We definitely cannot be complacent despite the recent encouraging polls. But I now think we have an opportunity to not only elect Barack, but to drive a stake through the heart of Karl Rove-style hate-division-fear politics. A pretty steady stream of Republicans are now jumping ship, often -- like Colin Powell -- openly expressing disgust at the type of campaign the McCain-Palin ticket is running. Just added to the list were, among others, former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carleson, and Barry Goldwater's granddaughter. See the links below for more:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/23/mcclellan_endorses_obama.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/32973804.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsr
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cc-goldwater/why-mccain-has-lost-our-v_b_137150.html
Principled conservatives are nauseated by the turn their party has taken. Indeed, William F. Buckley Jr.'s son Christopher recently suggested that conservatives should hold a post-election conference/"dark night of the soul" to be called: "Conservatism -- What the F***?"
Let's keep mobilized, energized, and show Rove-style divide-and-conquer politics for the bankrupt, dead entity it is.
From time to time during this campaign there's been worried talk about what's known as the "Bradley Effect" -- the tendency of white voters who are reluctant to vote for a black candidate to lie to pollsters rather than be seen as racist. As a lifelong Californian, I vividly remember the election which gave the phenomenon its name: In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley -- a competent but thoroughly innocuous black politician if there ever was one -- was favored in all the polls to win the governor's race over George Deukmejian, an equally boring and uninspiring white Republican. To everyone's surprise, Deukmejian won. There have been a handful of other prominent races, notably the Virginia gubernatorial contest a while back that Douglas Wilder just barely won, where the same phenomenon seems to have played out.
So do we need to be worried? Yes and no, in my view.
Yes, there is racism out there, and yes, a few voters will try to disguise it when talking to pollsters. On the other hand, I do think it's diminished since the 1980s. And I think the way the campaign has unfolded, a McCain supporter could pretty easily say so without being assumed to be racist. All of this argues for less of an effect than poor Tom Bradley endured in 1982. And there was little sign of a Bradley Effect in the Democratic primaries.
On the other hand, there are reasons the polls could be underestimating Obama's strength: Undersampling of new voters and cell-phone-only households are the most obvious.
So when I look at poll results, I mentally subtract a couple points from Barack's total, just to be safe. But I don't think it will be worse than that. I hope I'm right.
Last weekend, I ventured out from my safe little enclave in San Francisco to spend a weekend in Reno walking precincts for the campaign. The campaign has asked volunteers not to publicize certain strategic details, but this should give you a flavor of what it was like.
Bottom line: It was tiring but exhilarating. If you're on the fence about doing this sort of campaign volunteering, DO IT.
The most striking fact was the mob of volunteers Obama has generated. There were so many people signing up that they realized around midweek that they couldn't do the weekend's orientation/training in their Reno headquarters, and got a local supporter to let the campaign use her business's WAREHOUSE for the weekend. I am not making this up.
The number exceeded the campaign's wildest hopes by a big margin.There were so many of us, in fact, that it somewhat overwhelmed the local Democratic organization, which I suspect is rather a cottage industry most of the time. But under the circumstances, the logistical snafus weren't too bad overall, and everyone mostly kept their sense of humor. Hopefully they will get better having had this weekend under their belts, but anyone going to Reno for the campaign should definitely plan on taking careful notes and being sure to write down phone numbers of all the contacts you need in case of mixups. It wasn't too hard to roll with the punches, but it does help to anticipate that there will be a few little bumps along the way and come prepared to be as self-reliant as you can. Do NOT leave your cell phone at home!!!
By the way, if McCain has any sort of ground operation in Reno, it's not visible.The voters I talked to were were generally friendly. I did get one door slammed in my face (he looked at my Obama shirt and said, "Wrong door for that guy!"), but I also talked to several Republicans for Obama (and not one Democrat for McCain!), I also had a fairly lengthy chat with another self-described conservative who is unhappy with the Bush crowd, and I seriously think I moved him a notch closer to the Obama column. And I registered three new Obama voters. Some supporters I spoke to were wonderfully, infectiously enthusiastic.
