge of allegiance and a local Lutheran pastor gave a prayer.
By the time Mayor Davlin spoke people would have been happy if Mickey Mouse had come out and been named the Vice Presidential candidate if it meant getting on with things. Waiting for several hours in the sun was making people surly.
Campaign Field Staff reminded everyone to volunteer.
The candidates worked the crowd for a while after the speech but I decided not to push my way up for a handshake or picture. Overall, it was another fun event with Barack Obama and a few thousands of his local friends in Springfield.
Uniformed security were on the tops of buildings to make people feel safe...or paranoid, depending on the person. You can click on these to enlarge.
Illinois' Senior Senator Dick Durbin did interviews on the press platform and received enthusiastic applause even without introduction.
State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is interviewed by a local reporter.
Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin spoke first before everyone recited the pledge of allegiance and a local Lutheran pastor gave a prayer.
By the time Mayor Davlin spoke people would have been happy if Mickey Mouse had come out and been named the Vice Presidential candidate if it meant getting on with things. Waiting for several hours in the sun was making people surly.
Campaign Field Staff reminded everyone to volunteer.
The candidates worked the crowd for a while after the speech but I decided not to push my way up for a handshake or picture. Overall, it was another fun event with Barack Obama and a few thousands of his local friends in Springfield.
Obama Biden in Springfield Pictures
It looked like the campaign had plenty of volunteers so I decided to go as a spectator to this one. I got a pretty good spot thanks to my friend Karen!
Obama spoke first to introduce Biden and explain his choice.
I was close but the teleprompter kept getting in the way.
I didn't think Biden was a very exciting choice when I heard the news but by the end of both speeches I was impressed.
You can click on this one and some of the others to enlarge.
Sometimes a sign in the way makes the picture more interesting.
The candidates and their wives.
Turning back to the crowd.
Obama spoke first to introduce Biden and explain his choice.
I was close but the teleprompter kept getting in the way.
I didn't think Biden was a very exciting choice when I heard the news but by the end of both speeches I was impressed.
You can click on this one and some of the others to enlarge.
Sometimes a sign in the way makes the picture more interesting.
The candidates and their wives.
Turning back to the crowd.
August 22, 2008
Grab-a-Obama
He's back! Grab-a-Java on South 6th Street in Springfield brought back their Obama painting for the big event Saturday.
You can see it surrounded by snow from Obama's announcement in February.
Last night I volunteered to make signs for the rally and Senator Dick Durbin showed up. I may post pictures later.
You can see it surrounded by snow from Obama's announcement in February.
Last night I volunteered to make signs for the rally and Senator Dick Durbin showed up. I may post pictures later.
August 21, 2008
How Barack Obama is like a boy band
Months ago I saw a former member of some boy band on the Jimmy Kimmel show. He told a story about how he had a back and forth on-stage rivalry with one of the other band members.
Most nights they would trade insults but at one show he decided not to fight back. The other guy kept throwing out more outrageous and wild insults trying to get a response. Pretty soon the audience started booing the guy throwing unprovoked insults.
That sounds a lot like Obama's strategy for dealing with ugly attacks. When Alan Keyes and Hillary Clinton started going negative it ended up hurting them far more than it hurt Obama because he refuses to act in the same ugly manner.
But that doesn't mean Obama fails to respond. His usual response is to: 1) point out that this is the kind of ugly politics people are sick of, 2) point out how ridiculous the ugly attack is, and 3) talk about the issue in a more substantive way. In that way, Obama is able to go on the attack without giving people that slimy feeling they get when they hear negative attacks from other candidates.
We saw it recently with McCain's tire gauge silliness. Obama essentially called McCain an ignorant liar and no one in the press called it a negative attack. How slick is that? But it works because McCain was in fact lying and being obnoxiously ignorant.
George W. Bush and his dad ran some of the most notoriously ugly and negative campaigns in modern politics. They do that because they know that in the long run it always helps Republicans to go negative. In most elections one candidate goes negative and the other responds with equally negative attacks. Everyone gets sick of the process and starts talking about the lesser of two evils. That depresses voter turn-out by increasing cynicism, which traditionally helps the Republican Party because their wealthy and upper-middle class base will always vote regardless. It's no coincidence that the Republican landslide in 1994 was the lowest turn-out election in decades.
