One of the coolest things about joining with you all in the Obama campaign is that my work for Senator Obama, such as it was, was enough to get me noticed by the Jackson County Democrats leadership, and I've since been named the county chairman for the next two years.
I think that many of you got involved for the same reasons I did:
If that sounds familiar, and if that sounds like a path you'd like to continue walking after inaugriation day, please contact me at jcdchair@gmail.com. Even if Obama was the only politician you've ever worked for; even if you don't consider yourself a democrat - please consider working with the JCD. If you love the democratic platform, here's your chance to spread it; if you don't think you fit in with the party, here's your chance to change the party.
Over the next two years, I hope to grow the Jackson County Democrats with your participation. I hope to spread the party base from beyond the Ashland to Medford cooridor out into all parts of the county. I hope to broaden JCD participation in community service and outreach. I hope, in short, that we can continue to do the things we did for the Obama campaign in a way that helps Jackson county experience the rennaisance that our country will experience with this historic presidency.
What ever your skills, whatever your level of participation, we will have a spot for you. Please come help us make this party our party.
Respectfully,
Chris Len
Hi everyone,
I had a great time today speaking along with other local experts on several of the issues left languishing since President Bush accomplished his mission five years ago. The inimitable Senator Bates served as MC and my co-panelists were all terrific speakers. It was my job to address the current administrations environmental shortcomings and highlight Senator Obama's environmental agenda. I think it went really well, and I'm going to tune into the local news tonight to see if we made it on, as two Medford television stations sent camerapersons.
In my speech - which was supposed to be 5 minutes, but may have been a touch longer! - I talked about when I first saw Senator Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and how I told anyone who would listen that he'd be our president some day. I don't think any of us thought that day would be coming up in about six months!
I think the biggest difference between Senator Obama and President Bush is that President Bush has always been by, for, and all about benefitting big business. Big Business raised his election money and in return he has paid those special interests back in innumerable ways. This isn't to say that President Bush is bought and paid for; rather, President Bush is by nature and by nurture inclined to favor the wealthy over the poor and the needs of business over the needs of individual citizens.
Compare that to Senator Obama, born in a single parent home, raised largely by his grandparents and growing up without the advantages that wealth brings, he nonetheless found his way to Harvard Law and financial success. But his success didn't arise because he took that law degree and went to work for a Wall Street firm. Instead, he took that degree back to Chicago where he used it to further his efforts to organize the socially, economically and electorally disenfranchised. His wealth came instead from the success of his writing. And that success came from his unmistakeable thoughtfulness and insight. Barack Obama is by nature and nurture inclined to favor the underdog over the favorite, the work-a-day citizen over the CEO.
These predilections are reflected in the policies these politicians pursue.
President Bush installed a timber industry lobbyist as the head of the Forest Service. Among his first actions in the White House was to withdraw from Kyoto and to weaken drinking water standards. His Clear Skies Initiative sought to dirty our skies to help the coal industry; his Healthy Forest Initiative sought to cut our public forests for short-term profit. He wanted drilling in ANWAR; he defunded the Superfund; he slow walked endangered species petitions; he sent his Justice Department out to argue that the EPA cannot regulate green house gasses, and when even his own Supreme Court shot that down he had the EPA block the states from doing it.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, has and will continue to do right by the average citizen. When he was in Medford a few weeks ago, he talked knowledgeably about local environmental issues that most national politicians have surely never heard of. He favors protection of old-growth, government funds to purchase sensitive lots of private property, prioritizing salmon recovery and negotiating a long-term solution to the county payments morass. Nationally, Senator Obama favors private/public cooperation to protect land that has gone under-protected and over-developed. He has proposed $150b investment in green research that projects to create 5m jobs. He wants to ensure that 25% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2025, and that we reduce our greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2050. He gets to these goals in sensible ways - by increasing efficiency and conservation. Senator Obama will return real, objective science to our environmental policy.
What's more, he knows he has no choice. His campaign, as all campaigns are, is beholden to its donors. Only in this case, instead of PACs and industry big-wig bundlers, Senator Obama's campaign is beholden to its nearly 1.5m individual citizen donors. He owes us big time, and he wouldn't have it any other way.
In preparing for my speech, I learned the following amazing fact. Jackson County, our obscure county in Southwest Oregon, is already in for $200m for the war in Iraq. When you stop and think about the teachers that could pay, or the libraries it could staff, or the healthcare it could provide, you really begin to understand why we need new leadership.
Real change has always required the dedicated efforts of the American people. The governemnt of a lazy and disengaged populous will always govern in a lazy and a disengaged way. Never in my lifetime, and I turn 34 this Sunday, have I had a President who demands that I participate in my own political destiny. I am hungry for that engagement; I am starving for it. And it makes my heart swell with pride that so many people this election feel that same hunger. People of all ages, ethnicities and even political parties (we've worked hard to get nearly 32,000 voters to reregister as Democrats in Oregon) are coming together to demand better government. We're learning to take control of our future, demand better from all levels of government, and now that we're awake, there is no way we're going back to bed until the work is done.
Since the PA primary on April 22, a period of time universally acknowledged to be rocky for the Obama campaign, Senator Obama has added 11 superdelegates to Senator Clinton's 5, according to Democratic Convention Watch.
The list of superdelegates added for Obama is:
This leaves Senator Clinton with only a 18 superdelegate lead; a lead that continues to diminish.
Keep your chin up everyone! We're going to win!
Yesterday, April 26th, was the Oregon-wide house party day, complete with a conference call featuring the great Representative Blumenauer and Senator Dick Durbin. We were pleased to host our first house party (which sounds even scarier if you call it a fundraiser!) and were honored to host our fantastic State Representative Peter Buckley as a guest speaker from the campaign. After cooking and cleaning all day we welcomed 14 total guests into our house to chat about politics generally, Senator Obama particularly and enjoy some good food and drink and make new friends.
We raised $100 and we registered four people to vote in the primary(who hadn't realized or had forgotten that they needed to re-register as democrats) and we made a lot of new friends. Thank you to all of our guests and we hope we can welcome you into our home again. Of course, a special thank you to Rep. Buckley and to the Obama campaign for providing us with the materials and motivation to host this event.
If you're thinking of hosting your own party, I do encourage you to do so. It's great fun.
And oddly enough, today, April 27th, we hosted our second house party to benefit the Humane Society's Legislative Fund, who was encouraging Americans to contact their congressional delegation in favor of a bill to provide better protections for farm animals and our food supply. We had some overlap on the guest list (Joseph and Sarah love farm animals AND Obama!) and a nice afternoon. You can contribute to the Society's excellent work at the link above.
A lot of hard work, but a terrific weekend!
---C
Bitter? Clingy? You know? I just don't give a crap. I don't think anyone else does either. I've heard three groups of people claim that this is a big deal:
1. The Media
2. The Clinton Campaign
3. The McCain Campaign
Am I alone here? Has anyone heard real, actual people upset by Senator Obama's statement? No?
