Bush took office when the national debt was $5.7 trillion dollars. He will leave office with the national debt well over $11 trillion ($10.25 trillion today, plus $700 billion bailout, plus the continuing growth of the national debt as a result of a deficit over $400 billion/year. So George Bush added well over $5 trillion to our national debt (that is $15,000 for every human being in the United States).
Contrast to the market crash. Over the past year, the stock market's 5,000 biggest U.S. companies lost $8.3 trillion in value. Doing the math, that means the remaining value of those 5,000 companies is about $11.5 trillion.
So basically, this country would need to sell all 5,000 of its biggest companies to pay off its debt (obviously, it can't really do that since it doesn't actually own those companies). Remember that the debt was shrinking steadily under Bill Clinton. It has now doubled under Bush.
We LITERALLY can't afford four more years of out of control Republican giveaways to the rich. We can't afford four more years of Bush/McCain policies. Frankly, we can barely afford four more months of it. But thanks to our democracy, we can finally turn that corner, four months from now.
I'll admit it: I'm tired. No, I'm exhausted. I miss my kids. I miss my wife. I miss going to sleep early, without a knot in my stomach, without wondering if I could make even more of a difference in this election by staying up just another 10 minutes.
I keep telling myself -- and my wife keeps telling me -- that this is The Good Fight. This is the election that gives us back our country. One where we get a President sees the Bill of Rights as an oracle, not an obstacle. One where we earn a President who lives our pain instead of ignoring it.
But the poignant image in my mind, when I look back at the past year, is my baby -- now 18 months old -- learning to more and more effectively tell me that she misses me. The sad looks when she saw the suitcase as I packed for the Pennsylvania primary. The silent "bye bye" waves as I left for meetings. And now, as she gains her voice, the teared-up "bye bye da da". Yes, my wife is supportive -- she knows the stakes. My seven year old understands too -- although even she has matured over the year from superficial "Obama is cool" to issue oriented "Palin scares me because she likes people to shoot wolves from airplanes".
In this last month, this home stretch, I've worried I would start to lag. I gave up a high paying career as a litigator in large part because I couldn't conceive of a life where my family came second. Yesterday afternoon, I was wondering how I could keep the fire going when my baby daughter next chimed a teary "bye bye da da" then started to cry.
Last night I got my answer. We were registering voters -- and signing up volunteers -- at the Earth Wind and Fire concert. Twelve of us had backstage passes, yet none of us left our posts outside of the concert venue. I was there with my wife, and now our baby was at home with a babysitter. To top it off, we had heard a few under the breath comments -- and some loud ones -- about Obama that were less than honorable. So it was, near the nadir of my motivation, that the concert let out.
Out of the crowd came a loud voice -- "That's what I'm talking about!" I looked up, and saw immediately a community organizer. A man who, whether or not he had ever organized anything, had the presence, the personality, the fire, to light up a crowd and galvanize a community. He went on -- "Fired up! That's what I'm talking about," pointing at the twelve of us. People around were listening. People in the crowd were seeing what I was seeing (although maybe appreciating it differently): A young African American man, seeing what nobody expects to see in nominally Republican Fresno -- a big Obama presence. Then the line that put the fire back into my gut: "That's what I fought for. That's why I enlisted in the military. That's why I fought for America."
He's fired up. He's a voice that we need, one of millions of voices of reason, of patriotism, of freedom. His story is an American story. Not the false Americana of a 1950's that never was -- but the real, gritty, story of a man who loves the American people enough to enroll and fight in the military even for a commander in chief with whom he disagrees politically.
He was the reason we were there last night. It didn't take more than my asking once to have him promise to become a regular at our office -- he was saying yes before I got the question all the way out. And I dare -- DARE -- any voter he phonebanks to, I DARE any voter whose door he knocks on, to question Obama's patriotism, Obama's fitness for office. And when this election is over, I hope that the campaign will inspire him, and other patriots, to continue on the trail that Barack is blazing.
So I can do it. I can put my family through this. We are part of a team, each of us, from our own background, with our own hopes, and dreams and families. But we have a common goal, a common purpose, and a common patriotism, and we will move this nation forward together. And our children will be far better for it.
Four weeks from now, we will change the course of history. But it will be chorus of lone, loud, inspiring voices, rising millions of times from millions of crowds over the course of this journey, joined together over race, geography, economics, religion, and the other false dividing points that marks the true change that Barack and all of us have brought. We are one nation. We are one people. We will celebrate our differences, but never again will we allow our differences to divide us, or divert us from making this nation better for all within it.
Four more weeks.
I know a lot of us are exhausted. A lot of us want to catch up on our sleep, our day jobs, and our families. Why are we still in this sprint? Because this is our time. And Change We Can Believe In is also Change We Can Achieve.
