Obama's appearance on Friday at the National Association of Black Journalists sparked one of the most interesting question and answer sessions in a long time, with Obama addressing tensions between the black and hispanic communities, arguing for a broader engagement with Africa, and answering questions about his chances as an African-American candidate. Obama gave his most detailed and thoughtful treatment of the problem of race in America in a long time.
My own unedited transcription of the most interesting sections of the Q and A session is posted here, and you can also listen to a full audio recording of the event here.
Calling for a broader engagement with Africa:
On Darfur, he cited instituting a no-fly zone as the bare minimum we can do, along with supporting the UN peacekeeping troops who will be there on the ground, "in preventing increased bloodshed as we try to initiate broader peace-talks between the rebel groups and the government in Khartoum." But he pivoted to knock the ball out of the park by making a much broader point about America's role in Africa:
Last point I would make, we've got problems like this all throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. And we can't wait until the genocide's taking place before we engage Africa. We've got to have an Africa policy that is active, that is involved, that is engaged, that is dealing with the health care infrastructure, that is dealing with the educational infrastructure, that is expanding trade opportunities for African nations and that is holding African nations accountable for rule of law, anti-corruption measures and so forth. Because if we're not a partner with Africa and we just wait until all heck breaks loose, then we're never going to have enough troops. And keep in mind, as tragic as what happened in Darfur is, we've had millions of people die in the Congo in the last six years. And if you asked the average American, they wouldn't know a thing about it. And that is a consequence of us not being consistently engaged and we've got to understand it's not just a charity or a humanitarian issue, it is also a security issue, because if you've got chaos and anarchy in Africa, terrorists will find a way to exploit that chaos and anarchy, that's where they're going to be based, that's where they're going to recruit and we're going to have increased problems in years to come.
And keep in mind, as tragic as what happened in Darfur is, we've had millions of people die in the Congo in the last six years. And if you asked the average American, they wouldn't know a thing about it. And that is a consequence of us not being consistently engaged and we've got to understand it's not just a charity or a humanitarian issue, it is also a security issue, because if you've got chaos and anarchy in Africa, terrorists will find a way to exploit that chaos and anarchy, that's where they're going to be based, that's where they're going to recruit and we're going to have increased problems in years to come.
Flashbacks to the 2004 debates?
The debate in Chicago yesterday seemed to open up a new faultline in the presidential race between the candidates.
On the one side, you have Edwards and Obama, both candidates of a newly resurgent, newly confident left, both relatively young and having risen quickly due to charisma, speaking ability, and sheer talent.
And on the other side, you have the establishment candidates of Dodd and Biden, both who have served long careers in the Senate, often making arguments about the wisdom that comes with the years --- Biden recently called Obama a "Johnny-come-lately" and scorned Edwards yesterday as a late-comer on union issues.
Chris Cillizza made an interesting observation:
Expect the spin out of the debate to center on these two groups. The Obama/Edwards allies will paint it as a choice between change and more of the same. Supporters of Clinton/Dodd/Biden will cast it as experience versus inexperience.
What's interesting to me is that this dynamic isn't particularly new. Is anyone else getting flashbacks to the 2004 debates?
Democrats breaking new ground
Many blame Democrats' failure to gain ground in places like Elko for the party's statewide losses. Nevada Sen. Harry Reid has said the Democrats' 2004 nominee, Sen. John Kerry, would have won the state had he spent more time campaigning outside the urban centers of Reno and Las Vegas. Kerry lost Nevada by 2 percentage points. Source
Elko is deep in northeastern Nevada, far closer to Utah and Wyoming than it is to Vegas. With a population of only 17,000, it's still, according to Wikipedia, the largest city between Reno and Salt Lake City on Interstate Hgwy 80. Of the 17,000, only 25% are active registered Democrats, though just under 20% of the city's population is Hispanic. Bush won Elko County in 2004 with 78% of the vote, Gibbons with 67% of the vote in 2006. Elko also has five legal brothels and at least as many casinos.
Wim Wenders filmed part of his recent movie Don't Come Knocking here and described it this way:
We continued our shoot in Nevada, in an old cowboy town called Elko. Unlike other Nevada towns, Elko isn't completely eaten up by the gambling business. You can still feel its tradition as a cattle and sheep town. It was once populated largely by Bas[que]s, who have a great tradition as sheepherders, and you can still have great Bas[que] food in town. Once a year hundreds of cowboys from all over the West gather here for the annual "Cowboy Poetry Festival."
It was once populated largely by Bas[que]s, who have a great tradition as sheepherders, and you can still have great Bas[que] food in town.
Once a year hundreds of cowboys from all over the West gather here for the annual "Cowboy Poetry Festival."
Elko has long been a favorite stop of Republican candidates for national and state office. In a last-minute campaign push for U.S. Rep. Dean Heller last year, President Bush, suffering from historically low approval ratings nationally, drew a crowd of 6,000 rural Nevadans. They waited in rain for hours to listen to him speak.