We finally have a candidate who knows how to escape that trap. We have a Democratic nominee who knows how to make ugly attacks hurt the other party more than it hurts him. I've heard some people argue that Obama needs to go aggressively negative against McCain, but I think he needs to keep doing what he did so well in the Democratic primary and his US Senate election.
We have a candidate who knows how to respond to attacks without fueling the cycle of cynicism and voter disenchantment. Keep it up Barack.
Most nights they would trade insults but at one show he decided not to fight back. The other guy kept throwing out more outrageous and wild insults trying to get a response. Pretty soon the audience started booing the guy throwing unprovoked insults.
That sounds a lot like Obama's strategy for dealing with ugly attacks. When Alan Keyes and Hillary Clinton started going negative it ended up hurting them far more than it hurt Obama because he refuses to act in the same ugly manner.
But that doesn't mean Obama fails to respond. His usual response is to: 1) point out that this is the kind of ugly politics people are sick of, 2) point out how ridiculous the ugly attack is, and 3) talk about the issue in a more substantive way. In that way, Obama is able to go on the attack without giving people that slimy feeling they get when they hear negative attacks from other candidates.
We saw it recently with McCain's tire gauge silliness. Obama essentially called McCain an ignorant liar and no one in the press called it a negative attack. How slick is that? But it works because McCain was in fact lying and being obnoxiously ignorant.
George W. Bush and his dad ran some of the most notoriously ugly and negative campaigns in modern politics. They do that because they know that in the long run it always helps Republicans to go negative. In most elections one candidate goes negative and the other responds with equally negative attacks. Everyone gets sick of the process and starts talking about the lesser of two evils. That depresses voter turn-out by increasing cynicism, which traditionally helps the Republican Party because their wealthy and upper-middle class base will always vote regardless. It's no coincidence that the Republican landslide in 1994 was the lowest turn-out election in decades.
We finally have a candidate who knows how to escape that trap. We have a Democratic nominee who knows how to make ugly attacks hurt the other party more than it hurts him. I've heard some people argue that Obama needs to go aggressively negative against McCain, but I think he needs to keep doing what he did so well in the Democratic primary and his US Senate election.
We have a candidate who knows how to respond to attacks without fueling the cycle of cynicism and voter disenchantment. Keep it up Barack.
August 4, 2008
Obamapalooza Days 2 & 3
Rampant rumors circulated around Lollapalooza that Obama might make an appearance. Would it be during the Wilco show? Kanye West? He never showed but you couldn't escape Obama's name for all three days of the festival.
By day three I had seen a lot of official campaign t-shirts but luckily for the sake of my originality I had brought along my iconic Obama face shirt that I didn't see anyone else wearing.
It looks suspiciously like a take on the famous Che shirt but I don't think we're supposed to talk about that. It was strange walking around in an Obama shirt. From the moment I walked in the gate to the walk home from the El people were shouting "Obama!" "Great shirt!" giving high fives and terrorist fist bumps. Of course, it happened more often later in the evening when people had been drinking for a while, but plenty of sober people were excited too.
I heard a few bands mention Obama. Broken Social Scene reminded the crowd that Americans are voting for the entire world and to make the right decision. DJ Girl Talk sampled the Ludacris lyric "the world is ready for change 'cause Obama is here."
If I'm not mistaken I think I even heard Zach De La Rocha say Rage Against the Machine was planning to vote for Obama before he gave a short speech about how this generation wasn't going to be satisfied with conventional politics, that young people are going to force change one way or another etc.
Some of the reviews I've seen of the Rage Against the Machine set were pretty good and some got sensational about how rowdy the crowd was. I was near the stage to one side and things did get a little crazy before the band stopped halfway through their third song. Rage broke up seven years ago and there were lot of people very worked up to finally see them, including many fans who were too young to see a concert without their parents in 2001.