Want to know how phone calls, canvassing, and small donations can switch an election's outcome? This site contains the answer: https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html The electoral vote result in past elections would have been different with the switch of the following number of popular votes:
In 2004, 57,787 votes would have given us President Kerry
In 2000, 269 votes would have given us President Gore
In 1996, 575,515 votes would have given us President Dole
In 1992, 284,837 votes would have have made Bush 41 a two termer
In 1988, 537,766 votes would have given us President Dukakis
In 1984, 2,675,811 votes would have given us President Mondale (I know, that result wouldn't have changed based on some phone calls)
In 1980, 731,189 votes would have made Carter a two-termer
In 1976, 9,246 votes would have re-elected President Ford
In 1972, 3,174,786 votes would have elected President McGovern and spared us Watergate
In 1968, 135,284 votes would have elected President Humphry
In 1964, 2,058,258 votes would have elected President Goldwater
In 1960, 11,874 votes would have put Nixon in the White House much earlier
269 votes. 9,246 votes. 11,874 votes. These are all numbers small enough that a mid-sized city like Fresno can provide the field support to switch the outcome ALL ON ITS OWN.
At Camp Obama, Kevin Johnson told us that we need to not just stop at the finish line, but to SPRINT THROUGH the finish line. He's right. We can make those numbers.
If this is a 269, or 9,246, or 11,874 vote election, lets make sure we don't wake up the morning of November 5 and think "we could have been the difference." No, we're going to wake up and think "we WERE the difference." Us. Right here in Fresno. Yes we can!
I've watched with frustration as the nation seems fixated on on anything but issues. As often as Obama tries to bring focus to the things that make our lives better, the McCain campaign distracts and distorts. Indeed, McCain has now taken to distorting a report about how he was distorting the facts. It is now wonder Americans are sick of politics as usual.
Well, I got a huge breath of fresh air today. Literally. I stayed up until the wee hours last night getting my work done so I could take a few hours today to go with my daughter's second grade class to the zoo. As I watched her incredibly hard working and dedicated teacher go about the crucial work of shaping my child's education, I was reminded of how many true heroes we have living in our midst. The people who do the hard work, day in and day out, of shaping a society we are proud of.
The real question in this election is not who said what, or who runs the meanest ads. No. The real question is whose policies will make the lives and work of these heroes easier. Who will help firefighters and police save lives. Who will help teachers shape the next generation.
The answer to that question: Barack Obama.
I am still shocked that anybody -- much less a VP candidate from a major party -- would mock the hard, important work of community organizing. Isn't the PTA a form of community organizing?
If Palin organized middle class parents in a small community through the PTA, and Obama organized the economically disempowered on the South side of Chicago, why is it that Republicans look at his work as illegitimate and hers as experience that qualifies her for the Presidency?
Simply asking the question suggests the answer. Draw your own conclusions. I've drawn mine.
A few years on city council and two years as governor?
Barack Obama has convinced much of America, and now seems to have convinced John McCain, that raw quantity of experience is not the right criteria for picking a President. After all, in 2004, nobody had more experience as a post-9/11 President as George Bush did, and we all know how his reelection worked out for America.
But McCain took only half of the lesson to heart. The second part of Obama's convincing argument is that it is the quality of judgment that is most critical. On that point, Palin, like McCain, fails the test.
Although I haven't heard anybody mention it (in the hour or so they've been discussing it on the news), I think we will see Palin used primarily to push McCain's "drill every drop of oil, no matter the cost" argument. Just like his overfocus on Iraq led him to overlook other regional threats (Afghanistan for example), we see McCain's lack of judgment playing out in picking a VP to primarily push a single point.
Barack Obama has run as a change candidate.
Before John McCain's conversion to a doctrinaire Bush clone,McCain called himself a "maverick".
Obama and McCain have a chance to bring maverick change today by agreeing to bring true democracy to our presidential elections for the first time in our nation's history.
As we all remember, George Bush 43 was elected president in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes. In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by a reported 3 million vote margin -- but almost lost the election. Ohio's electoral votes went to Bush based on a 118,775 vote margin. According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 160,000 Kerry votes were lost due to various illegal vote fraud and suppression tactics. But for this illegal activity, the winner of the popular vote by a nearly 3 million vote margin would have lost the election.
The message is clear: Our nation runs an unacceptably enormous risk of electing a president who lost the popular vote.
There is a movement afoot to solve this problem. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ is promoting an agreement between various states where all of their electoral votes would be given to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome in any particular state. To avoid "unliateral disarmament" (where for example, blue states agree to give their votes to the nationwide winner, but red states do not, creating a situation where the republican wins if he wins the popular vote or the majority of electoral votes), the agreement only takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes (270) have signed on.
Many states are reluctant to enter into this agreement. It is understandible, given that even a state with three electoral votes will see more campaign spending and attention than California, with its 55 electoral votes. But how about a trial run?
If Barack Obama asks the big blue states to get on board with a trial run for true electoral change, and if John McCain asks the big red states to get on board with a trial run for a maverick trial of true democratic elections, we can have a guarantee that our next president will have the support of a majority of the voters in this nation.
If John McCain or Barack Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote by a margin in the millions, this nation will enter an era of civil unrest unprecedented in modern times. Imagine the fury over an unpopular war, costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives, extended for four years based on an anachronistic electoral vote system that ignores the popular vote. Imagine the fury over ending that war when a majority of voters cast their lot with the candidate who promised to continue and expand it.
Florida in 2000 was decided by a vote margin in the hundreds. Five states in 2000 were decided by a margin of under one half of one percent. Three states in 2004 were decided by less than one percent, and Ohio's result will be forever questioned. It would be a constitutional crisis, a constitutional disaster, if we wake up on November 5 to the headline "Ohio, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico results too close to call; Candidates challenging voting irregularities in those states." Florida was only settled in 2000 when the Supreme Court stepped in. The potential for a disaster with multiple states in the "Florida posture" is too big to ignore at any time. We must not ignore it at this especially sensitive time, while the nation is at war, fighting terrorism, and struggling for its economic footing.