In a last-minute campaign push for U.S. Rep. Dean Heller last year, President Bush, suffering from historically low approval ratings nationally, drew a crowd of 6,000 rural Nevadans. They waited in rain for hours to listen to him speak.
1. Lessons from 2004 and the 90's You can't understand Barack Obama's appeal unless you reflect on the recent history of Democratic nominees for president. For two straight presidential cycles, Democrats lost by being unable to present a candidate with a new frame for progressive politics. John Kerry amassed an array of policy proposals by election day, including a fairly bold health care plan, but fundamentally lacked the ability to sell them to the American people. He was unable to present a compelling vision for the progressive role government can play in society --- as I feel Obama did on the floor of the DNC in 2004, striking the perfect pitch:
Don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.
Our next president will not only be the chief spokesman, the head campaigner, and the primary fundraiser for the Democratic party over the next four to eight years, but the primary advocate for progressive policies for the next decade. There will only be one post-Bush election in which we will have the opportunity to reset the debate. Whatever you say about the Clinton administration and Bill Clinton's obvious talents, in the end it failed to build a progressive majority, failed to make the case for a universal health care system, and, more fundamentally, failed to make a defense for the role of government in society. In this way, Bill Clinton would not, could not, lay the groundwork for a fundamental change in American politics. The Clintons have had their turn in the spotlight. As Bill Clinton said in 1992:
And we have to change in this country. You know, my wife, Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Tucked into Obama's ethics reform package announced last week –– which he pledges to sign as an executive order on his first day in office –– is the beginning of a new acceptance of the role of the internet in government. There has been an endless amount of discussion about the role of Internet 2.0 in political campaigning, but what about in the everyday business of governance? How do we get beyond the internet merely being a tool for disseminating information and towards its being a tool for strengthening our democracy and promoting civic engagement?So far, discussion of the role of the internet in governance has focused on transparency. We see this in Hillary Clinton's own ethics proposal, announced in April, which would require, for example, every federal agency to post a copy of its budget on the web. This seems emblematic of the newly accepted role of the internet –– as a public storehouse for information or as a new means of disseminating information. The idea is to simply take budgets with hundreds or thousands of pages and post them on the web --- to throw these volumes into the public realm.And this is great as a first step, and at first, Obama's proposal seems to merely be an extension of this direction: for example, (a) by having a period of five days in which he would post legislation on the White House website before signing it, or (b) by ensuring that gratuitous earmarks are discouraged by forcing them into the light of day. And he says things like:
Building on his “Google for government” bill, which was signed into law and allows every American to do a simple search and see exactly how federal money is being spent, Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks to special interests, or tax earmarks, are also publicly available by directing the Office of Management and Budget to post them on its website.
These are all great developments.But the internet can play a much more critical role. Just as political campaigns are now discovering that a website is no longer about merely posting position papers, photographs, and news articles, but about fostering contacts between supporters, engaging them in the campaign, soliciting ideas, and creating new possibilities for interaction with their candidate, it's time that we expand our thinking about the role the internet can play in honest and open government.
I think Obama just might be applying these same lessons not only to his political campaign but to his style of governance. Here's why below the fold:
It's now been a couple weeks since the release of the new Obama facebook application. The application looks amazing. For those who haven't seen it, it adds a box to your personal profile on Facebook. It provides the basic functions of spreading Obama-related video and news, as well as spreading the word about events and fundraising drives like the Dinner for 5. And most intriguingly, it searches your friends list for those living in the early primary states to encourage you to contact them. (Aimee Fauseer has a great blog post describing the application in further detail.)
Is there more that it can do? Can it play a role in getting out the vote and in fundraising? Here are some ideas... Feel free to post your thoughts and suggestions.
1. Minor suggestions first: (a) It would be nice to have a bookmark function so that you could mark a blog and be able to return to it later, such that it would turn up under the "My Blog" section on our toolbars. (b) There could also be a favorites section under "My Blog" as well that would allow people to have a list of their favorite entries/stories/organizing ideas/important list of resources posted by others about the campaign. There is kind of a happy chaos at the moment amidst all the blogs on this site, and it would be nice for at least individual members to have tools for organizing the information.
2. I was poking around another political networking site PartyBuilder at democrats.org and looking at some of the functions that we don't have yet. One that I really liked was the petitions function. The my.barackobama toolbar could add a My Petitions button that would allow people to either endorse campaign petitions, petition members of Congress about bills of Barack's before Congress, or even create their own petitions (for example, to urge local officeholders, under the campaign's radar-screen but visible to locals, to endorse Barack). This seems like another nice way to get people involved in grassroots organizing. An online grassroots petition effort for Barack is already underway here.
This week, former Governor Tom Vilsack announced his endorsement, after having as a candidate taken his most prominent positions on two issues: immediate Congressional action on the war in Iraq and deploring the role of money in our politics.