When they started people were jumping, dancing, pushing and bumping around. Most of it was pretty typical for a show like that but some people got too violent and things got out of hand a little closer to the stage from where I was. After stopping several times to ask people to take 10 steps back and take care of each other people finally calmed down a little. People who were worried about getting hurt were able to get away from the front of the stage where things were rough.
Throughout the show there were people who pushed their way to the front, got pulled over the front barrier by security, then went back into the crowd to push their way to the front and do it again. I saw a few people shove by me three or four times like pushing through a crowd was their version of a roller coaster ride.
After the show the raucous crowd poured down the streets of downtown Chicago. At some point it wasn't clear if the police had intended to close off so many blocks or if it was just easier to let the crowd take its own course. The crowd had a very different mood than the post-Radiohead exodus, to say the least.
So despite the chaos, or partly because of it, this was one of the most fun, exciting and energetic shows I've ever seen. They didn't play any new songs but their old ones still sound good. Its on my list of top three concert experiences along with U2 and the Rolling Stones.
Ok, just a few more observations about the festival. Bands that are new to me that I enjoyed most include Broken Social Scene, Louis XIV, Okkervil River, Iron & Wine, and Foals. MGMT drew a big crowd and didn't disappoint. Its a little odd that most of the big acts have been around for at least 10 years and many of the newer bands have a retro sounde of one kind or another. Where are the new sounds?
By day three I had seen a lot of official campaign t-shirts but luckily for the sake of my originality I had brought along my iconic Obama face shirt that I didn't see anyone else wearing.
It looks suspiciously like a take on the famous Che shirt but I don't think we're supposed to talk about that. It was strange walking around in an Obama shirt. From the moment I walked in the gate to the walk home from the El people were shouting "Obama!" "Great shirt!" giving high fives and terrorist fist bumps. Of course, it happened more often later in the evening when people had been drinking for a while, but plenty of sober people were excited too.
I heard a few bands mention Obama. Broken Social Scene reminded the crowd that Americans are voting for the entire world and to make the right decision. DJ Girl Talk sampled the Ludacris lyric "the world is ready for change 'cause Obama is here."
If I'm not mistaken I think I even heard Zach De La Rocha say Rage Against the Machine was planning to vote for Obama before he gave a short speech about how this generation wasn't going to be satisfied with conventional politics, that young people are going to force change one way or another etc.
Some of the reviews I've seen of the Rage Against the Machine set were pretty good and some got sensational about how rowdy the crowd was. I was near the stage to one side and things did get a little crazy before the band stopped halfway through their third song. Rage broke up seven years ago and there were lot of people very worked up to finally see them, including many fans who were too young to see a concert without their parents in 2001.
When they started people were jumping, dancing, pushing and bumping around. Most of it was pretty typical for a show like that but some people got too violent and things got out of hand a little closer to the stage from where I was. After stopping several times to ask people to take 10 steps back and take care of each other people finally calmed down a little. People who were worried about getting hurt were able to get away from the front of the stage where things were rough.
Throughout the show there were people who pushed their way to the front, got pulled over the front barrier by security, then went back into the crowd to push their way to the front and do it again. I saw a few people shove by me three or four times like pushing through a crowd was their version of a roller coaster ride.
After the show the raucous crowd poured down the streets of downtown Chicago. At some point it wasn't clear if the police had intended to close off so many blocks or if it was just easier to let the crowd take its own course. The crowd had a very different mood than the post-Radiohead exodus, to say the least.
So despite the chaos, or partly because of it, this was one of the most fun, exciting and energetic shows I've ever seen. They didn't play any new songs but their old ones still sound good. Its on my list of top three concert experiences along with U2 and the Rolling Stones.
Ok, just a few more observations about the festival. Bands that are new to me that I enjoyed most include Broken Social Scene, Louis XIV, Okkervil River, Iron & Wine, and Foals. MGMT drew a big crowd and didn't disappoint. Its a little odd that most of the big acts have been around for at least 10 years and many of the newer bands have a retro sounde of one kind or another. Where are the new sounds?