And you know why? Because people who live in small towns are bitter. People in big cities are bitter too. People in medium towns and people on islands and people who live in the middle of the woods all by themselves are all bitter.
And with darn good reason.
We just ended a seven year economic recovery and the average income of a middle class family dropped. For the first time ever. That makes me bitter.
We're still in this stupid war, we have been for five years. We have more soldiers there than we ever have, and that makes me bitter.
I have to spend my time at work every day fending off the clumsy last-minute attempts of the robber-barons that President Bush has installed in the Forest Service and the BLM to eke one more penny out of our public lands. That makes me bitter.
The portion of our budget paid by the wealthy is at its lowest since the twenties, and that makes me bitter.
If you aren't bitter, you aren't paying attention.
Senator Obama's comments weren't elitist. They were exactly right.
Enjoy this column by John Baer if you agree with me:
SOME THOUGHTS on the latest diversion of Campaign '08, a campaign apparently hell-bent on keeping the nation mired in its own stupidity. As a native-born, small-town Pennsylvanian, a son of native-born, small-town Pennsylvania parents - one from the coal region, one from Lancaster County - let me assure you that the so-called offensive, condescending things Barack Obama said about the people I come from are basically right on target. "Bitter" perhaps best describes my late mother, an angry Irish Catholic who absolutely clung to her religion. Dad, also a journalist, wasn't really bitter as far as I know, but he sure liked to hunt. So, despite carping from Hillary Clinton and annoying yapping from her surrogates (really, it's like turning on the lights at night in a puppy farm), I take no offense. What's offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician's words. Are you kidding me? They're injured all right, but the injury is long-term and from lots more than "just words."
SOME THOUGHTS on the latest diversion of Campaign '08, a campaign apparently hell-bent on keeping the nation mired in its own stupidity.
As a native-born, small-town Pennsylvanian, a son of native-born, small-town Pennsylvania parents - one from the coal region, one from Lancaster County - let me assure you that the so-called offensive, condescending things Barack Obama said about the people I come from are basically right on target.
"Bitter" perhaps best describes my late mother, an angry Irish Catholic who absolutely clung to her religion.
Dad, also a journalist, wasn't really bitter as far as I know, but he sure liked to hunt.
So, despite carping from Hillary Clinton and annoying yapping from her surrogates (really, it's like turning on the lights at night in a puppy farm), I take no offense.
What's offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician's words.
Are you kidding me?
They're injured all right, but the injury is long-term and from lots more than "just words."
On Saturday, I'll be coordinating canvassing in Ashland Oregon at 10 AM in Triangle Park. I hope you'll join me. And on the 26th we'll be hosting a house party. I hope you'll join me there too.
Be well, be the change.
ps. Super Delegate Update:
Since I last posted on this topic, mentioning Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal's support for Senator Obama, the website Democratic Convention Watch notes the following endorsements (announced or inferred) for Senator Obama:
Picked up two in the past two days. Today we got Wyoming Governor and superdelegate Dave Freudenthal (How the heck does Wyoming have a Democratic governor?!)
Freudenthal said he was impressed by the large, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see Obama when he visited Wyoming ahead of last month's caucuses. "They paid attention and were riveted and reactivated, and trying to be part of an America that's bigger than just their own self-interest," Freudenthal told The Associated Press. "And you hope that can work. Because something has got to dig us out of this morass that we've gotten into, where it's sort of gotcha politics." Wyoming Governor Back (sic) Obama
Freudenthal said he was impressed by the large, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see Obama when he visited Wyoming ahead of last month's caucuses.
"They paid attention and were riveted and reactivated, and trying to be part of an America that's bigger than just their own self-interest," Freudenthal told The Associated Press. "And you hope that can work. Because something has got to dig us out of this morass that we've gotten into, where it's sort of gotcha politics."
Yesterday, Minnesota Senator and superdelegate Amy Klobuchar endorsed Senator Obama.
Klobuchar, a freshman, had been reluctant to publicly reject Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, even though Obama had easily won her state in Feb. 5. In a statement, she compared him to homestate icon Hubert Humphrey, lauding Obama's "different voice, bringing a new perspective and inspiring a real excitement from the American people." She said her decision reflected Obama's success in Minnesota as well as "my own independent judgment about his abilities."Klobuchar Endorses Obama
Klobuchar, a freshman, had been reluctant to publicly reject Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, even though Obama had easily won her state in Feb. 5. In a statement, she compared him to homestate icon Hubert Humphrey, lauding Obama's "different voice, bringing a new perspective and inspiring a real excitement from the American people."
She said her decision reflected Obama's success in Minnesota as well as "my own independent judgment about his abilities."
These endorsements follow on the heels of the more widely publicized endorsements from superdelegates Bill Richardson and Bob Casey. Also today, former Indiana Senator and 9-11 Committee Chair Lee Hamilton endorsed BHO. While Hamilton is not s superdelegate, the endorsement is noteworthy because of Hamilton's national security chops and because Indiana is probably the most important (to the extent that any are important) remaining primary.
Yup, that's how long its been since Love Canal prompted congress to pass and Reagan (!!!) to sign the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act (CERCLA). CERCLA covers the discharge of hazardous waste into the environment and created the famous "Superfund," to clean up contaminated sites.
Well, now the Superfund is broke and more than 25 years have passed since we've seen a real landmark achievement in legislation that protects the environment. On the otherhand, the cornerstone environmental laws passed in the sixties and seventies are chipped away at every year. The Clean Water Act by judicial fiat no longer protects all water overwhich Congress has jurisdiction, but only those with a hydrologic connection navigable-in-fact waters. The Clean Air Act has famously been ignored and avoided several times in the past couple of years by the Bush Administration. Clinton took a whack at the Endangered Species Act by passing the "no-surprises" rule for habitat conservation plans which can lock in a private landowners right to kill endangered species for 100 years. The Washington Post reported on how few deserving species are listed under the ESA any longer. I, myself, am working on a case where the Forest Service used an isolated, low-intensity forest fire as an excuse to build a road that it had not yet completed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review.
These days, we hope in vain that a brave politician will come along and stem this tide. You know, make polluters pay into the Superfund maybe? List the Pacific Fisher and the Wolverine? That'd be great, but how about something real? Its been 25 years since CERCLA, and its obvious that we don't have this degraded environment problem licked yet. If only someone had some ideas!
Well, how about:
No I don't know if Obama would support any of these measures, but I hope he has someone looking at them (if not, give me a call! I always wanted to be secretary of the interior!) shouldn't we at least be talking about them? Can't we have a debate where its not 1/2 health care, 1/2 Iraq and at least mention the fact that polar bears are drowning? I'm tired of being on defense, lets shore up the laws we have - start listing species, extend the Clean Water Act to the limits of Congressional jurisdiction, fund the superfund etc. - but lets also go on offense. Maybe then I won't have to tell everyone who asks that Richard effing Nixon was our foremost environmental president.