We need not decide today to scrap the electoral college permanently. But we should at least put in place an interstate compact that assures us that for this election, at this enormonus inflection point in American history, our votes will not be overturned by the electoral college system -- and that a close call in a few states would not cause a crisis if the national results are even slightly decisive.
** Disclaimer: The opinions in this post are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Obama campaign.
As we transition from the primary election to the general election, it is important to remember why the primary was so gripping. Certainly, there were the candidates themselves. However, the overriding thing making the primary exciting (sadly, a thing that is unique to the Democratic Party primary election) was this simple fact: Every vote had a chance to be THE vote that made the difference. Voters in California counted. Voters in Alaska counted. Nobody knew how the superdelegates would vote; there was disagreement on how to count Michigan and Florida; there were questions about whether pledged delegates could defect. Ultimately, perhaps because of that very uncertainty, every voter wondered "what if this came down to me?"
And it could have. It could have been a one-vote delegate majority picking the nominee. That one delegate could have been selected by a paper thin one vote margin. In short, the primary was exciting because every vote had the chance to be THE vote. Moreover, every door I knocked on, every voter I helped through the Voter Protection Program, could have been THE voter.
I live in California. We have the most electoral college votes, yet our state is so solidly Democratic in Presidential elections that many wonder if their votes matter. On a simple level, of course the votes matter. Winning by a narrow electoral vote margin may put Barack Obama into the White House; winning by a broad popular vote margin will give him the influence he needs to really change things for all of us. On an only slightly more complex level, however, our role as citizens is more than just voting. If we can afford to contribute to causes we believe in, we should. If we have time to call other voters (say voters in swing states) and make our case, we should. If we have time to travel, to canvass, to register voters, to participate in voter protection, we should
We each get only one vote. But we also each have three months to participate in our democracy and change the outcome of this election. The primaries were exciting because each of us wondered, "what if my vote picks the delegate who puts my candidate over the top?" In this general election, we can ask: What if those twenty voters I called every day for 100 days, those 2,000 other Americans who I talked with about our democracy, what if those voters give New Mexico and its electoral votes to Barack? And what if those make the difference?
The primary may have seen more exciting. It may have seemed to value our votes more highly. But that is an illusion. In the primary we picked between two candidates who would carry forward much of the same agenda. In the general election, we can pick between war and peace; debt and prosperity; cynicism and hope; McCain and Obama. And we can pick not just with our votes, but with our voices and our time. Nothing is more exciting than that.
For those who are interested, here is the platform we submitted as a result of our platform meetings in Fresno:
1. Begin the platform with “we the people”
a. Make it a platform plank that grassroots input be formalized and incorporated into every future platform.
Our Constitution starts with the words "We the People". The Constitution was a watershed event, a demarcation point between all that came before and the healthy democracies that have since spread across the globe. But for all of its brilliance and importance, the Constitution was written by a small group of elites -- and as such needed to be amended nearly immediately to provide such basic freedoms as freedom of religion and speech.
In little more than two centuries, the democracy that our Constitution birthed has reached adulthood. The people have been empowered. We the people have been asked what we think -- and what we think will matter. The Democratic Party has today made history by giving every American the tools of democracy, incorporating into this platform the thoughts, the needs, the dreams and the hopes of the People of the United States, as expressed at kitchen tables and meeting rooms throughout this nation. We must enshrine this watershed moment – our watershed moment – as a fundamental right.
This is the time that our democracy became fully participatory, and our party must recognize that no platform of this or any political party, now or in the future, is legitimate without open, public participation.
So let us celebrate the ascendancy of participatory democracy by opening our platform with the same words that birthed our democracy: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do" embrace and affirm the Constitution of the United States of America, and this platform of the Democratic Party, written by the people and for the people.
2. Health care
a. Universal health care
Access to health care is a universal human right. Health care is not a right to be earned at the workplace, inherited by accident of birth, or offered only to those unlikely to need it.
For too long, the tragedies of divorce, illness, job loss, and other major life events have been compounded by the loss of health insurance. For too long, hard working Americans have been forced to choose between feeding their children and immunizing their children. For too long, insurance companies have cost Americans their lives, their health, and their privacy by second guessing the medical decisions of doctors and patients. For too long, Americans have looked wistfully to other nations where illness and bankruptcy, where poverty and poor health, are not inexorably linked.
Our health insurance system is broken. The system we have is not slightly broken and in need of repair, but is irreparably outdated, unfeeling, dysfunctional, and in many cases deadly to those caught in its gears.
We have the best doctors and nurses in the world. We have the most innovative universities, scientists, and pharmaceutical researchers in the world. We must do better for our citizens while recognizing, rewarding and nurturing these American heroes.
The fear that has turned progress into paralysis is that in fixing access to health care, we will harm the economy and break all that is good about American health care.
This fear, this false choice, is an insult to the ingenuity of this nation. This nation cracked the atom. This nation landed a man on the moon. This nation is a beacon of light for freedom, and literally gave the world the light bulb. And the personal computer. And the internet. And the internal combustion engine. To doubt we can achieve universal health insurance while strengthening our economy and improving medical care is to doubt the very fabric of American ingenuity.