The economy is a huge issue in Nevada, one of the states hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. In one affluent neighborhood I walked there was a truly shocking number of "For Sale" signs. People are beginning to get rattled about the state of economy.
Aside from the strains from what is normally a fairly small local Democratic organization trying to organize what surely was the largest mass of volunteers they've ever had, it went well and was pretty damn exciting. And I'm pretty ****ing sunburned. But I'll survive.
And it was a really wonderful group of people to spend the weekend with.Seriously, folks DO THIS. Pick your nearest swing state (for my fellow Californians, that's definitely Nevada), and get your body there. Or if you can't possibly do that, hook up with the folks coordinating phonebanking. I'm more convinced than ever that our grassroots army is what can win this thing.
Many of us are feeling a tangle of emotions at the turns this campaign is taking, so I offer the following, which simultaneously energizes me and brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it:
Judy Garland, who was a friend of John F. Kennedy, was doing a weekly TV series for CBS in 1963 when Kennedy was murdered. The week he was killed, she suggested doing a whole show of patriotic songs, but the network brass thought it would be too serious and depressing for the TV audience and talked her out of it. But she secretly rehearsed this song and did it at the very end of the show. During the spoken introduction she said, "This is for you, Jack," but the network cut it out. If you pay attention, you can see the edit in the intro.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Xz7WV_qJs
Reading people's blog posts and the traffic on Obama listserves, it seems like folks on here have zoomed off in 2 directions. Some are in a state of panic because McCain is now tied or a couple points up nationally, and others are still blissfully overconfident, assuming this is a passing blip. Neither attituded is a good idea.
A couple things are true. One, as Barack has said, is that Republicans may be lousy at governing, but they run great campaigns. And they're doing it again. They've dominated recent news cycles, successfully pushed back against criticism (well enough to stifle at least some of it), and solidified their base. A second is that what McCain got is a pretty typical bounce from a successful convention. It's normal and it does not have to be permanent.
That said, it's also clear that the Republicans' success of the last week has thrown the Obama campaign a bit off-stride. The campaign needs to get its act together quickly, and the candidate has to come out swinging. Obama's interviews in particular have seemed rather flat lately. That cannot continue.
And we, all of us, need to keep focused and keep working. This is not a time to panic, but it IS a time to realize that the next 2 months are going to be a continuous sprint. We have work to do. Let's get to it.
For the last dozen years or so I've had a doctor I really adore. I actually first met her when I interviewed her for an article about a book she'd written, circa 1995. I was so impressed that I instantly decided I wanted her as my primary care doc, and changed my health insurance to make it possible. She's smart, she listens, and she takes as much time as your situation needs, however much that is. She refuses to run her office like a factory, despite all the pressures to do so from insurance companies, HMOs, etc.
But she can't make a living practicing what she considers acceptable medicine. So she's retiring from practice this November. She's been losing money for three years straight, and just can't do it anymore.
Don't let the Republicans -- or ANYONE -- tell you that "we have the best health care system in the world." We do not. We have the best technology and many wonderful doctors, nurses, and other professionals. But the system through which health care is paid for and organized undercuts these fine people at every step. We spend absurd somes to deliver often-inadequate care (and no care at all to millions). There is no excuse.
I'll find a new doctor and be just fine, but some of my doctor's patients won't. She sees a number of frail, elderly patients, and also a considerable number of people with HIV/AIDS, whose treatment is very complex. These folks need a physician who will spend time with them, not rush them in and out. She's doing everything she can to find the best possible replacement doctor for them, but you can't replace the irreplaceable.
I am angry beyond words. This nation can do better.
On various group lists and blogs I get a sense sometimes that folks working on this campaign -- not the top staff, but lots of us little grassroots volunteers -- really feel in their heart/gut that Obama can't lose, that he's so obviously the right guy for the job that the outcome is a given. We cannot dare assume that. Intelligence, nuance and thoughtfulness are as much at the heart of Obama's campaign as his message of hope, and let's be honest: These are not the qualities that have won presidential elections of late, sad to say.