Please comment with your ideas; what new major environmental law does America badly need?
I'm watching Chuck Hagel on the Daily Show right now - wouldn't he be a pretty good Veep? He's a long term war opponent, he's "demographically correct," he's got all the foreign policy cred you could want, he's not running for reëlection, and he'd kill in the plains states. Picking across party lines legitimizes Obama's cross-party outreach. He's a veteran, he's old, he's smart and principled. I think he'd put several of the plains states into play. Very unlikely, but to me, very interesting.
Who are some other guys?
Joe Biden - like Chuck Hagel only boring. He's got the foreign policy chops, he's right a lot, but he doesn't open any part of the country that Obama's not already going to win.
Janet Napolitano - the democratic governor of AZ is an exciting young politician who could bring a lot to the ticket, but could she take AZ away from McCain? Tall order.
Kathleen Sebelius - an exciting politician, who like Napolitano, would make for an exciting and historic ticket. She won the governorship of Kansas as a Democrat - no easy feat! - but could she carry it as veep? No foreign policy chops either.
Bill Richardson - we all like him, he's got all kinds of experience, and a lot of it. A lot of foreign policy work and could help with the southwest. He's kind of a loose canon though.
The Virginia Guys - Kaine, Webb and Warner. Warner is out, because his winning that John Warner's senate seat is too important. Webb would be a good choice, but how is that senate seat filled? Webb is a new senator who has taken on a big role since elected, and his work in the armed forces gives him military cred. Kaine is a term limited governor but has no foreign policy. Why these guys? Any of the three of them might lock up VA, which hasn't voted for a democratic president in decades.
Who do you favor? Any other choices?
I can't believe how much writer's block I have had. I shook BHO's hand in Medford and still can't bring myself to write anything. The frustrating thing is I've read too much about this election, I know BHO has won the nomination, I've know it since Wisconsin. Told everyone about it too, but HRC just won't concede to reality. So I feel like it's all sound and fury right now, and I want to get onto the business at hand: Steamrolling John McCain. What a goof.
Okay, lets see ifI can post again tomorrow now that I've at least put something up. BHO was teriffic in Medford. I missed seeing WJC today. Oh well.
*In honor of the remaining members of the Grateful Dead :)
Hey everyone! Great work last night and leading up to yesterdays tsunami of primaries and caucuses. We won the most states, we won the most delegates and we finished only 0.4% behind HRC in the total vote count, despite trailing by 24% in the national polls only one month ago.
And especially big congratulations to our teammates in Missouri, where we won a narrow victory, after the AP called the state (ludicrously) for Clinton!
It seems like a few days will pass before we know final delegate counts from Super Tuesday, but read this insightful and succinct article in the Politico about the five reasons Hillary should be worried, to which I'll add a sixth: After loaning her campaign $5m of personal funds recently, and assuming that the fund raising continues at its current pace (which it won't because we're only going to broaden our lead!), Senator Clinton will have to loan her campaign $129,500,000.00* to keep even!
Looks like WJC is going to have to make a few extra trips to Kazakhstan!
In the mean time, we have some smaller weeks of campaigning to build our lead. Louisiana (67 delegates), Nebraska (31), Washington (97) and the Virgin Islands (9) on February 9, Maine (34) on February 10, DC (37), Virginia (101) and Maryland (99) on February 12 and Hawaii (29) and Wisconsin (92) on February 19. These are all states we can win, and this is where we'll broaden our lead ahead of more competitive campaigning in Pennsylvania and Ohio. So donate your next round of money, and make some calls. The wind is at our backs, lets get it done!
* Seven months to the Democratic convention, Obama raised $32m in January, Clinton raised $13.5m for a deficit of $18,500,000. $18.5m x 7 = $129,500,000.00
I just heard on MSNBC that the Clinton campaign copped to raising 13.5 million dollars in January. That number is confirmed in this Washington Post blog entry. It was widely believed that she was going to report about $20m for January. She missed expectations by six and a half million dollars and she missed our mark by eighteen and one half million dollars. Ladies and gentlemen, that's a lot of missing zeros.
We raised 173% of Ms. Clinton's total. She's maxed out her supporters - all her big-time folks have given their maximum and all us small, individual voters keep on giving, keep on working for our candidate and keep on kicking butt in the voting booths.
This thing's going our way. Tomorrow, we're going to get out of bed, get to the polls if we live in a state that's voting, and get on the phone to our friends, or to our fellow voting Americans and get that VOTE OUT!
At the end of the day, we're going to have the most delegates, the most money and the most momentum. This is happening.
Three things on the to do list:
First of all, great debate tonight! The substantive policy discussion really helped our candidate dispel those all-flash-no-substance stereotypes! Now lets help him out by getting our butts in gear for the Super Tuesday primary in California. After calling the Campaign's Sacramento office today, I know who to contact if any of us north of the border want to help in Siskiyou County (or further south) or if any of you North-California residents want to do more than just vote. You can email the Redding CA Campaign Coordinator, John Ryan and he'll have plenty of work for you. He says he has phone lists of likely Obama voters to remind to vote, he needs people to monitor poling places to ensure all our people get their votes in, and work as precinct captains as well.
Remember, Super Tuesday is THIS TUESDAY, and we can take California if we get out there and make it happen. Rasmussen has Barack only down by 3% in the biggest state in the union. Lets do it! I'll be in Redding on Tuesday, what will you be doing?
If you don't read Dana Milbank, you should consider starting. He writes a daily column of political observation humor for the Washington Post. No one beats the Posts coverage, and swtching to the countries best news website might be a good way to get back at a certain paper of record. Plus, it seems apparent that their political guru reads my stuff! They have the estimable Howard Kurtz who writes a daily blog on the media, which gives a great overview of the day's news. Best of all, they have daily chat sessions with reporters and columnists that, to me, offer some of the most interesting insights into politics (and other issues). Today Milbank writes on Clinton's no-victory "Victory" party. You go Dana:
Cheering supporters? Check. Election returns on the projection screen? Check. Andrea Mitchell and Candy Crowley doing stand-ups? Check and check. In fact, the only piece missing from Hillary Clinton's Florida victory party here Tuesday night was a victory. ... But even some of the faithful in the hall doubted that the big margin for Clinton, flashed on a projection screen, was an accurate gauge of the race here. "Probably not," said Eleanor Forte, on the outer rim of the celebration. "If they had campaigned here, it probably would have come out differently." That was a nuance the Clinton campaign was hoping to overlook as it sought retroactively to give weight to the Florida primary. "I am a gutter-ball bowler," Clinton said as she campaigned Sunday night in the state in which she had pledged not to campaign. The remark, overheard by a Miami Herald reporter, was no doubt meant literally; she was standing outside Lucky Strike Lanes in Miami Beach. But in politics, too, Clinton has recently been putting some questionable rotation on the ball. First came the South Carolina primary, in which she and her husband tried unsuccessfully to morph Barack Obama into Jesse Jackson. Then came word Sunday that she would fly here to celebrate her "victory" in the Florida primary -- even though she and the other Democratic candidates long ago declared it null and void. She said she wanted restoration of the stripped delegates from disobedient Florida and Michigan (where Clinton, the only major candidate on the ballot, beat "uncommitted," 55 percent to 40 percent). "There are more voters in Florida alone than there are in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina combined," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle argued in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. This was the same Solis Doyle who last summer committed Clinton to signing the Florida boycott pledge, saying, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role." Much Ado About Not Much
But even some of the faithful in the hall doubted that the big margin for Clinton, flashed on a projection screen, was an accurate gauge of the race here. "Probably not," said Eleanor Forte, on the outer rim of the celebration. "If they had campaigned here, it probably would have come out differently."