We are not a nation that stands quivering in the corner, cowed by fear of failure. We are not a nation that can abide the suffering of millions because we doubt our resourcefulness and creativity. We are not a nation so bereft of human feeling that we are afraid to do for our sick, uninsured brethren that which we would have them do for us.
The goal of this nation must be to adopt a universal health care system while nurturing the unmatched medical care and exceptional medical and research professionals who bless those Americans fortunate enough to have access to them. We must also ensure that, in remaking our health insurance infrastructure, the hard working men and women in that industry are not left unemployed, and that investors and the larger economy are protected.
This nation does not fail when confronted with a challenge. The same innovative, resourceful, creative, driven work ethic that gave America the best health care providers in the world can – and will – give us the best universal health care system in the world.
We must reject the false choice between universal health care and quality health care. Our nation deserves both, and under Democratic leadership, our nation will have both.
3. Environment
a. Global Environmental Harm
It is a moral imperative that each generation leaves the planet a better place for the next generation. For past generations, this has meant building infrastructure, finding and exploiting natural resources, and improving the quality of life without much regard for the environment.
Generations past have not been neglectful stewards of the environment. Rather, they have been ignorant stewards of the environment. For a millennium, humans have been burning fuel, cutting forests, overfishing oceans, and acting – understandably – as if the world was so large, and its parts so unconnected, that our actions in one part of the globe were unconnected to harm in another part.
This generation, our generation, is the first to truly understand how small the world is. We do not pass a single day where we do not eat, or touch, or use an object that was on the other side of the world mere weeks before. Fruit eaten in Denver, but grown in South America. Batteries built in China but used in New York. Gasoline from the four corners of the planet, burned on our interstates.
This smaller world is both convenient and fragile. Carbon dioxide from coal burned in China does not forever hover over China. Air, water, and wildlife recognize no national borders. Some have argued for years that damage to the environment anywhere on earth hurts the environment everywhere on earth. However, it is only in the past few years that the planet itself has unmistakably voiced the same argument.
The North Pole will soon have no ice in the summer. Violent, unpredictable storms have become common. Weather patterns are changing. Glaciers are falling into the ocean. Sea levels are rising.
Our planet’s warnings have reached a fever pitch, and only those too greedy, too stubborn, or too proud to admit their error can ignore them.
We can no longer claim ignorance. We can no longer act with an eye only to the next couple of years. To do so is to bequeath our children a scorched planet and a future marked not by a march to progress but by a struggle against regress.
This party, and this nation, must support the goal, as championed by Al Gore, of achieving an entirely renewable, carbon-free energy infrastructure within a decade. We must take steps to limit carbon dioxide emissions, including adoption of a carbon cap and trade system.
We must recognize that our oil reserves are safe where they are, and need not be immediately extracted under the false assumption that this nation cannot achieve sufficient progress in conservation and development of alternative energy sources. We are too strong, too ingenious a nation to think we must extract and burn every drop of oil on earth – and thrust the environmental consequences of that decision on our children. We must adopt, and achieve, a goal of eliminating the need to tap offshore oil, while at the same time damping oil prices and speculation by making clear that America’s offshore oil is a strategic petroleum reserve, ready to reduce demand for foreign oil in the event we are unable to timely achieve our conservation and alternative energy goals.
Let us recast the entire debate over oil. Certainly in the short term we must address the terrible impact of high fuel costs on the American family and our economy. In the long term, however, every drop of oil that we extract, and burn, is an admission of failure. We are too resourceful a nation, our scientists too smart, our drive for innovation too great, to assume that our future is written in oil. We have not prevailed if we empty our oil fields. We have not prevailed if we reduce our demand for foreign oil by replacing it with coal or domestic oil. We will have prevailed when we can turn on the lights, drive our cars, and power our way of life with clean power. Every gallon of oil that our innovation leaves in the ground is a gift of cleaner air and a more stable planet for our children.
b. Local Environmental Harm
This nation must adopt a goal of providing every person with clean air and a healthy environment within a decade. It is unacceptable that some communities have significantly worse air or water quality than others. The federal government must strengthen and enforce minimum air and water quality standards, and must achieve those goals with a combination of enhanced enforcement and federal aid.
c. Wilderness protection
This nation must continue to support its system of national parks. We must reverse the harm that the Bush Administration’s policies have done in opening national parks and forests to damaging commercial and other activities. Our wilderness is a treasure that should not be squandered, nor given away to corporate interests.
4. Elections
a. Public financing of elections
It is critical that our democracy not be tilted in favor of the wealthy. At the same time, it is incumbent upon us after eight years of Bush Administration policies to inflict no further damage to civil rights, including the First Amendment.
We must continue to support public financing of elections without impinging on the right of free speech.
At the same time, we must also provide public financing for the dissemination of candidate and campaign information. Those able to afford internet and cable television are bathed in political information, and that access to information reduces the efficacy of attack ads and independent expenditures. However, those without such access, whether for economic or other reasons, have less ability to check facts, put attack ads in context, or otherwise reach their own, informed opinion. Our democracy is only strong when its citizens are well informed. It is our obligation to make sure all of our citizens have direct access to political information, regardless of financial and geographic factors.