June 21, 2008
100 years in Iraq and the Philippines
When I first heard about McCain saying we could be in Iraq for 100 years I took it as a flippant remark or a confused "McCain moment." But now I think he's perfectly serious.
People compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam and there are many similarities, especially in the rhetoric used to justify both wars. I believe there are more similarities to the Philippine-American War, where Americans were initially greeted as liberators from Spanish colonialism. The US acquired the Philippines at the close of the Spanish-American War, another war of aggression instigated by official lies and bad journalism. Just as in Iraq today, there were those who believed that Filipinos were incapable of self-government and needed the uninvited help of the United States to impose its own style of modern civilization and democracy.
Filipinos rose up against the U.S. occupation when it became clear that freedom and liberation were not on the menu. After several years, thousands of deaths, and reports of torture by American forces, the main insurrection was defeated. Control was gradually handed over to Filipinos but full independence wasn't granted until 1946, nearly 50 years after it was acquired by the U.S. We had military bases there for nearly 100 years.
When the Bush administration began building permanent military bases shortly after the invasion of Iraq it was an indication that the original intent was a long-term Philippine style occupation. The U.S. stayed in the Philippines because of its strategic economic and military importance. We'll stay in Iraq for the same reason. McCain is simply being more honest than Bush about what they had in mind from the start.
One hundred years ago there were Democratic leaders with the guts to call U.S. aggression what it was: imperialism. Anyone who says that today is shut out of the media.
People compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam and there are many similarities, especially in the rhetoric used to justify both wars. I believe there are more similarities to the Philippine-American War, where Americans were initially greeted as liberators from Spanish colonialism. The US acquired the Philippines at the close of the Spanish-American War, another war of aggression instigated by official lies and bad journalism. Just as in Iraq today, there were those who believed that Filipinos were incapable of self-government and needed the uninvited help of the United States to impose its own style of modern civilization and democracy.
Filipinos rose up against the U.S. occupation when it became clear that freedom and liberation were not on the menu. After several years, thousands of deaths, and reports of torture by American forces, the main insurrection was defeated. Control was gradually handed over to Filipinos but full independence wasn't granted until 1946, nearly 50 years after it was acquired by the U.S. We had military bases there for nearly 100 years.
When the Bush administration began building permanent military bases shortly after the invasion of Iraq it was an indication that the original intent was a long-term Philippine style occupation. The U.S. stayed in the Philippines because of its strategic economic and military importance. We'll stay in Iraq for the same reason. McCain is simply being more honest than Bush about what they had in mind from the start.
One hundred years ago there were Democratic leaders with the guts to call U.S. aggression what it was: imperialism. Anyone who says that today is shut out of the media.
March 6, 2008
Canvassing Columbus
All I can say about the Ohio primary results is that at least Obama won the two cities I volunteered in. I was hoping a big victory in Cleveland would carry the state for Obama but his margin of victory out of Cuyahoga county was pretty small.
I had a good time canvassing in Columbus over the weekend. Here's a picture of me at one of the field offices set up for their drive to knock on 1 million doors.
I knocked on doors in two different neighborhoods. One was a largely low income African-American neighborhood in Columbus where every third house was abandoned. The other was a working class mixed race neighborhood on the edge of town. I got a very enthusiastic response everywhere I went so I'm not surprised Barack won the county.
It's hard to see a scenario where Clinton wins the earned delegate race. All she can do at this point is hope to have the nomination rigged by super delegates or more likely she'll force Obama to spend more resources on the primary while she delays his nomination.
It amazes me that she gained ground in Ohio by claiming she was secretly opposed to NAFTA from the beginning. Does anyone really think Clinton will speak out against NAFTA ever again now that the Ohio primary is over? Her husband promised not to sign NAFTA without re-negotiating changes during his '92 campaign. That turned out to be a lie. Isn't everyone else sick of being lied to by the Clintons?
I had a good time canvassing in Columbus over the weekend. Here's a picture of me at one of the field offices set up for their drive to knock on 1 million doors.