This is not going to be easy, people. The national polls and polls in many battleground states show the race in a statistical dead heat. We have all got to work our asses off from now till November. Volunteer. Donate. Register voters. Make phone calls. Not tomorrow -- now.
We CANNOT be complacent!
As some of you know, I make my living in media relations for a nonprofit organization. One of the things I do is try to get the group's views onto newspaper op-ed pages and into the letters columns (which, according to most newspaper surveys, is consistently one of the most-read pages in any paper). We've had columns published in papers all over the country, from the Chicago Tribune to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Portland Oregonian. I've personally had nearly 200 letters published, everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to the Redding (California) Record-Searchlight. Below are some tips I've put together for getting letters and op-eds published, which I hope folks will find useful:
OP-ED COLUMNS
The op-ed page (so called because it generally appears opposite the paper's editorials) typically includes a mix of pieces by columnists who are on the paper's staff, nationally syndicated columns, and guest pieces by other writers addressing issues of interest. Sometimes these are written by a nationally prominent person, but many newspapers publish -- and often prefer -- columns by local citizens addressing issues of local concern. Some tips:
**Use op-eds to comment on something that's been in the news, not to break news or to announce events or programs. Many newspapers consciously give op-ed space to those expressing a view different than the paper's own editorials.
**If you're able to, consider getting a locally known person to sign an op-ed that you draft for them. People who might not be expected to be on your side and have local clout are perfect.
**Be brief, short and clear. Aim for about 600 words, and absolutely no more than 700. Write in an active voice, in short paragraphs, and avoid jargon and technical terminology. Remember most of your audience doesn't know nearly as much about your issues as you do, so you will need to explain things in clear, simple terms. You can't make every possible point in 600 words, so stick to your most important arguments and the most solid facts you have to back them up.
**Most newspapers publish instructions for op-ed submissions, either in the paper or on their Web site. Review these and follow them. Submissions by email should always be done with the text in the body of the email, not as an attachment.
**By all means be pointed, controversial or funny if it's appropriate, but avoid personal attacks or insults, as well as overblown rhetoric.
**Give the piece a headline, and be sure to include the author's contact information and a one-sentence bio at the end.
**It often helps to "query" the opinion page editor in advance: Send a one-paragraph email briefly describing what you'd like to write about and asking if they might be interested. If the answer is yes, you have a foot in the door. But you may also hear back, "Sorry, but we already have a column on that subject running Thursday," in which case you've just saved yourself some effort.
**Do not submit the same column simultaneously to two papers in the same town or media market.
**Many papers will say that if you don't hear within a week, you can assume they have decided not to publish your submission. A follow-up call or email a few days after you submit a column is fine, and can be helpful (more than once I've found that something I submitted got lost or waylaid by an overactive spam filter), but don't be a pest.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Most of the above advice applies to letters as well as to op-eds. A few specific tips for letters:
**Brevity is essential. Limits on length typically vary from 150 to 300 words, but it is always advisable to stay close to 150. Be short, clear and succinct. Make one or two points, and then stop. Excessively long letters will either get tossed without being read, or will be edited so severely you may not recognize your own work. When in doubt, simplify!
**Always include your full name, address and phone number(s). Generally only your name and city will be published, but most newspapers do call to verify letters.
**Respond quickly to articles, columns, or other letters published by the paper. Now that most letters are submitted by email, responses are often published in a day or two. Letters responding to something that's been in the paper are more likely to be published than ones discussing issues the newspaper hasn't covered.
**Don't send too many letters to the same paper. There is no hard and fast rule, but it's safest to wait 2-3 months in between.
**Most newspapers get many more letters (and op-ed submissions) than they have space to print. Don't assume that you or your issue are on some sort of blacklist because they didn't publish something you sent. Wait 2-3 months and try again.