5. Civil rights
a. Commitment to civil rights
Benjamin Franklin wrote twenty years before the founding of our republic that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Our liberties were guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the 13th and 14th Amendments generations ago – a guarantee that that in a nation of laws would prohibit exactly the Faustian bargain that Franklin warned against.
We must remain a nation of laws. It is unconstitutional to spy on Americans without a warrant, regardless of FISA. It is unconstitutional to deny anyone access to an attorney or to due process of law. It is unconstitutional for a President to unilaterally rewrite laws with signing statements. It is unconstitutional for any citizen, even the President, to be exempt from the very laws they enforce against others.
One fetid legacy of the Bush administration is the lingering question mark after each one of our constitutional rights. The judiciary, executive, and legislative branches must be committed to protecting the freedoms our constitution and nation hold dear. The President must never act outside the law. The Congress must never cede its authority and obligation to write the laws and to hold the President accountable to enforce them. And neither the President nor the Senate should ever allow a judge to take the bench without an absolute assurance that any attempted violence to our basic civil rights would be immediately stopped.
But this is not enough. After the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Congress decided that the unsettled constitutional question of whether a President could unilaterally wage an undeclared war must be answered, and passed the War Powers Act of 1973. The squandering of our constitutional rights by the Bush Administration, and the substantial questions about the constitutionality of the unitary executive theory advanced by the Bush Administration, present no less an important question for our republic.
Congress must pass legislation that does for oversight of civil and constitutional rights what the War Powers Act did for undeclared wars. This Civil Rights Reporting and Oversight Law should set out a list of constitutional and statutory rights, including at least the Bill of Rights and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and would be triggered by any executive branch order, action or program that negatively impacts such rights, unless clearly, specifically, and unambiguously permitted by statute or a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Once triggered, the President would be required to make a full report to Congress prior to acting on such executive branch order, action or program or, in the event national security or the protection of human lives requires immediate action, within seventy-two hours of such action.
b. Separation of church and state
Our nation must commit to continuing separation of church and state. In nations where religious beliefs serve both as spiritual guidance and the letter of the law, freedom to worship, communicate, or even leave the house unescorted is manifestly not an acknowledged human right. Our nation, and our people, are stronger for our diversity, and we must not allow the government to favor one religion over another, or indeed to reward or punish any religion.
c. LGBT equal rights
It is wrong for any person, business or government to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The federal government must amend its civil rights statutes include sexual orientation as a prohibited criteria for discrimination, on a par with the restrictions against discrimination based on race.
Human relationships and needs do not rely on governmental permission or licenses to exist. To treat gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgender citizens in a discriminatory manner in hopes it will reduce their numbers or somehow “cure” them is as ineffective as a policy matter as it is bankrupt as a moral matter.
Gay couples will continue to raise children, whether with a state sanction or not. Lesbian couples will continue to marry, whether with a state issued license, or not. Transgendered citizens will still populate our nation, whether the government considers violence against them a hate crime, or not. Bisexual people will continue to work in our industries, whether their jobs are put at risk by their sexual orientation, or not. Indeed, our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered soldiers will continue to fight, and die, for this nation, whether the military requires that they remain in the closet, or not.
We are not a nation that lives an imaginary existence, where our laws can change traits people are born with. It is as manifestly unfair to ban anyone with a Jewish mother from the military, or to allow job discrimination against African Americans, as it is to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. In each case, the law cannot change the person; it can only punish them for how they were born. In a land where all people are created equal, let us not question the accident of that creation.
d. Supportive housing for the homeless
Christopher Gardner inspired millions with his story of rising from homelessness to head a major stock brokerage, as retold in the movie “The Pursuit of Happyness”. Hally Berry, Jim Carrey, Ella Fitzgerald, David Letterman, John Woo, Martin Sheen, William Shatner, and even Buddha and Nobel Prize winner Harry Edmund Martinson all overcame homelessness to gift our nation and the world with innovation, entertainment, and enlightenment.
While homelessness is not unique to this nation, and rising from homeless to inspiring success can happen anywhere, our nation is unique in the world in our embrace of the American Dream. This shared heritage is expressed on the Statute of Liberty, the very gateway to America: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free… Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Homelessness has always been unacceptable in America, but after eight years of the Bush Administration’s economic policies, and with the foreclosure crisis breathing down the necks of America’s middle class, our moral obligation to act has never been higher.
This is a nation of second chances. We must invest in programs that provide not only shelter, but a helping hand out of homelessness. The despair of homelessness can destroy families, lead to drug and alcohol abuse, and lock people in a spiral of hopelessness. The federal government should cooperate with state and local governments, and with charities and religious organizations, providing the funding and support needed to ensure that any American who wishes to overcome homelessness has access to the tools needed to do so.
In providing this helping hand, however, it is critical that the dignity of those being helped is also respected. Children in homeless families have just as much need for strong parental figures as any other children, and our helping hand must not usurp the guiding hand of the parent. The dignity of providing, within one’s abilities, for one’s self and one’s family must be respected and encouraged. And when those abilities fall short, we must lend a hand in improving those abilities.
Homelessness and poverty have plagued our nation from its inception. While much has changed, the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin rings as true today as it did in the time of our founders: “I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” We cannot simultaneously strip the homeless of their dignity, and expect them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.