I knocked on doors in two different neighborhoods. One was a largely low income African-American neighborhood in Columbus where every third house was abandoned. The other was a working class mixed race neighborhood on the edge of town. I got a very enthusiastic response everywhere I went so I'm not surprised Barack won the county.
It's hard to see a scenario where Clinton wins the earned delegate race. All she can do at this point is hope to have the nomination rigged by super delegates or more likely she'll force Obama to spend more resources on the primary while she delays his nomination.
It amazes me that she gained ground in Ohio by claiming she was secretly opposed to NAFTA from the beginning. Does anyone really think Clinton will speak out against NAFTA ever again now that the Ohio primary is over? Her husband promised not to sign NAFTA without re-negotiating changes during his '92 campaign. That turned out to be a lie. Isn't everyone else sick of being lied to by the Clintons?
March 2, 2008
Columbus for Obama
I'm in Columbus Ohio volunteering for Obama. I'm listening to Chris Matthews' Sunday morning show where a panel is telling us that Hillary Clinton is going to win Ohio. It doesn't look that way from here.
So far I've seen many Obama signs is people's yards all over town. Clinton has signs in public medians and along side the highway. I've heard several radio and TV advertisements for Obama, but none for Clinton. I see other Obama volunteers walking around town, but no sign of activity from Clinton.
The only activity I've seen that might have been Clinton supporters was a group protesting outside Obama's Columbus headquarters yesterday. Obama supporters surrounded them with signs so that from the road it looked like everyone there was part of one big pro-Obama rally until I walked closer.
Obama is winning Columbus.
So far I've seen many Obama signs is people's yards all over town. Clinton has signs in public medians and along side the highway. I've heard several radio and TV advertisements for Obama, but none for Clinton. I see other Obama volunteers walking around town, but no sign of activity from Clinton.
The only activity I've seen that might have been Clinton supporters was a group protesting outside Obama's Columbus headquarters yesterday. Obama supporters surrounded them with signs so that from the road it looked like everyone there was part of one big pro-Obama rally until I walked closer.
Obama is winning Columbus.
February 21, 2008
Back to Ohio
I had a great time volunteering for Barack Obama in Cleveland last weekend. I knocked on doors in a couple of neighborhoods and had a very positive response. People are fired up!
I helped sign up new volunteers at a campaign organizational meeting in Cleveland. An enthusiastic crowd of about 400 people came to hear speakers and find out how they can help Obama win Ohio.
Congressman John Conyers of Detroit was the featured speaker for the event. He said this is the most exciting Presidential campaign he has ever seen and that goes back to Adlai Stevenson.
The campaign is encouraging people to vote early and they have good reason to do so in Cleveland. Cuyahoga county was recently ordered to adopt new voting machines just a few weeks before the election, leaving little time for the public or election judges to familiarize themselves with the new system before election day. People thought this would be a lower turn out election on which to test the new system. But now, the Democratic Presidential nomination could be decided by results from Cleveland and the rest of Cuyahoga.
At the least, I expect returns to come in slowly from Cuyahoga, which has the largest number of Democratic voters of any county in the state. If I lived in Cleveland I'd be voting early too.
I helped sign up new volunteers at a campaign organizational meeting in Cleveland. An enthusiastic crowd of about 400 people came to hear speakers and find out how they can help Obama win Ohio.
Congressman John Conyers of Detroit was the featured speaker for the event. He said this is the most exciting Presidential campaign he has ever seen and that goes back to Adlai Stevenson.
The campaign is encouraging people to vote early and they have good reason to do so in Cleveland. Cuyahoga county was recently ordered to adopt new voting machines just a few weeks before the election, leaving little time for the public or election judges to familiarize themselves with the new system before election day. People thought this would be a lower turn out election on which to test the new system. But now, the Democratic Presidential nomination could be decided by results from Cleveland and the rest of Cuyahoga.
At the least, I expect returns to come in slowly from Cuyahoga, which has the largest number of Democratic voters of any county in the state. If I lived in Cleveland I'd be voting early too.
William Seward
When I took Paul Simon's History of the Abolitionist Movement class at Southern Illinois University I did a research paper on William Seward. He's one of the most interesting characters in American political history and I've been thinking about Seward often as the 2008 Presidential campaign rolls on.
