Seems that we have a huge impasse between those who demand a timeline in getting out of Iraq and those who think such a tactic would give aid and comfort to the enemy.
How about if Congress just modifies the resolution the houses are working on and proposes a withdrawal timeline of something like 2010? If the Bush-McCain crowd can't accept that time horizon, I'm sure the American people would be outraged at a "forever" war that can't even be solved in seven years time. Therefore I think it would have to be accepted.
Once that kind of timeline is accepted on both and all sides, then the principle of a timeline will at last be adopted after having been kicked around for years. Then we can all work toward reining it in by two or more years.
Whatcha think?
I just returned from a "house party" hosted at Hope College in the Martha Miller Center. Thanks go to Shannon Craig (Michigan Field Director - Students for Obama and Director of Communications - Hope College) and Brian Straw (VP of Hope Democrats and the Michigan Deputy Director - Students for Barack Obma).
There were 15 or 20 people in the auditorium, with members of the community outnumbering students. I couldn't help but think how low voter turnout is among young people. Even when there was an active military draft in 1972 young vote was low. I wonder how the candidates and their campaigns will galvanize young people to register and vote this election cycle!
After watching three previously recorded videos, including the new Hope for America, we encountered technical difficulties in bringing up the webcast. For awhile someone loaned her cellphone and, with the help of a microphone, we were able to listen to the audio for awhile. Finally, after determined scrambling by Brian and Shannon, we got the visual portion as well.
The primary house party was actually held at the Onawa Public Library. According to the senator (dressed in his trademark suit jacket and open-collared dress shirt), the webcast was being received at locations at all 99 counties in Iowa as well as 5000 locations throughout the nation. The Q and A format brought up the following topics:
The Federal debt and annual deficit; the growing income inequity between the haves and the have-nots; "clean" elections and ethics in government; alternative fuels especially ethanol; the wars in Iraq and Afganistan; illegal drugs and poppy production in Afganistan; Obama's sources for information; data-mining and government surveillance; education including No Child Left Behind. The final question was whether Obama knew enough good, honest and intelligent people to serve in his Cabinet!
The webcast lasted about 1 1/4 hours. Since most of us had been in the auditorium since 3:30 and because the webcast continued to be spotty and jerky, we all left at 5:00 before the webcast was complete. I would guess that others besides me pulled up the video at this website to watch it uninterrupted.
I would like to encourage discussion on the ludicrous amount of money that will be spent on presidential elections. It is estimated that the Republican and Democratic parties will each spend $500,000 to get one person elected to the Oval Office in 2008.
There is a proposal being promoted by MoveOn called "The Fair Elections Now Act," written by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). The concept is a very encouraging one - a bi-partisan effort to limit the amount of private fund raising and the crazy money-chasing the candidates must do. A candidate who is able to demonstrate broad grass-roots appeal would be eligible for enticing funds from the federal government or, in other words, you and me.
However, one provision bothers me. Let's say Candidate A has few high-rolling friends and wants to use public funds. Now Candidate B comes along with pockets bulging from private donations. This Act states that Candidate A would then be eligible for even more public monies, so the ratcheting-up just continues with ever more dollars coming out of the taxpayers' wallets.
It seems to me that there has to be a way of actually reducing the total amount of money that is spent on these campaigns. After all, whether $500 is spent or $500 million, only one person is elected President. Anything beyond a "reasonable amount" is non-value added spending and delivers no net benefit except to those in the advertising and public relations businesses.
Any takers on this subject?
Clinton's and McCain's loss last night was Obama's gain! Reportedly the other two were invited also but turned down the opportunity for reasons not given. So Obama was front and center for a fairly long time. He even benefited from flattering audio clips and photo stills that CNN used during transitions to commercials.