6. Eliminate Federal Interference in Medical Care
a. The federal government must not interfere with the rights of states, doctors and patients to set legal limitations on treatment
Our nation was founded as a group of states, with limited powers provided to the federal government. It was never intended that a physician and a patient, sitting in the physician’s office, deciding upon a treatment that is legal under state law, would risk federal prison for a good faith effort to cure a disease. Yet this is precisely the situation that now exists. And it must end.
The most common unapproved drug to trigger this interference is medical marijuana. Numerous states have legalized the use of marijuana, with a prescription from a physician, to treat serious illnesses. The federal government must not override the well considered, fully informed treatment plans developed between a physician and a patient.
Many drugs are not approved for use within the United States, yet physicians and patients often find those unapproved drugs to be the best hope for treating a disease. The federal government must avoid substituting its judgment for that of the doctor and patient.
It is already well established in other areas that the federal government will defer to the judgment of an informed citizen. Many securities laws, for example, are suspended if the investor is “qualified”, meaning he or she is wealthy enough that there is an assumption that they are well advised and informed enough to weigh the risks for themselves. Well advised and informed patients deserve no less.
This nation must allow patients and their physicians, who are able to meet certain standards to show they are both well informed and able to weigh the risks, to engage in a treatment plan of their choosing, even if it involves medical marijuana or drugs that have been approved in certain other industrialized nations but not in the United States.
7. Social Security
a. Better accountability
This nation must adopt rules to ensure better accountability for the Social Security system.
8. Veterans
a. Improve benefits
It is unacceptable for veterans to return home without adequate medical care, transitional support, and other benefits. The government must review veterans benefits annually, and adjust them in light of the changing needs of veterans.
9. Foreign policy
a. Diplomacy not war
This nation must once again value diplomacy over war. While we must never hesitate to defend our nation, the debacle in Iraq has taught us that war is too unpredictable, costly, and deadly to be entered into lightly. We must commit to exhausting our diplomatic options before risking the lives of our soldiers.
b. Respect self determination of other democratic nations
It should be the policy of the United States to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of other democratic nations. However, this policy should not serve as an excuse to stand aside as human rights are infringed abroad.
10. Education
a. Public education funding for special education and autism
The federal government should provide incentives and, as needed, direct funding, to ensure that special education is supported. Children with special needs, including autism, must be provided an educational experience that maximizes their ability not simply to function in the world, but to thrive as an active contributor to the community.
Research to find cures and prevention measures for the underlying conditions that require special education must be supported. Because our nation shares the cost of educating, treating, and supporting children with additional needs, this nation’s moral and fiscal obligations are the same: We must commit to eliminating these underlying conditions.
In addition, the best methodologies to treat autism and other special needs must be supported. While many methods provide some improvement, it is incumbent that educators and medical professionals have complete access to the newest research and methods so as to maximize the efficacy of special education.
b. End no child left behind
No Child Left Behind must be repealed.
c. No vouchers
This nation must fully commit to a full, equal, free, high quality education for every child. Vouchers distract from that goal, drain money from schools that need it, and provide a disincentive for communities to work to fix the problems in their public schools.
11. Transportation
a. High speed rail
High speed rail is the most fuel efficient way to travel long distances. Furthermore, the limitations on electric vehicle range (currently approximately 90 miles) will prevent widespread adoption of electric vehicles unless a cheap, fast, and convenient method of traveling longer distances exists. By supporting high speed rail, the federal government would provide a side benefit of encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles and other efficient but short-range vehicles.
12. Taxation and budget
a. Restore progressive income tax, close loopholes
This nation must restore fairness to the income tax system. The system should be progressive, and loopholes eliminated.
b. Reduce government waste
The government must reduce unnecessary spending and waste.
13. Require each bill to address a single subject only
Special interest provisions are often slipped into bills and voted into law even though they have the support of less than half of each house and are opposed by the President. It must be the policy of the Congress to pass bills that address a single subject only.
14. Agriculture
a. Eliminate subsidized corporate farms
Subsidies for corporate farms have had a deleterious impact on the competitiveness of small family farms, eliminating this crucial piece of the American landscape. The subsidy program for farms must be reviewed and revised so that small farms may thrive alongside their larger counterparts.
15. Fight media consolidation
The massive media consolidation that has taken place in the United States has left the nation without the critical mass of news sources needed to perform the monitoring, analysis, and reporting function that we expect from the media. Nowhere was this effect more profound than in the run-up to the Iraq war, where significant evidence counter to the Bush Administration claims was under-reported or not reported at all. We cannot afford any further consolidation of the media. Indeed, we must take steps to ensure network neutrality and carriage on cable and satellite systems of new media sources in order to reverse the already overbearing consolidation.
16. Responsible sex education
This nation must adopt policies based in reality.
To assume that abstinence-only education can one day prevent all unintended pregnancies and eliminate all sexually transmitted diseases is an unreasonable, irresponsible abdication of the obligation to lead. The Bush Administration has spent more than one billion dollars promoting abstinence, yet studies show this enormous outpouring of cash has had no impact whatsoever on whether teenagers are sexually active.
We must provide parents with the tools to teach the importance of abstinence, just as we must provide them with the tools to teach their children responsible birth control and infection control.