That was a nuance the Clinton campaign was hoping to overlook as it sought retroactively to give weight to the Florida primary. "I am a gutter-ball bowler," Clinton said as she campaigned Sunday night in the state in which she had pledged not to campaign. The remark, overheard by a Miami Herald reporter, was no doubt meant literally; she was standing outside Lucky Strike Lanes in Miami Beach. But in politics, too, Clinton has recently been putting some questionable rotation on the ball.
First came the South Carolina primary, in which she and her husband tried unsuccessfully to morph Barack Obama into Jesse Jackson. Then came word Sunday that she would fly here to celebrate her "victory" in the Florida primary -- even though she and the other Democratic candidates long ago declared it null and void. She said she wanted restoration of the stripped delegates from disobedient Florida and Michigan (where Clinton, the only major candidate on the ballot, beat "uncommitted," 55 percent to 40 percent).
"There are more voters in Florida alone than there are in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina combined," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle argued in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. This was the same Solis Doyle who last summer committed Clinton to signing the Florida boycott pledge, saying, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."
Much Ado About Not Much
Way to go Dana. You might, however, reconsider using the word "ersatz" in two consecutive paragraphs!
I've been a long time reader of the Times, but today has marked my first letter to the Public Editor. The Times website has been running a story prominently on their front page today. Its headline has changed as the day has gone by. First it read:
Obama Benefiting From Special Interest Money
Now it reads:
Outside Groups Aid Obama, Critic of Their Influence
Earlier today, the headline read:
Special Interest Money Helps Obama and Others
Interesting that the link, the item most people see, makes you think that Obama is being a hypocrite. Then, if you click on the link, the headline equivocates (note that the headline now reads "Outside Groups Aid Obama, Critic of their Influence") "Obama and Others"
A lot of people will see the link, some people will read the headline when the click on the link, but a much smaller portion will get to the part of the story where it says:
Mr. Obama has repudiated a California group, Vote Hope, that is working on his behalf.
Or the part where it reads:
Mr. Obama’s campaign says it has taken pains to discourage these efforts on its behalf, and in fact the campaign has no recourse in controlling them. “We do not think people should be donating to 527s,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman. “We would rather have them involved in our campaign. It is our hope that anyone who supports Obama does so directly through his campaign and not through these outside groups.”
Wow, so there's no hypocritical behavior here at all! Would never have guessed it from the headline! But how many people will read on to the sixth paragraph where the story notes:
The Clinton campaign, which has not made an issue of outside help, has been a much greater beneficiary of these groups. (This afternoon, the story didn't have that little caveat about "which has not made an issue of outside help.")
So we have a story with a misleading headline that nails Obama for the actions of private organizations outside of his control, who he has actively discouraged and has received far less help from than Clinton!
If you want to read the story, click this link.
If you want to write the public editor, email him at public@nytimes.com
Hooray!
I feel so happy that the political ugliness in SC brought people together in opposition to it. I wrote recently that I hoped that the Clinton's tactics would backfire and justify the political value of good will, honesty and positive tone, and I feel so proud of all the South Carolinians that they apparently felt as I do. I have one more hope coming out of the drubbing we laid down tonight: that the coverage going forward will reflect the rejection of racial politics like this New York Times article
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Senator Barack Obama proved in South Carolina on Saturday that he could not only endure everything the Clinton campaign threw at him in the most confrontational week of the presidential contest so far but also draw votes across racial lines even in a Southern state. ...If the South Carolina result buoyed the Obama team, it left Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign facing a new set of questions. Her advisers’ steady attacks on Mr. Obama appeared to prove fruitless, if not counterproductive, and the attack-dog role of former President Bill Clinton seemed to have backfired.Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that many Democrats who believed that Mr. Clinton’s role in the campaign was important ended up voting for Mr. Obama. ...“The criticism of Obama ended up really helping him going forward, I think,” said Congressman James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an influential black Democrat who remained neutral in the primary. “If he ends up winning the nomination, he will definitely face an onslaught of attacks this fall, and he may look back on South Carolina as the place that toughened him up.”In his victory speech Saturday night, Mr. Obama indeed sounded like a candidate with a cause, saying that the fight for South Carolina produced not only a personal victory but also progress over the divisive politics of the past. His target was clear enough without his naming names. Obama Weathers a Test of Mettle
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Senator Barack Obama proved in South Carolina on Saturday that he could not only endure everything the Clinton campaign threw at him in the most confrontational week of the presidential contest so far but also draw votes across racial lines even in a Southern state. ...
If the South Carolina result buoyed the Obama team, it left Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign facing a new set of questions. Her advisers’ steady attacks on Mr. Obama appeared to prove fruitless, if not counterproductive, and the attack-dog role of former President Bill Clinton seemed to have backfired.
Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that many Democrats who believed that Mr. Clinton’s role in the campaign was important ended up voting for Mr. Obama. ...
“The criticism of Obama ended up really helping him going forward, I think,” said Congressman James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an influential black Democrat who remained neutral in the primary. “If he ends up winning the nomination, he will definitely face an onslaught of attacks this fall, and he may look back on South Carolina as the place that toughened him up.”
In his victory speech Saturday night, Mr. Obama indeed sounded like a candidate with a cause, saying that the fight for South Carolina produced not only a personal victory but also progress over the divisive politics of the past. His target was clear enough without his naming names.