I have only one question: Who are you and what have you done with Tom Vilsack?
For those of us, especially students and those living abroad, who will be voting in the upcoming election with an absentee ballot, there is a fantastic bill that was introduced on Thursday by Rep. Susan Davis (D) of California. Called the "Mail-In Ballot Tracking Act," it would require states to take measures to allow voters to track their absentee ballots via telephone or internet. This would allow you to ensure that your ballot arrived safely in time for Election Day.
I recently graduated from college and for years I have stuck my ballot in the mail without ever even knowing if it had arrived. As absentee voters, we're curiously disconnected from the voting process. I have been wishing for an online tracking system just to know that my ballot was indeed counted.
A similiar bill is going to be introduced in the US Senate by Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon, a state that recently moved to conducting its election entirely by absentee ballot.
Show your support by contacting your Congressperson and by sending your thanks to Ron Wyden and Susan Davis! Click on their names to send them an email! Read more below the gap:
Tom Vilsack is preparing to endorse Hillary in an announcement from Iowa on Monday... Thanks to everyone who sent emails and signed our petition to former Gov. Vilsack urging him to endorse Barack. What do we go now?
Let's get to work on Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin! Vilsack's announcement makes Harkin's endorsement that much more important! Let him know that just how vast Barack's grassroots support is!
There are two options: For Iowa residents, there's a petition set up here, and don't forget Gov. Culver here. For everyone else, contact Sen. Harkin: send him an email, give him a call, drop him a letter!
Here's Harkin's contact information:
A few of my friends have been asking me, "You know, the election isn't for another year. Why are you so worked up about it already?" A lot of people seem to be saying, "All that matters is if you vote on election day. Nothing else counts."
Here's what they're missing: On March 31st, candidates will report not only on how much they have collected but on how many donors have contributed. The press will report on both these statistics.
That means that even if you donate ten or twenty dollars, you're counted and, in the glory of American democracy, your one will be equal to any other big-name donor in the race. Think of it as your first chance to cast a ballot in this election and prove how expansive Obama's support is in this country.
There was a recent article in the New York Times titled "Disinvitation by Obama is Criticized" that ran on March 6th. At issue was the fact that Obama's pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, had initially been invited to deliver a public invocation. At the last minute, the invitation was withdrawn, after Obama's advisers convinced him that Wright's presence would be too controversial.
Thus goes the story of the New York Times anyway... So what does Rev. Wright have to say about?
Read this magnificent letter in which he lambasts the Times for misrepresentation:
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to let you know that you inspired a similar group collaboration forum on the Facebook for the hundreds of Obama support groups with hundreds of thousands of members there that are now trying to get organized.
If you have a Facebook account, take a look:
Facebook Admins for Obama - Collaboration Group
Could I add the suggestion that there be a cap on the number of groups a blog entry can be posted to? It seems like people are often get a little trigger-happy, posting every blog entry to every group they belong to, but this often leads to a lot of blog posts that aren't relevant to the group at hand and means that individual groups never form any sort of cohesion.
I think a cap like this would be a simple measure to foster more focused discussion. Maybe a limit per blog entry of ten groups to post to? Of course, if someone had an exceptionally important announcement, they could easily go around the limit by re-posting the same blog entry each time to a new group of ten, and that's perfectly fine, but at least maybe they would pause a little before posting to too many, and they might consider tailoring their announcement a little more to the group they're posting in.
Anyway, just a suggestion... What do people think?
Many read the report of a Romney campaign document obtained by the Boston Globe. If anything, I was surprised that it did not meet with more outrage, and of course the most remarkable part of the document was where it explicitly tried to map out a strategy of French-baiting. Leaving aside the history of French-baiting in the United States that peaked with the presidential campaign in 2004:
- From Spinsanity.org: "Radio host Rush Limbaugh has also pushed the line hard, repeatedly referring to Kerry as 'French-looking' and mocking him as 'Jean Cheri' or 'Jean F. Cheri' last fall."
- From the Washington Post's Dana Milbank: "And House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) has begun speeches with the statement, "Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say, 'Bonjour.'"
And leaving aside the irony of this, since France is currently engaged in a presidential campaign where the leftist candidate Segolene Royale has consistently reproached her center-right technocrat opponent Nicholas Sarkozy for being 'too American':
What does this say that Romney is taking it up again?
Once again, the press seems to have missed the real story. In an article about Senator Obama's speech in Selma, Alabama yesterday, the Chicago Tribune wrote: "While Obama did not explicitly claim for himself the role of Joshua, that was clearly the implication, coming during a campaign to be elected the nation's highest leader." And a whole row of newspapers seemed to enjoy pointing out that Obama was actually born in 1961, three years before the crossing of the Edmund Pettus bridge, and hence could not have been "conceived" in its wake. Others pointed out that he hadn't "actually" been to Selma before and that it wasn't "really" a homecoming. They all seemed to have missed the point. They all missed what was so moving about Obama's speech.