While we're all focused on the presidential race, we should not forget to also support local candidates who are working in their communities with the same spirit of change and grassroots empowerment as Barack. I'm very proud to be acquainted with -- and doing what I can to help elect -- a terrific candidate for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Eric Mar: http://www.ericmar.com/. Eric is a strong Obama supporter, and I suspect his HQ will have some Obama activity going on as well, unless the national campaign opens its own office nearby. Think globally, act locally is a cliche, but it's true. Obama will win 80% of the vote in San Francisco (god, I love this town!), but I'll be happily walking precincts for Eric.
On another note, did anyone see Wolf Blitzer's interview with Condoleeza Rice on "Late Edition" 7/20? The following exchange (transcribed from memory, so a word or two may be off) really stuck:
Blitzer: So have you decided who you're voting for for president?
Rice (smiling): Yes.
Blitzer: And do you want to tell us?
Rice (still smiling): No.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the Secretary of State for her party's nominee.
A colleague of mine who works at MPP's Washington, DC office (disclaimer: As many on here know, I work for the Marijuana Policy Project, but all opinions expressed here are strictly my own and not those of my employer) told me of something that happened recently that's stuck in my mind -- and, I think, illustrates a bit of the dilemma Barack Obama faces.
Doing some errands on his lunch break, he walked past a contruction site where the workers were also on break, and he overheard some of their conversation. One (white) worker said to his friends, "If Obama's elected, he's gonna pass a law making whites the minority." This was said in all seriousness, with no sign of irony.
The mind reels, not knowing whether to laugh or cry, to be most appalled by the bigotry or the ignorance. Did this person, working literally walking distance from the Capitol, not know that an institution called Congress has something to say about what laws get passed? And should President Obama and Congress somehow agree that they wanted to "make whites the minority," how would this work? Ban whites from having kids? Ship us all overseas (presuming, of course, some unlucky country was dumb enough to take us)?
But there is a larger point here: While this construction worker may have been an extreme case, we live in a dumbed-down nation where serious discussion of news and politics is nearly absent even from what passes as news in the commercial media, a nation in which many voters operate on little knowledge. They operate on instinct, and the human instinct is to feel comfortable with the familiar and uncomfortable with the unfamiliar. For many white Americans -- not just overt bigots, who are probably hopeless, but a larger segment whose familiarity with black America consists of seeing the latest Will Smith summer blockbuster and hearing (and probably disliking) occasional snatches of hip-hop music -- the notion that a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama could be the next president of the United States is profoundly foreign and strange.
Those of us who frequent this site -- a self-selected group of politically aware, engaged, and generally progressive-leaning individuals -- can be pretty detached from how a lot of Americans perceive things. It's easy for us to forget that we are asking America to take what feels to many like a leap into the unknown by electing Obama.
Yes, the fact that it feels like a leap into the unknown to so many is profoundly sad, but it is so nonetheless. We have never, ever had a president who wasn't a white male with an Anglo Saxon-sounding name. Within my lifetime the notion of a Catholic president was still controversial. We've still never come close to having a Jewish president.
This is why I don't get too upset when I see Obama taking steps to reassure such people that he's a "normal American" -- one who's patriotic, believes in God and faith, and is serious about protecting the country from terrorists. We are a nation that's been ruled by fear for so long that it's not possible to unlearn that habit overnight. Our candidate knows that there are a lot of people out there who aren't overt bigots, but feel a vague unease at handing the presidency over to this dark-skinned guy with a foreign-sounding (or even, perhaps, Islamic-sounding) name.
America is crawling when it needs to run, but first it must learn how to walk. The learning process will not be easy or quick.
Dr. Joycelyn Elders, the heroic Surgeon General fired by Bill Clinton in one of the low points of his presidency, endorsed Obama June 24 in an interview with a Raleigh, N. Carolina newspaper. She was in town to testify in support of medical marijuana legislation being considered by the N. Carolina legislature. Here's what she says about Obama, as well as a link to the full interview, which is definitely worth reading:
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A260080
Who are you supporting for president?