Obama Weathers a Test of Mettle
And not "he sure drew out the black vote" articles that buy the line the Clintons are now pushing:
On Saturday, as Sen. Barack Obama was sweeping up the South Carolina primary, former Pres. Bill Clinton was busy downplaying the significance of Obama's impending win, casting it as a function of the state's demographics and the Illinois senator's heavy African American support. "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. "Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." It was a sour note on which to end the contentious Democratic race in South Carolina. For her part, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton barely acknowledged the defeat in her post-primary speech here, except to say that she congratulated Obama on his win. Even when a voter at her rally asked about her defeat, Clinton limited her remarks and made it sound as though she had hardly had a chance. "I'm very very proud to have competed there. It was a close contest going into it," Clinton said. (It was a close race going in, followed by a trouncing on the way out). Clinton said she anticipated a lengthy nominating process ahead -- a shift for her campaign, which has long maintained that she would have the nomination wrapped up by Feb. 5. "I've always said this contest was going to go for a long time," Clinton said.For Bill Clinton, Echoes of Jackson in Obama Win
On Saturday, as Sen. Barack Obama was sweeping up the South Carolina primary, former Pres. Bill Clinton was busy downplaying the significance of Obama's impending win, casting it as a function of the state's demographics and the Illinois senator's heavy African American support. "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. "Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
It was a sour note on which to end the contentious Democratic race in South Carolina. For her part, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton barely acknowledged the defeat in her post-primary speech here, except to say that she congratulated Obama on his win. Even when a voter at her rally asked about her defeat, Clinton limited her remarks and made it sound as though she had hardly had a chance. "I'm very very proud to have competed there. It was a close contest going into it," Clinton said. (It was a close race going in, followed by a trouncing on the way out).
Clinton said she anticipated a lengthy nominating process ahead -- a shift for her campaign, which has long maintained that she would have the nomination wrapped up by Feb. 5. "I've always said this contest was going to go for a long time," Clinton said.
For Bill Clinton, Echoes of Jackson in Obama Win
So now it's on to Super, or Tsunami Tuesday, where I predict nothing in particular gets sorted out. I'll await the professional political writers' outlook on how those states will break, but if we want BO firmly in the lead on 2/6, we're going to have to get our butts in gear.
So why not make like my solidly republican aunt and drop Obama a C-Note on my Obama '8 donations page?
Or pitch in in your state or a neighboring state? I and a co-worker or two are going to see if we can drive south into Northern California to serve the campaign in some capacity. How about you? Tell us what you're role is on super Tuesday in the comments field below. If enough people respond, I'll pick the best and name an upcoming post after you!
(Hey, its not much, but the FEC has rules!)
p.s.
My goodness, but has anyone stopped to compare voter turnout in South Carolina between Democrats and Republicans? You know, the Strom Thurmond-voting reddest state in the world? Barack Obama pulled in 295,091 votes at last tally, Republican winner John McCain garnered only 147,283. The Democrat winner beat the Republican winner by almost 150,000 votes in South Carolina. Total turnout was about 532,000 for the Dems and about 443,000 for the Republicans. In South Carolina. 89,000 more people voted in the Democratic primary than in the Republican.
If we take South Carolina in the general, that is an earthquake.
Aren't we all a little tired of the freaking Clintons impugning BO's integrity. Really, the Clintons? Jim VandeHei and John Harris of the Politico offer our candidate some advice:
Imagine if at the next presidential debate Barack Obama — who is agitated about what he calls Bill Clinton’s misleading criticisms — cocked his head, smiled ruefully and, in Reaganesque “there you go again” tones, said something like this to Hillary Clinton: “You know, I admired some aspects of Bill Clinton’s presidency. But let’s recall that it was precisely these sort of too-cute-by-half statements that caused him to be reprimanded by a federal judge and stripped of his law license. Senator, you may want to go back to those days and that style of politics, but I think most Americans are ready to move on.” Obama pulls punches vs. Clintons
What do you think? Is our candidate best served by punching his opponents in the mouth or by rising above? It seems like he may have made his decision, as you can discern from this radio ad running in South Carolina (or so I read).
Hillary Will Say Anything and Change Nothing (Link plays audio!)
Obama: "I’m Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message."Announcer: "It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now she’s making false attacks on Barack Obama."The Washington Post says Clinton isn’t telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama’s led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class. "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan’s economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA –- even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush’s war in Iraq."Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing. It’s time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America."
Oh snap?
But does this help?
I, myself, feel a growing resentment toward the greatest president of my lifetime (Sorry Jimmy Carter) and his wife for how they've turned the dogs loose on a fellow democrat. I feel resentment and want to ask them if they think I'm stupid. That I can't figure out what BO's Reagan comparison meant. That I don't realize that it was right on the money. I support BO because he can be our Reagan. I don't want a repeat of the politics that won the republicans the congress for the first time in, what, seventy-five years? I don't want a bunch of incremental BS that leaves us with a country who's ready to give the republicans a shot again in four or eight years. I want a candidate that can convince the broader middle and right of America that us progressives have ideas that can make their lives better; that our values are their values and we share common cause. I know who that candidate is, and it damn sure ain't Hil. But here he is stuck in this morass of incremental tactical politics, arguing about what he said and what he meant instead of pushing his broader agenda.
So is it better to bring a gun to the gunfight, or is it better to just skip the damned gunfight and trust that we're wise enough to tell who the bad actors are?
Myself, I just don't know.
So, I was sent the following two youtube clips. The first is a speech Obama made about the war in Iowa a couple months ago. The second is a mash-up of various Clinton statements on the war, including her speech on the floor explaining her vote to authorize the use of force.
I'll also link to Obama's speech in 2002, eight days before Clinton's speech as shown in the youtube clip. It's judgment, not experience that matters. Obama hasthis knack for being right about things, even when being right is unpopular; Clinton has a knack for being wrong about things if being right is unpopular.
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq | October 02, 2002 October 2, 2002 Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
October 2, 2002
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Clinton keeps making this argument about her experience. But what expereince does she really have? Obama has a longer career as a legislator. And what good is experience if your experience consistently leads you to the wrong conclusion? About Iraq, about Iran, about bankruptcy?
Give me judgment, you can keep "experience."