So too must we provide schools with the funding and materials necessary to honestly educate teenagers as to the efficacy of various methods of birth control and infection control. Parents must continue to have the right to have their teenagers not attend such programs based on moral or religious objections.
Our policy makers must regularly consult with leading teachers, physicians, psychologists, and researchers in order to adopt policies that are effective in keeping children from becoming sexually active, and in preventing pregnancy or disease in those who do become sexually active.
The campaign is asking supporters throughout the nation to hold meetings that will be used to write the party platform.
Never before in the history of our nation has a major party candidate been willing to trust the people to do such a task.
Our Constitution starts with the words "We The People". The Constitution was a watershed event, a demarcation point between all that came before and the healthy democracies that have since spread across the globe. But for all of its brilliance and importance, the Constitution was written by a small group of elites -- and as such needed to be amended nearly immediately to provide such basic freedoms as freedom of religion and speech.
In little more than two centuries, the democracy that our Constitution has made possible seems to have reached adulthood. The people have been empowered. We the people have been asked what we think -- and what we think will matter.
So let us begin our platform with the same words that birthed our democracy: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do" embrace and affirm the Constitution of the United States of America, and this platform of the Democratic Party, written by the people and for the people.
The oil will not go away if we don't drill for it today. Offshore oil will stay just where it is, ready to be drilled for in the future.
Press coverage of the offshore drilling has been reductionist, yet ignores this simple fact: "McCain proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling last week as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices." By contrast, Obama opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling. The line of attacks against the McCain position have been that the environmental risks are too high, and the benefits (other than purely psychological ones) would take decades to be seen.
This is approach is a mistake. We are mistaken if we think the only way to win this argument is by changing the minds of those who think the environment must always take a back seat to short term human needs. More importantly, the argument that offshore drilling with oil delivery following decades later provides only psychological benefits in the near term is wrong. The Republicans analyze it using an economic approach that seems sound at first glance: If you have a scarce good, and you know more of that good will be introduced into the market in the future, the value of the good even today (especially among speculators) will go down. To illustrate with something more concrete, imagine if it were announced that a deposit of gold had been discovered that will yield ten times the current global amount of gold that had ever been mined, but that the gold would take ten years to extract and come to market. Gold prices would immediately plunge -- even though gold stocks will remain stable for the ten years it takes to recover the huge new stockpile. The Republican mode of analysis seems rather straightforward. However, like most things Republican, even when the mode of analysis is sensible, the Republicans have drawn the wrong conclusion.
In the case of oil, our offshore reserves will not disappear if we do not drill them today. Let me say that again, because this is the key point: A barrel of oil left in the ground, on property that the United States owns, will stay in the ground until we get it. More to the point, if we were to drill that oil out fifty years from now, improvements in technology will inevitably make extraction safer, more efficient, and less dangerous to the environment than it is today. And to top it off, if we learn that we do not need to drill it out (perhaps as a result of breakthroughs in clean energy), we don't have to. Additionally, the fact that the oil is there and recoverable is enough to create downward price pressure on oil (although less than if the oil were being extracted).
By contrast, wind and solar energy will disappear unless we use them. All the sunlight falling to earth today represents a lost opportunity. As we burn oil or coal to run our air conditioners, we cannot unburn the coal and use today's sunlight in the future.
In light of this, the economic method the Republicans have been using argues strongly in favor of a policy of conserve, develop alternatives, and make clear that we view offshore oil as a massive strategic reserve, only to be drilled in the event of a simultaneous catastrophic failure in conservation, alternative energy, and global markets.
Obama's position on oil is correct: We should not take steps to drill for oil in environmentally sensitive areas. Nobody has asked him the follow up question -- though I know he will answer that one correctly: "Are you taking offshore drilling off the table under all circumstances at all times in future?" The answer, of course, is that "offshore oil remains a valuable strategic reserve, and we can and will drill for it if it if our primary goals of conservation and development of alternative energy sources have failed to yield adequate timely results."
Maybe even McCain can figure this out given the right analogy: You have a piece of oily, polluting cake on the table. You also have every reason to believe there will be plenty of other, better tasting and healthier cakes in the refrigerator. Do you eat the cake on the table before you check out the refrigerator, just in case the refrigerator is empty? Or do you go to the refrigerator first, knowing that the cake on the table is not going anywhere?
"If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK, and he was a wonderful leader," she said. "He gave us a lot of hope. But he was assassinated." Clinton supporter Francine Torge, a retired educator from Durham, January 8, 2008.
“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.” Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, May 16, 2008.
"Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama." May 23, 2008.
"NRA gathers ammo against Obama." -- Politico headline, June 30, 2008.
Lets get it straight: The Secret Service is good at what they do. No, they are great at what they do. Sure, some crazy might get lucky. But the fact that nobody has even come close to killing a President since Reagan was shot tells you all you need to know: The next President to die in office will likely die of natural causes or freakishly bad luck. Seriously, the biggest risk to Bush's health has not been a terrorist plot or a wacko, but an errant pretzel. The Secret Service is good enough at its job that the number of people who might wish a President ill has nothing to do with the chance of any person succeeding at such a horrific mission.