The Senator was on his game for this kind of "talking head" format, although he is at his best when in front of an energetic crowd with room to move and gesture freely, e.g. at his February 10 Springfield announcement and his "sermon" at the Selma church more recently. (Although the last time I watched him, speaking to a firefighter's union on Hilary's home turf, I thought he gave a rather flat, uninspired performance.) Last night he did a fine job, helped along by the "softballs" lobbed by Larry King. He had ample opportunity to make his case that he was the real deal, an incredibly credible candidate!
Although total TV face time for our candidate is very important, it would have been interesting to have watched him juxtaposed with Clinton and McCain. Senator Clinton is very effective in the living room "chat" mode and has improved her skills standing in front of large audiences (e.g. she did a much better job in front of the same firefighters). Both those formats require high scripting coupled with excellent delivery. She doesn't fare as well in front of an interviewer - even one as non-hardball as King - who deals the cards, controlling the script.
The contrast between a fresh, energetic Obama and a tired, old-looking McCain would probably have been even more stark. I was a supporter of McCain against Bush in 2000 (I even shook his hand and had him autograph my copy of his book). The 2007 version of McCain is a tired retread of the "maverick" of seven years ago. I think he has inwardly resigned himself with going down with the ship - the ship being the war in Iraq.
Senator Obama gave his best defense against the "inexperienced" charge that I've heard. His line about having been in Washington long enough to know it needs to be changed was starting to wear a bit thin. He said boldly that he would match his experience with any others running for the office. He differentiated himself at the grassroots level by virtue of his years of community organizing experience. He proudly cited his years in the legislature of a large state giving examples of legislation of which he had been part: tax credits for working families, early childhood education, and changes in capital punishment law. He made it clear that he hadn't just appeared from nowhere into politics and leadership in 2004.
Anybody else have comments about this appearance or others made by Barack?
Here are a few things I've been mulling over....
Early front-runners....
Current opinion polls show Senator Clinton to have a significant lead over Senator Obama. There are also frequent references to the historical fact that the Democratic Party often bypasses the early front-runner in its choice for a nominee. I remembered that Senator Ed Muskie had been one of those infamous front-runners in the 1976 cycle. Having been a popular VP candidate in 1968 he entered 1971 as the odds-on favorite for presidential nominee. According to one source I Googled up, in the spring of 1971 he enjoyed a 60 point lead over eventual nominee Senator George McGovern. Interesting bit of trivia, eh? Go get 'em, Barack!
Family tensions???
I can't help but worry a little about burnout for Mr. Obama. Think about it. The guy has a full-time week day job as a U.S. Senator serving the interests of a fairly large state. Then his weekends (and probably evenings) are filled with the mighty task of running for the presidency: demonstrating leadership, creating campaign strategy and a little thing called trying to raise $100 million or more. Now then, the man also has a wife and two little girls at home. No matter how much a super-mom Michelle might be, the strains on her of being a de facto "single mom" and the wife of a presidential candidate with all the attendant worries that position entails, that couple is at high risk!!! I hope that Obama's aides are counseling him wisely. This is a long campaign and succumbing again to cigarettes is only one setback that could occur if there is not enough down time and family time scheduled.
Homosexuality immoral?
Things could get interesting quickly in the wake of General Pace's pronounced judgment that homosexuality is immoral. Already Ms. Clinton has tripped up a bit in stating that immorality is for somebody else to judge. Her campaign is trying out the best spin. Mr. Obama is sure to be asked similar questions. Eventually this may lead to his explanations of why gay and lesbian marriages should not be legal. If such lifestyles are not immoral, why would Obama (and others) say gays should be permitted civil unions but not marriages?
OK, all you enlightened progressives out here in Ottawa County! In what ways can we support Senator Obama from the middle of a conservative, mainly Republican county?
My political experience is weak. My most intense year was in 1972 when I canvassed for McGovern and was elected as precinct delegate to the Kalamazoo County Democratic convention. Later in the year I helped organize a bus trip from GVSU to Kalamazoo for a McGovern rally just before he got swamped by Nixon!
Fast forward to 2004 when I canvassed for Kerry in Muskegon County. And that's about it!