What I respect most about him is his life long commitment to fighting for the most vulnerable in society. He spoke up for the rights of prisoners, recent immigrants, the mentally insane, and slaves. He earned a long list of accomplishments even before becoming Lincoln's Secretary of State including public funding for universal education and prison reform in New York.
In 1860 Seward was a nationally recognized leader of the anti-slavery movement and the new Republican Party. As a former Governor and current Senator from New York he had the experience, national recognition, and political allies to secure the Republican nomination for President. Most people believed his selection as the party nominee at the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago was inevitable.
The primary political experience of his obscure rival, Abraham Lincoln, was in the Illinois State Legislature and two years in Congress. What little national recognition he had was for publicizing a series of debates during his US Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas.
The central argument used against Seward was that he was too polarizing to win a national election. His statements about laws higher than the constitution and a looming irrepressible conflict with the South were highly controversial. If opinion polls existed at the time the press would have pointed out his high negative ratings despite his popularity among those against slavery.
Seward underestimated the Republican convention's desire for a fresh face and the political skills of Lincoln's campaign manager, David Davis. A convention hall packed with Lincoln supporters from Illinois didn't hurt either.
Of course, I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln. But its one of those peculiar oddities of history that almost 200 years after Lincoln was born, another relative political newcomer from Illinois, who also came to national prominence for delivering good speeches, is once again ready to upset a more experienced, polarizing, and supposedly inevitable Senator from New York.
If you'd like to read more about Seward and the 1860 election (or confirm what I wrote) a recent book I enjoyed is "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. The biography of Seward I read in college is out of print.
What I respect most about him is his life long commitment to fighting for the most vulnerable in society. He spoke up for the rights of prisoners, recent immigrants, the mentally insane, and slaves. He earned a long list of accomplishments even before becoming Lincoln's Secretary of State including public funding for universal education and prison reform in New York.
In 1860 Seward was a nationally recognized leader of the anti-slavery movement and the new Republican Party. As a former Governor and current Senator from New York he had the experience, national recognition, and political allies to secure the Republican nomination for President. Most people believed his selection as the party nominee at the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago was inevitable.
The primary political experience of his obscure rival, Abraham Lincoln, was in the Illinois State Legislature and two years in Congress. What little national recognition he had was for publicizing a series of debates during his US Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas.
The central argument used against Seward was that he was too polarizing to win a national election. His statements about laws higher than the constitution and a looming irrepressible conflict with the South were highly controversial. If opinion polls existed at the time the press would have pointed out his high negative ratings despite his popularity among those against slavery.
Seward underestimated the Republican convention's desire for a fresh face and the political skills of Lincoln's campaign manager, David Davis. A convention hall packed with Lincoln supporters from Illinois didn't hurt either.
Of course, I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln. But its one of those peculiar oddities of history that almost 200 years after Lincoln was born, another relative political newcomer from Illinois, who also came to national prominence for delivering good speeches, is once again ready to upset a more experienced, polarizing, and supposedly inevitable Senator from New York.
If you'd like to read more about Seward and the 1860 election (or confirm what I wrote) a recent book I enjoyed is "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. The biography of Seward I read in college is out of print.
February 16, 2008
Obama Rocks Cleveland!
A friend and I made the spontaneous decision that Barack Obama could use our help in Ohio for the March 4 primary. I lived in Cleveland for a while in 2003 when I worked on Kucinich's last Presidential campaign, so the trip sounded like a good excuse to see a few old friends.
I knocked on some doors today in Lakewood, just outside of Cleveland, and the response is very good so far. My friends have seen commercials for Obama but not Clinton yet. Obama's staff just opened a few makeshift offices in the Cleveland area. I'll post a report with pictures when I get back home.
I knocked on some doors today in Lakewood, just outside of Cleveland, and the response is very good so far. My friends have seen commercials for Obama but not Clinton yet. Obama's staff just opened a few makeshift offices in the Cleveland area. I'll post a report with pictures when I get back home.