The Western Oregon Plan Revision, or WOPR (say "whopper"), is a plan by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the federal agency largely responsible for managing the federal range land, to vastly increase logging, especially of old growth trees, in western Oregon. This is probably the biggest issue that we here in southern Oregon deal with on a day to day basis. Public opinion, as I understand it, is overwhelmingly against the plan but the opinion of Oregonians is frankly not that important to the BLM's decision making. Before looking at the WOPR and why it's so nasty, it's important to see where its come from and what it seeks to change. As most of us remember, the spotted owl crisis was big news at the end of George HW Bush's presidency. One of the early successes of the Clinton administration is the Northwest Forest Plan, which resolved that crisis. The Northwest Forest Plan was a compromise measure that protected some areas of old growth forest, and opened some to logging. A federal court held that the Northwest Forest Plan represented the legal minimum required under the Endangered Species Act to protect the spotted owl. After the plan was passed, a timber industry trade group sued the BLM in federal court. They alledged that the Plan violated the ancient and obscure Oregon and California Act, which according to their reading required the "O&C" lands in Oregon to be used primarily to produce timber. The trade group lost repeatedly to the Clinton Administration Justice Department. Eight years later, the Bush administration settled the litigation, granting the trade group's contentions and agreeing that the O&C act was in conflict and over-rode the Northwest Forest Plan. Given the passage of time, the federal court rulings to the contrary and the character of the administration, I will leave an an exercise to the reader why the settlement was made. The upshot of the settlement was that the Northwest Forest Plan is now considered illegal by the BLM because of the O&C act. The ugly baby of the settlement is the WOPR, an ostensible attempt to comply with the "law." It's a cozy agreement between parties that were really no longer adversarial, and as you might expect, it tracks the interest of the timber industry a lot more closely than it tracks the public interest. Here are some of its provisions cut 139,700 acres of old growth and mature forestbuild 1,000 miles of roadsmoves clear-cutting up to the "preferred" method of harvestcut in half the riparian buffers that provide protection for watercourses It used to be that Southern Oregon's economy relied on resource extraction. Theses days, however, we live on recreation. The Rogue River is a huge toursit draw for fishing and rafting. We have beautiful mountains that are a joy to hike in. We have charming, peaceful towns that I encourage you all to visit. But are you going to want to if the river's full of silt, the salmon are dead, the mountains are cut to stumps and the charming towns are reduced to launching points for off road vehicles? In the first round of public comment, the BLM received over 3000 comments from the public. Over 90% of them expressed disapproval of the plan. I hope that a new administration will change the priorities for our public lands. Judging from where I'm writing, I guess it's apparent who I hope will be able to do that. If you would like to submit your comments to the BLM, or learn more about the WOPR, you can visit the BLM's website. Don't forget to look at some environmental groups for context. Try the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (for whom I am Legal Director), or Oregon Wild, or what looks to be a real clearing house of WOPR info at Oregon Heritage Forests.
The Western Oregon Plan Revision, or WOPR (say "whopper"), is a plan by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the federal agency largely responsible for managing the federal range land, to vastly increase logging, especially of old growth trees, in western Oregon. This is probably the biggest issue that we here in southern Oregon deal with on a day to day basis. Public opinion, as I understand it, is overwhelmingly against the plan but the opinion of Oregonians is frankly not that important to the BLM's decision making. Before looking at the WOPR and why it's so nasty, it's important to see where its come from and what it seeks to change.
As most of us remember, the spotted owl crisis was big news at the end of George HW Bush's presidency. One of the early successes of the Clinton administration is the Northwest Forest Plan, which resolved that crisis. The Northwest Forest Plan was a compromise measure that protected some areas of old growth forest, and opened some to logging. A federal court held that the Northwest Forest Plan represented the legal minimum required under the Endangered Species Act to protect the spotted owl.
After the plan was passed, a timber industry trade group sued the BLM in federal court. They alledged that the Plan violated the ancient and obscure Oregon and California Act, which according to their reading required the "O&C" lands in Oregon to be used primarily to produce timber. The trade group lost repeatedly to the Clinton Administration Justice Department. Eight years later, the Bush administration settled the litigation, granting the trade group's contentions and agreeing that the O&C act was in conflict and over-rode the Northwest Forest Plan. Given the passage of time, the federal court rulings to the contrary and the character of the administration, I will leave an an exercise to the reader why the settlement was made.
The upshot of the settlement was that the Northwest Forest Plan is now considered illegal by the BLM because of the O&C act. The ugly baby of the settlement is the WOPR, an ostensible attempt to comply with the "law." It's a cozy agreement between parties that were really no longer adversarial, and as you might expect, it tracks the interest of the timber industry a lot more closely than it tracks the public interest. Here are some of its provisions
It used to be that Southern Oregon's economy relied on resource extraction. Theses days, however, we live on recreation. The Rogue River is a huge toursit draw for fishing and rafting. We have beautiful mountains that are a joy to hike in. We have charming, peaceful towns that I encourage you all to visit. But are you going to want to if the river's full of silt, the salmon are dead, the mountains are cut to stumps and the charming towns are reduced to launching points for off road vehicles?
In the first round of public comment, the BLM received over 3000 comments from the public. Over 90% of them expressed disapproval of the plan. I hope that a new administration will change the priorities for our public lands. Judging from where I'm writing, I guess it's apparent who I hope will be able to do that.
If you would like to submit your comments to the BLM, or learn more about the WOPR, you can visit the BLM's website. Don't forget to look at some environmental groups for context. Try the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (for whom I am Legal Director), or Oregon Wild, or what looks to be a real clearing house of WOPR info at Oregon Heritage Forests.
10. Quality of life. The WOPR proposes widespread clearcuting of public forest, which could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon’s spectacular landscape. 9. Peace and quiet. Clearcutting of old growth forest and proposed “Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas” threaten peace and quite for rural residents and visitors. Over 100,000 acres would be promoted as destinations for OHVs, most adjacent to Oregonian’s private residences. 8. Clean water and salmon. By logging near streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water. 7. Ancient forests. BLM lands in western Oregon contain about 1-million acres of our remaining older forests. The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon’s best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest (an area the size of Delaware) would be put in “Timber Management Areas,” where clearcutting is emphasized. 6. Wildlife and plant habitat. Wildlife rely on BLM forests such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. An increase in noxious, invasive weeds and wildlife species is predicted under the WOPR. 5. Sustainable economies. Healthy, protected forests are one of Oregon’s most important natural assets. While rampant old growth clearcutting promises short-term economic boom to a few well-connected mill owners, an economic bust is easily foreseeable under the Bush plan as fish, wildlife and the old growth forests that they rely on dwindle. 4. Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan is a landmark agreement that private, state and federal landowners rely on to protect threatened old growth species while producing timber in compliance with environmental law. Removing BLM forests would unravel the whole fabric of the Plan and produce uncertainty for other landowners. 3. It is illegal. The BLM cannot eliminate protection for old-growth forests, without undermining the Northwest Forest Plan and protections for threatened and endangered species and clean water. To do so, the BLM needs to violate the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and other laws. 2. Global warming and fire. While the Bush administration ignores climate change in the WOPR, by converting moist old growth forests into dry flammable tree plantations, the WOPR will increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and places communities at enhanced risk of uncharacteristic fire. 1. There is a better way. We should protect what is left of Oregon’s old growth heritage forests, and restore those forests that have been degraded. Half of BLM forests were clearcut in the past century and converted to overstocked tree plantations. Thinning small trees could offer more than 2 billion board feet of commercially valuable timber if actively thinned while preserving our last, best public lands for generations to come.
The WOPR proposes widespread clearcuting of public forest, which could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon’s spectacular landscape.
9. Peace and quiet.
Clearcutting of old growth forest and proposed “Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas” threaten peace and quite for rural residents and visitors. Over 100,000 acres would be promoted as destinations for OHVs, most adjacent to Oregonian’s private residences.
8. Clean water and salmon.
By logging near streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water.
7. Ancient forests.
BLM lands in western Oregon contain about 1-million acres of our remaining older forests. The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon’s best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest (an area the size of Delaware) would be put in “Timber Management Areas,” where clearcutting is emphasized.
6. Wildlife and plant habitat.
Wildlife rely on BLM forests such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. An increase in noxious, invasive weeds and wildlife species is predicted under the WOPR.