We should see articles celebrating the efficacy of the true American heroes at the Secret Service. Instead, we see comment after comment that seem to gloss over even the existence of the Secret Service. This shameful trading in fear must stop. It sells stories. It makes for grabbing headlines. And it exploits a myth. From a candidate or her supporters engaged in a tight race, or from a partisan Republican, I can at least understand the adrenaline that might lead to some of the still inexcusible quotes we have seen. But the press is not supposed to have a dog in this race.
Politico should apologize.
Politico has an interesting article about longshot VP possibilities. The article largely lists people who are viable only as parts of a fun intellectual exercise. Once we remove the "really helps fill a void or answer questions about judgment" requirement, why stop where Politico stopped?
Of all the candidates who are great matches but for practical reasons of electability, Howard Dean should be high on the list. Seriously.
He opposed the war before we even spent our first billion.
He overhauled the Democratic Party infrastructure in a way that greased the wheels for Barack Obama's grassroots juggernaut.
He was the first major Democratic candidate to harness Web 2.0.
In short, if the primary qualification of a Vice President is the ability to carry forward the agenda of the President should the President become unable to serve, Dean is a great match.
Great in theory. Of course, the old joke arises: What is the difference between theory and reality? In theory, they are both the same.
Dean made the "scream". Dean is perceived as too liberal. Dean does little to help mend fences with the Clinton supporters. Etc. Yup, reality says he should be on Politico's list of interesting non-starters. But if I lived in the land of theory, I'd take a second look at Dean.
That said, Quayle. Cheney. Maybe you can pick a VP based on theory.
I attended the Personal Democracy Forum this week. There were a lot of interesting speakers, and even a surprise appearance by the Obama Girl.
The take-away? Obama's campaign has proven what those of us who make a living in technology have known for years: The future of politics is technology. Not technology for its own sake, but technology used to build communities and distribute power and tools much more evenly throughout society. Obviously, nobody is advocating abandoning traditional campaign tools. However, those tools alone will no longer get you across the finish line.
The other take-away? People at the cutting edge of using technology to build communities are overwhelmingly Democrats. Of course, that is also not news to those of us who work in technology.
Anyhow, about to catch my flight home, signing off.
Fundraisers. The big-dollar, photo with the candidate, fundraisers. In my lifetime, no major party candidate has obtained the nomination -- or even come close -- without holding them.
I made my donation in the primary without any thought to formal fundraisers. I just went online and gave because I believe in Barack Obama. However, last week I got a call from a friend saying "do you want to meet him?" Pretty much impossible to answer "no" to that. And so it came to be that in conjunction with making my general election contribution I met -- and got photos with -- Barack Obama on Monday night. I even got lucky -- I mean, freakishly, one in a million, how amazing is this, lucky -- that the only homemade video of the event that I could find online actually features me shaking his hand. So unlike others, I came away with still photos and a movie.
This event, though, was simultaneously one of the top ten moments of my life and one I feel bad about. To be clear, I am thrilled to have donated to Barack Obama's campaign. I've given my time, I've twice flown across the country for his primary Voter Protection efforts, I've given money. All that I would do again and more, because this is our movement, not just his.
No, what I feel bad about is that there are plenty of people who worked hard -- really hard -- right alongside me. But by the simple act of donating money, I got to go to this event and they did not.
Barack Obama has made history, and changed the system, in how he has campaigned. He proved that a positive campaign can upset the "firmly positioned" frontrunner. He proved that this nation is mature enough for a frank and honest discussion of the issues -- and a highly personal discussion of race in America.
So in a campaign that has rewritten the rules, lets try one more change: Equivalence between money and time in terms of access to these kinds of events. I have friends, trusted companions on this journey toward change, who have put in hundreds of hours working for this campaign. Those hundreds of hours are a donation as surely as a monetary contribution is.
The http://my.barackobama.com website already tracks "points" relating to campaign activity online. Lets start tracking overall campaign support units. Make an hour of time worth 10 units. Make a dollar donated worth one unit. Access to a fundraiser and a photograph with Barack Obama? 2300 units. A dinner speech with a surrogate speaker? 500 units.
I know Barack Obama believes in an America where hard, unpaid or underpaid work for a just cause is recognized as a powerful contribution to America's success. I suggest that his campaign formally recognize what surely it already knows: Hard work in the field is at least as meaningful as two minutes filling out a credit card form online.
This remarkable, ten minute editorial by Keith Olbermann offers an enormous list of things that "we" have forgiven Senator Clinton for.
Olbermann says that the one thing that is unforgivable is Clinton's raising the spectre of assassination.
His list, however, was all about her actions in pursuing the nomination. On this Memorial Day weekend, it is fitting to point out the one enormous issue not of process, but of substance, that was missing from Mr. Olbermann's list: Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. 4,080 of our nation's children have given their lives for that war. By some estimates, the total number of casualties linked to the war range between 150,000 and a million human beings.
As Barack Obama notes, even the proponents of the war have "failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer." Yet, Senator Clinton continues to defend her vote to go war.
We cannot forgive that which Clinton has yet to acknowledge requires forgiveness. Come clean, Senator Clinton, admit what Barack Obama knew from the outset: The Iraq war should never have been authorized and should never have been waged. Until then, whatever forgiveness you need for mistakes you make on the campaign trail will pale in comparison to the unforgiven enormous lapse of judgment that has, sadly, given this nation 4,080 more true heroes to remember and honor on this Memorial Day.