February 8, 2008
Mitt Romney is nuts
Up until now I had some respect for Mitt Romney. I considered him to be one of the more reasonable Republicans running for President this year. That all ended when I read his speech announcing his withdrawal from the race.
A lot of people are talking about his claim that electing a Democratic President would be a surrender in the war on terror.
In case you hadn't noticed, Mitt, the war in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool for anti-American terrorist groups since George H. W. Bush decided to leave permanent American military bases in the Muslim Holy Land after the first Iraq invasion. He also forgot that the biggest reductions in our military force were under Bush I, not Clinton. If we're going to deal with terrorism then step one is keeping away from the Bushes.
That part of the speech convinced me that he's a nasty jerk, but its another part that convinced me he's nuts.
Comparing any political figure to the Nazis is almost always a bad idea but what else am I supposed to think? Its not often that you hear an American politician claiming we're genetically and culturally destined to rule the world. The sad part is that a lot of people probably agree with that fascist attitude and call it patriotism.
Romney also congratulates America for not claiming any land after American wars for the last 100 years. I guess the Mexican, Spanish, and 1812 wars don't count.
Its true that we don't take land anymore. Its no longer necessary to physically control a country with an occupying army to control its economy while exploiting its natural resources and supply of cheap labor. The system of corporate ownership, IMF loans, free trade agreements, and the World Bank are easier and less bloody methods than old style colonialism. Neoliberal, free trade globalization policies are the new colonialism.
For Romney to pretend that these more sophisticated methods of exploiting the economies of third world nations makes America morally superior is as arrogant as it is disingenuous. It makes me curious about the nature of Romney's business dealings in Latin America that he often talks about.
As if that weren't enough, Romney blames welfare for all of our problems. Blaming the weakest members of society is a common but ugly demagoguery. We'll be hearing a lot more of that as Republicans blame illegal immigrants for all of our problems because immigrants dare to take low paying jobs offered by companies that donate millions to the Republican Party.
Romney then plays to fears of persecution and complains about pornography and sexual promiscuity. Both of those rhetorical tactics are common characteristics of fascist movements.
I used to think that Guiliani's authoritarian mindset and political exploitation of 9/11 made him the most proto-fascist candidate running this year. Romney just proved me wrong.
Tumultuous times often give rise to extremist and destructive political movements. American politics is in a frightening phase.
A lot of people are talking about his claim that electing a Democratic President would be a surrender in the war on terror.
In case you hadn't noticed, Mitt, the war in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool for anti-American terrorist groups since George H. W. Bush decided to leave permanent American military bases in the Muslim Holy Land after the first Iraq invasion. He also forgot that the biggest reductions in our military force were under Bush I, not Clinton. If we're going to deal with terrorism then step one is keeping away from the Bushes.
That part of the speech convinced me that he's a nasty jerk, but its another part that convinced me he's nuts.
And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture...What?! So our superior culture and DNA make us destined to economically control the world? Does Mitt think people in other countries are all lazy foreigners?
"If we learn anything from the history of economic development it is that culture makes all the difference." Culture makes all the difference.
What is it about America's culture that's led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world?
Well, we believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity. Almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity. Opportunity's in our DNA.
Comparing any political figure to the Nazis is almost always a bad idea but what else am I supposed to think? Its not often that you hear an American politician claiming we're genetically and culturally destined to rule the world. The sad part is that a lot of people probably agree with that fascist attitude and call it patriotism.
Romney also congratulates America for not claiming any land after American wars for the last 100 years. I guess the Mexican, Spanish, and 1812 wars don't count.
Its true that we don't take land anymore. Its no longer necessary to physically control a country with an occupying army to control its economy while exploiting its natural resources and supply of cheap labor. The system of corporate ownership, IMF loans, free trade agreements, and the World Bank are easier and less bloody methods than old style colonialism. Neoliberal, free trade globalization policies are the new colonialism.
For Romney to pretend that these more sophisticated methods of exploiting the economies of third world nations makes America morally superior is as arrogant as it is disingenuous. It makes me curious about the nature of Romney's business dealings in Latin America that he often talks about.