5. Sustainable economies.
Healthy, protected forests are one of Oregon’s most important natural assets. While rampant old growth clearcutting promises short-term economic boom to a few well-connected mill owners, an economic bust is easily foreseeable under the Bush plan as fish, wildlife and the old growth forests that they rely on dwindle.
4. Northwest Forest Plan.
The Northwest Forest Plan is a landmark agreement that private, state and federal landowners rely on to protect threatened old growth species while producing timber in compliance with environmental law. Removing BLM forests would unravel the whole fabric of the Plan and produce uncertainty for other landowners.
3. It is illegal.
The BLM cannot eliminate protection for old-growth forests, without undermining the Northwest Forest Plan and protections for threatened and endangered species and clean water. To do so, the BLM needs to violate the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and other laws.
2. Global warming and fire.
While the Bush administration ignores climate change in the WOPR, by converting moist old growth forests into dry flammable tree plantations, the WOPR will increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and places communities at enhanced risk of uncharacteristic fire.
1. There is a better way.
And finally, here are my comments (sadly, without the footnotes):
Ed ShepardWestern Oregon Plan Revisions P.O. Box 2965Portland, OR 97208Representative Greg Walden843 East Main Street, Ste 400Medford, OR 97504Senator Gordon SmithSecurity Plaza1175 East Main, Suite 2DMedford, OR 97504Senator Ron WydenFederal Courthouse310 West 6th StRoom 118Medford, OR 97501January 10, 2008Re: Comments on the Western Oregon Plan Revision DEISDear Sirs,Thank you for accepting these comments on the WOPR DEIS. I have been following this issue with some degree of passion and while my comments are generally reflected by those of the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center as submitted by Joseph Vaille, I feel compelled to comment on my own behalf on what I believe is a tragically misguided exercise by the BLM.My specific concern, which was made clear to me when I attended the Medford BLM’s WOPR presentation on October 16, 2007, is that the BLM intends to “increase” old growth stands over the next 100 years through management. As was made clear to me at the 10/16 presentation, this plan means that BLM intends to achieve late successional style canopy structure by selective cutting. I asked at the time what scientific support the BLM had for the contention that the ecological functions of an old plantation, however carefully managed, would replicate those of a natural forest. The answer was that the BLM had no such evidence.The assumption is that a forest that is frequently cut, if its done in such a way as to reproduce the canopy structure of a natural forest, can replicate the ecological function of a natural forest. This assumption is a rather bold one, and that the BLM is making it without extensive study in support of it seems to me to be a clear violation of the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirement to carefully analyze the impacts of federal actions that could adversely affect the human environment.This assumption seems unfounded to me and counterintuitive for any number of reasons. For example, the BLM will be cutting out all the damaged, dead and dying trees. When standing, dead and dying trees are important habitat to owls and woodpeckers and fishers and nuthatches etc.; important habitat for numerous ground species and trout and salmon when they fall; and important to soil health as they decompose. Indeed, “the impact of the individual tree gradually fades as it is decomposed and its resources dispersed, but the woody structure may remain for centuries and influence habitat conditions for millennia.” By removing damaged, dying and decaying trees from its managed forests, the BLM is unavoidably producing a very different ecosystem; one that cannot hope to replace true old growth.The continuing presence of damaged, dead and dying trees in the forest is but one of many obvious differences that could potentially result in dramatic differences between managed and natural old growth forests. What about soil quality? Disturbance from actual cutting activities? Fragmentation of habitat from continued and expanded logging roads? Two things seem clear: first, the assumption that a managed forest can replicate the characteristics of a natural late successional forest is neither intuitively nor scientifically well supported; second, the assumption that a managed forest cannot replicate the characteristics of a natural late successional forest is supported both intuitively and scientifically. Indeed, federal agencies have so concluded on at least two separate occasions.The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, a joint study conducted by the Forest Service, NMFS, BLM, Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service and the EPA noted "Late-successional forest communities are the result of a unique interaction of disturbance, regeneration, succession and climate that probably can never be created with management. At present, we do not even fully understand the structure, species composition, and function of these forests. The best we can hope to accomplish through silviculture is to at least partially restore or accelerate the development of some of the structural and compositional features of such forests. Because they will be regenerated by different processes during a different period from that of the existing late-successional forests, it is highly likely that silviculturally created stand will look and function differently from current old stands that developed over the last 1,000 years. Consequently, conserving a network of natural old-growth stands is imperative for preserving biodiversity into the future." The Northwest Forest Plan notes "Late-successional forest communities are the result of a unique interaction of disturbance, regeneration, succession, and climate that can never be recreated in their entirety through management. The structure, species composition, and function of these forests are, in their entirety, not fully understood." Given the clear and consistent conclusion by the federal agencies that one cannot cut one’s way to old growth, the Bureau’s contrary contention seems, to use a frightening legal phrase, arbitrary and capricious.There are many more specific problems with the WOPR that I will rely on my better educated colleagues to illuminate, but this basic assumption underlies so much of the WOPR that I feel that my specific comment was necessary. Thank you for taking the time to consider them. I ask you, Mr. Shepard, to create a new EIS that addresses my specific complaint, as well as the many others expressed by KS Wild and allied organizations; and I ask you, Mr. Walden, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wyden, to consider the overwhelming voice of your constituency and enact legislation that will genuinely protect our public lands.Sincerely, Christopher Len
Ed ShepardWestern Oregon Plan Revisions P.O. Box 2965Portland, OR 97208
Representative Greg Walden843 East Main Street, Ste 400Medford, OR 97504
Senator Gordon SmithSecurity Plaza1175 East Main, Suite 2DMedford, OR 97504
Senator Ron WydenFederal Courthouse310 West 6th StRoom 118Medford, OR 97501
January 10, 2008
Re: Comments on the Western Oregon Plan Revision DEIS
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for accepting these comments on the WOPR DEIS. I have been following this issue with some degree of passion and while my comments are generally reflected by those of the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center as submitted by Joseph Vaille, I feel compelled to comment on my own behalf on what I believe is a tragically misguided exercise by the BLM.
My specific concern, which was made clear to me when I attended the Medford BLM’s WOPR presentation on October 16, 2007, is that the BLM intends to “increase” old growth stands over the next 100 years through management. As was made clear to me at the 10/16 presentation, this plan means that BLM intends to achieve late successional style canopy structure by selective cutting. I asked at the time what scientific support the BLM had for the contention that the ecological functions of an old plantation, however carefully managed, would replicate those of a natural forest. The answer was that the BLM had no such evidence.
The assumption is that a forest that is frequently cut, if its done in such a way as to reproduce the canopy structure of a natural forest, can replicate the ecological function of a natural forest. This assumption is a rather bold one, and that the BLM is making it without extensive study in support of it seems to me to be a clear violation of the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirement to carefully analyze the impacts of federal actions that could adversely affect the human environment.