Mr. Obama. I think he'll make an excellent president. Most of all, I'm so pleased he's gotten young people excited. That's what we need, young people out there taking our government back, demanding that we do the things we need to do that make good sense. We can't continue to let our government abort common sense. They're always talking about aborting fetuses; as far as I'm concerned, they've aborted common sense.
I've had a number of discussions with friends and acquaintances on the left side of the political fence who dismiss Barack Obama as not a real progressive -- or, as Matt Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, put it recently, "Bill Clinton with a conscience."
That last comment touched a nerve: Bill Clinton is the reason I'm not a Democrat, having registered Green when he signed welfare repeal and the Defense of Marriage Act within weeks of each other. And frankly, if I could design a president from scratch, his policy positions would be several notches to the left of Obama, somewhere between Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. I have no doubt President Obama will do a number of things I'll disagree with.
So why am I here?
Because this is not 1996, and -- as the late, great Molly Ivins once wrote, "The first rule of holes: When you're in one, stop digging." We've been digging entirely too long.
The grim fact is that the Republicans have done a brilliant job of moving the political center of gravity to the right. A president espousing the policies I support will not get elected this year, and probably not for some time. But just as the Republicans moved the country incrementally to the right -- from Nixon to Reagan (who in some ways looks downright moderate compared to Dubya) to Bush, so too can the process be reversed. One does have to learn to crawl before trying to walk, much less run. This election is about starting that process.
Can Obama do it? Yes, I think so. His obvious decency, his willingness to avoid most temptations to pander and unwillingness to engage in the politics of fear and division, his humane instincts and positive vision carry the possibility of rekindling Americans' faith in their government as a potential engine for good. And that is the absolute essential if we are to bring back progressive politics in this country.
Will an Obama presidency be perfect? Absolutely not. Will it be a major step out of the muck we've been slowly sinking in for far too long? Yes, I think so. And whenever I start to worry, I remember what a good friend of mine in Chicago told me some months ago when I asked -- without telling him my leanings -- for an honest impression of this Obama character: My friend said simply, "He rocks."
After 8 years of Bush, Rove, and Cheney, that's good enough for me.
This is brilliant and an absolute must-see. Sometimes Olbermann gets a bit overwrought, but this time the tone is just right:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25130683
Today's speech by Sen. Clinton will, hopefully, be the beginning of the healing of wounds on all sides from this remarkably long, tough primary campaign. Let's be honest: Dumb and hurtful things have been said by people on both sides of this fight, but the rough-and-tumble of the primaries is NOTHING compared to what we're going to be seeing from the Republicans. As hard as the primary campaign was, the next several months will be unimaginably harder.
So for all those Obama supporters who still harbor some anger against Hillary -- and for any Clinton backers coming onto this site for the first time -- I'd ask you to remember the words from Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural. Beginning his second term as our bloody, bitter, horrible Civil War was approaching its end and with many in the north already talking about revenge against the south, Lincoln spoke these extraordinary words:
"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
If you believe -- and I do -- that Barack Obama just may be a Lincoln for our times, let us go forward in that spirit. We have much to do.
For those of you not in San Francisco, Mark Morford may be the most loved and hated columnist in the SF Chronicle. Sometimes he just nails it, and this is one of them:
Are you paying attention to this moment in time? Are you reading bits and hints about the transformation, the shift, the unusual and slightly surreal energy coursing through the nation? Are you younger than 50? Then there's been nothing else like this in your lifetime. And there probably never will be again.
Read the whole column here --
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/29/DDJL10UU8S.DTL
Earlier today someone posted a note to one of the Obama listserves I'm on saying he'd been a Hillary supporter, had joined the list recently when it became evident that Obama would be the nominee, and was surprised and disturbed by all the anti-Clinton sentiment expressed on the list. For him and others like him, and I'm sure there are many, allow me to explain.