As if that weren't enough, Romney blames welfare for all of our problems. Blaming the weakest members of society is a common but ugly demagoguery. We'll be hearing a lot more of that as Republicans blame illegal immigrants for all of our problems because immigrants dare to take low paying jobs offered by companies that donate millions to the Republican Party.
Romney then plays to fears of persecution and complains about pornography and sexual promiscuity. Both of those rhetorical tactics are common characteristics of fascist movements.
I used to think that Guiliani's authoritarian mindset and political exploitation of 9/11 made him the most proto-fascist candidate running this year. Romney just proved me wrong.
Tumultuous times often give rise to extremist and destructive political movements. American politics is in a frightening phase.
January 19, 2008
Hillary Clinton is no Lyndon Johnson
Most of my friends who are old enough to remember Lyndon Johnson's Presidency don't like him because of his escalation of the Vietnam War. That's understandable, but despite that I have to admire his domestic achievements.
From civil rights, to the environment, education and fighting poverty, Johnson has a record of domestic accomplishments rivaled by no President save Franklin Roosevelt. His list of achievements includes things that dramatically effect the daily lives of every American to this day. That includes creation of the Head Start program, which Bill Clinton often brags about expanding.
Compare that legacy to Bill Clinton. When I hear Democrats talk about how great Clinton was as President they usually rattle off a series of numbers and statistics about how good the economy was and how he balanced the budget. Those are fine accomplishments and he deserves credit for that.
But how long did Clinton's legacy last? It took only two years of the Bush administration to destroy everything Clinton did to build up the economy and balance the budget. What kind of legacy can a President claim if its so easily undone by the next President?
I was impressed by Johnson's speech to Congress in March of 1965 when he called for a new Voting Rights Act.
That's why I don't want to waste four more years on another Clinton. I don't want another cautious President who will leave a temporary legacy easily dismantled in two years after the next Republican president is appointed. I want real change.
What I see from Hillary is more of the same pandering to the polls and governing based on her fear of being too controversial. Johnson knew that his stand for Civil Rights would cost the Democratic Party the south, but he did it anyway.
Hillary Clinton is no Lyndon Johnson.
From civil rights, to the environment, education and fighting poverty, Johnson has a record of domestic accomplishments rivaled by no President save Franklin Roosevelt. His list of achievements includes things that dramatically effect the daily lives of every American to this day. That includes creation of the Head Start program, which Bill Clinton often brags about expanding.
Compare that legacy to Bill Clinton. When I hear Democrats talk about how great Clinton was as President they usually rattle off a series of numbers and statistics about how good the economy was and how he balanced the budget. Those are fine accomplishments and he deserves credit for that.
But how long did Clinton's legacy last? It took only two years of the Bush administration to destroy everything Clinton did to build up the economy and balance the budget. What kind of legacy can a President claim if its so easily undone by the next President?
I was impressed by Johnson's speech to Congress in March of 1965 when he called for a new Voting Rights Act.
My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Texas, in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English and I couldn't speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast and hungry. And they knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice. They never seemed to know why people disliked them, but they knew it was so because I saw it in their eyes.That's something Bill Clinton was never willing to do. He presented safe, poll-tested measures and wasted the nation's time on an idiotic personal mistake. Clinton deserves credit for his accomplishments but when I think of his lasting legacy I see eight years of missed opportunities.
I often walked home late in the afternoon after the classes were finished wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that I might help them against the hardships that lay ahead. And somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child.
I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students, and to help people like them all over this country. But now I do have that chance.
And I'll let you in on a secret--I mean to use it. And I hope that you will use it with me.
That's why I don't want to waste four more years on another Clinton. I don't want another cautious President who will leave a temporary legacy easily dismantled in two years after the next Republican president is appointed. I want real change.
What I see from Hillary is more of the same pandering to the polls and governing based on her fear of being too controversial. Johnson knew that his stand for Civil Rights would cost the Democratic Party the south, but he did it anyway.
Hillary Clinton is no Lyndon Johnson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)