This assumption seems unfounded to me and counterintuitive for any number of reasons. For example, the BLM will be cutting out all the damaged, dead and dying trees. When standing, dead and dying trees are important habitat to owls and woodpeckers and fishers and nuthatches etc.; important habitat for numerous ground species and trout and salmon when they fall; and important to soil health as they decompose. Indeed, “the impact of the individual tree gradually fades as it is decomposed and its resources dispersed, but the woody structure may remain for centuries and influence habitat conditions for millennia.” By removing damaged, dying and decaying trees from its managed forests, the BLM is unavoidably producing a very different ecosystem; one that cannot hope to replace true old growth.
The continuing presence of damaged, dead and dying trees in the forest is but one of many obvious differences that could potentially result in dramatic differences between managed and natural old growth forests. What about soil quality? Disturbance from actual cutting activities? Fragmentation of habitat from continued and expanded logging roads?
Two things seem clear: first, the assumption that a managed forest can replicate the characteristics of a natural late successional forest is neither intuitively nor scientifically well supported; second, the assumption that a managed forest cannot replicate the characteristics of a natural late successional forest is supported both intuitively and scientifically. Indeed, federal agencies have so concluded on at least two separate occasions.
The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, a joint study conducted by the Forest Service, NMFS, BLM, Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service and the EPA noted "Late-successional forest communities are the result of a unique interaction of disturbance, regeneration, succession and climate that probably can never be created with management. At present, we do not even fully understand the structure, species composition, and function of these forests. The best we can hope to accomplish through silviculture is to at least partially restore or accelerate the development of some of the structural and compositional features of such forests. Because they will be regenerated by different processes during a different period from that of the existing late-successional forests, it is highly likely that silviculturally created stand will look and function differently from current old stands that developed over the last 1,000 years. Consequently, conserving a network of natural old-growth stands is imperative for preserving biodiversity into the future."
The Northwest Forest Plan notes "Late-successional forest communities are the result of a unique interaction of disturbance, regeneration, succession, and climate that can never be recreated in their entirety through management. The structure, species composition, and function of these forests are, in their entirety, not fully understood." Given the clear and consistent conclusion by the federal agencies that one cannot cut one’s way to old growth, the Bureau’s contrary contention seems, to use a frightening legal phrase, arbitrary and capricious.
There are many more specific problems with the WOPR that I will rely on my better educated colleagues to illuminate, but this basic assumption underlies so much of the WOPR that I feel that my specific comment was necessary. Thank you for taking the time to consider them. I ask you, Mr. Shepard, to create a new EIS that addresses my specific complaint, as well as the many others expressed by KS Wild and allied organizations; and I ask you, Mr. Walden, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wyden, to consider the overwhelming voice of your constituency and enact legislation that will genuinely protect our public lands.Sincerely, Christopher Len
Please take time to comment, even if your comments are very basic. Even one line helps. These forests may be in Oregon, they are America's public lands, so you and everyone you know should have a say in how they're managed. If you're moved to do more than just comment, I love you!
Thanks for your time!
Oof.
Here's what I think happened - Clinton's big weakness is that no one thinks of her as a person, we think of her as a projection of a person. She's a good/bad mother, a good/bad wife, a liar, a saint, a murderer, a weasel, a liberal traitor, a Machiavellian stiletto artist. Whatever. She's been defined as 1,000 different things, but she'd been defined. She was a figment, never a person.
This was killing her. She had no shot so long as she was a figment running against a phenomenon. Well, we humanized her. An impossible political transformation. The impetus was an out of character extemporaneous comment by Obama that sounded like a slur to many: "You're likable enough." What does that mean? and why would you say it to someone? And this on top of John Edwards' shockingly effective (or so I thought) knife-job:
“Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That’s exactly what happens. It’s fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Senator Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story, I think is just not — that’s not the kind of discussion we should be having. I think that every time this happens — what will occur every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack. Every single time …. But the — the one thing I do not argue with him about is he believes deeply in change and I believe deeply in change. And anytime you’re fighting for that, I mean, I didn’t hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she’s not, we hear them.”
And she looks ganged up upon.
And then her voice cracks.
Suddenly she looks like an honest to goodness woman, with feelings and everything. Someone who cares what other people say about her, and hurts because so many of the things said are hurtful. She's humanized and we realize how truthfully unfair the world has been to her, and all the undecideds break her way. She improved her share of the female voters dramatically since Iowa. I was on a website last night that my partner's introduced me to, the urban baby message board and it was stunning to see this outpouring of support by the far-and-away mostly female posters. Before last night, Clinton posts ranged from the wistful to the brutally dismissive. Last night they were sympathetic, and they were dominating the board. Those women were thinking of Clinton in a whole new way, as one of them. Not a coincidence, Clinton won today because she won over the women.
Now, I imagine that this will be temporary - we'll all forget that Clinton is a breathing human deserving of respect and remember that in actuality, she's whatever figment we thought she was before today. She'll once again be the good/bad mother, the good/bad wife, the liar, the saint, the murderer, the weasel, the liberal traitor, the Machiavellian stiletto artist. Whatever. It will happen because she's not a very good politician and because its easier for the country to think of her as the thing we've always thought of her as: boogeyman, shadow, robot.
Now, maybe this post is a little too elegiac. It's always important to remember who we support and why. We're here for Obama. We support him because he's the one that will build the party, get things done. Our best shot at a new Kennedy, a liberal Regan and it's worth the Hail Mary pass for a reward that big. Do we stop the movement, pack up and go home because of an unexpected 3% loss in New Hampshire? Heck no. Here's some things we can do though:
We're all here because we support Barack Obama, but I think its fair to say that most of us have no hard feelings toward Hillary Clinton. We think she'd make a fine president; unfortunately for her, someone better is running. Since getting trounced in Iowa, Clinton has been scrambling to regain footing. She has looked tired, scattered and uncertain. One thing that has been coming up time and again are a lot of references Clinton has made to the obscure political hits of the eighties.
CLINTON: ...So I think we have to be very, very clear. You know, deterrence worked during the Cold War in large measure because the United States made it clear to the Soviet Union that there would be massive retaliation. We have to make it clear to those states that would give safe haven to stateless terrorists, that would launch a nuclear attack against America that they would also face a very heavy retaliation. Debate Transcript
CLINTON: ...So I think we have to be very, very clear. You know, deterrence worked during the Cold War in large measure because the United States made it clear to the Soviet Union that there would be massive retaliation.
We have to make it clear to those states that would give safe haven to stateless terrorists, that would launch a nuclear attack against America that they would also face a very heavy retaliation. Debate Transcript
If this is a purposeful strategy, it is a strange one. The 80s were not good years for us Democrats. We had to sit through the disasterous Regan presidency, and the marginally less disasterous Bush (1) presidency and I have to wonder why it is that she thinks her electorate yearns for those years. Seriosuly, where's the beef? What's next, avoid the noid?