First, let me say that I am glad to be supporting a candidate whose campaign has tried and mostly succeeded in avoiding negativity, nastiness, and personal attacks -- not perfectly, but far more than most high-level campaigns of recent years. I do wish we could all be like that, but it's hard.
Personally, I didn't start out supporting Obama. I hoped Russ Feingold would run, and philosophically I'm closer to Dennis Kucinich than Obama. But as the field narrowed, it became clear to me that Obama was the best of the bunch. I was never a fan of either Hillary or Bill Clinton -- at least not after mid-1993 or so -- but was not hostile toward the Clintons either: Unenthused and uninspired is more like it. But the way Hillary Clinton has conducted her campaign has destroyed every last vestige of respect I once had for her.
Anyone can make a dumb or careless comment occasionally, particularly doing as much off-the-cuff speaking as presidential candidates do. Obama has screwed up a few times. But the weekly (and sometimes several times a week) stream of remarks from Hillary, Bill, and prominent supporters that are divisive, demeaning, dishonest, or expressing barely disguised racism long ago reached the point where it's clear that they're not gaffes or glitches or mistakes; they're part of a strategy -- a strategy perhaps a notch more subtle than Karl Rove's stock in trade, but cut from exactly the same cloth.
And then there's the shameless dishonesty of Hillary's push to seat Michigan and Florida delegations based on primaries that all candidates had agreed -- and Clinton had publicly stated -- wouldn't count because those states violated rules that all had agreed to. To characterize this self-interested attempt to change the rules after the fact (and in so doing to insult and dismiss the many thousands of voters in those states who stayed home because they believed it when the party and all the candidates told them these primaries wouldn't count) as some sort of noble crusade for fairness is beyond belief. To characterize it, as Clinton did this week, as a moral endeavor comparable to the campaign to abolish slavery is simply nauseating.
I did not begin this campaign hating Hillary Clinton, but her behavior has pushed me inexorably in that direction. I say this with some sadness, as she is clearly a smart and talented woman, and she and her husband truly were treated cruelly and unfairly by many on the far right during Bill's term as president. But I cannot trust or respect her ever again, and I know I'm far from alone. I used to be angry at Hillary. Now I'm simply aghast.
Over the last several weeks -- watching Barack Obama respond to attacks with a combination of spirit, strength and dignity while the venom spouted at him becomes uglier daily -- I've come to believe that this election is a test. The politics of fear and division have taken America to a pretty ugly place. If we can elect Barack in spite of all the ugliness, we can begin our climb out of the cesspool. If we can't manage to do this, it will because fear and hate have triumphed, and I fear we may never get our country back, at least not in our lifetimes.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not an Obama sycophant who believes that Barack can do no wrong. I disagree with him on some things, and don't imagine for a second that I will agree with his every action as president. But he is trying to do politics in a way that's fallen out of fashion in the era of Karl Rove fearmongering and Mark Penn microtargeting. He's trying to appeal to the best in people, to hope rather than fear -- to the very spirit that produced this country's greatest achievements, from ending slavery to beating Hitler to going to the moon.
Politics based on fear and division has produced nothing but misery in any nation where it has succeeded, and we should not imagine that our country is somehow an exception.
This is a test, America. I wish I was sure we will pass it, but I do have hope.
Story from Monday's San Francisco Chronicle: Only one of the 3 major presidential candidates states clearly and unambigously that states that permit medical use of marijuana should be left alone by the Feds:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/11/MNKK10FD53.DTL
Key paragraphs:
In response to recent questions from The Chronicle about medical marijuana, Obama's campaign - the only one of the three contenders to reply - endorsed a hands-off federal policy.
"Voters and legislators in the states - from California to Nevada to Maine - have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering," said campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.
"Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice - though he believes medical marijuana should be subject to (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regulation like other drugs," LaBolt said. He said the FDA should consider how marijuana is regulated under federal law, while leaving states free to chart their own course.
LaBolt also said Obama would end U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws.