Now what? I'd love to toss around ideas with you. There's a Grand Rapids Obama Group planning meeting scheduled for March 3. I was hoping to attend, but it looks like I'll be in Chicago that weekend. Perhaps some of you might go???
Phil
Of course it's too early to be discussing vice-presidential candidates, but many would argue that it's still too early for any of the frantic activity on the campaign trails!
The fact that nobody who is anybody overtly runs for the position of vice-president is an axiom of national politics. (Of course our own Governor Engler practically fell all over George W. Bush during the 2000 primary season trying to curry the candidate's favor. Now where is he?)
John Garner, VP under Franklin Roosevelt for two terms, very famously compared the vice-presidency to a bucket of warm spit (or something rhyming with spit).
In recent years, however, the position has taken on more power as Al Gore and Dick Cheney have served as very influential lieutenants to Bill Clinton and George Bush. Besides, a look at history will show the close relationship between being vice-president and eventually capturing the big enchilada.
Five out of the past eleven presidents since Roosevelt once served as vice-president: Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford and George H. W. Bush.
Eleven men nominated by their party for president since FDR have either served as vice-president or (in the case of Bob Dole) have run second on an unsuccessful ticket: 1948 Truman, 1960 Nixon, 1964 Johnson, 1968 Hubert Humphrey and Nixon, 1972 Nixon, 1976 Ford, 1984 Mondale, 1988 and 1992 Bush I, 1996 Dole and 2000 Gore.
So, if Senator Obama is nominated, who might be his running mate? Would Hilary Clinton settle for first woman vice-president? (And Bill for second gentleman?) What needed electoral strengths would she bring to the ticket - experience and maturity? The New York 9/11 connection? The black vote?
How about former Senator John Edwards? After running for the presidency twice, would he consider a "demotion" a second time? His "Two Nation" message was quickly muted by the John Kerry machine in 2004. Although Obama might benefit from a southerner on his ticket, is Edwards ultimately too liberal to deliver enough of the south?
Would Iowan Tom Vilsack or New Mexican Richardson help Obama nationally? Perhaps Senator Joe Biden, once the sexy young upstart in the presidentical politics game, would bring needed experience and maturity to the ticket.
If the Democratic Party decides through the primary process that Obama is not yet ready for the Big Time, for whom might he be the most effective vice-presidential nominee? A Clinton-Obama ticket would be a great "rock star" pairing, but is the nation ready for two such "firsts?" If Clinton can command enough votes from home-state Illinois, does she need Obama's help in the midwest? I don't think the growing friction between the Clinton and Obama camps would preclude them from running together. George H. W. Bush was a sharp critic of Ronald Reagan (Rembember Bush calling trickle-down theory as "voodoo economics?) prior to being named to the same ticket. And I'm not sure what specific help Obama might bring to help the southern, left-leaning Edwards.
Enough from me for now. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Most scientific indicators point to a rising of the sea level as ice caps melt due to global climate change. I don't believe that there is anything humankind can do of substance to prevent or even slow global warming. Certainly Americans are not going to reduce our overall carbon emissions, no matter how many hybrid vehicles we purchase or how well we keep our tires pressurized or how many trees we plant for each jet flight we take.
Regardless of whether climate change is natural, human-made or a combination, we will have coastal floodings. The challenge to the next president and all of us is to prepare for those floodings in ways we were not prepared for during Hurricane Katrina. We need evacuation plans, refugee plans (which will affect states far from the coasts), recovery plans and so on for every area that is in danger from rising waters.
Although the rising of the sea level may be incremental, the effects of higher water will often be in quantum leaps, especially when combined with local, seasonal weather conditions and inadequate levees or other storm management systems.
International agreements such as the Kyoto accord are important, as are regional, local and individual initiatives, but not nearly as important as being prepared on a national (and international) level for the disasters that will occur and the threat to millions of lives.
I'd appreciate any feedback to my comments. Has anyone heard of projections for flooding in the Great Lakes? "An Inconvenient Truth" didn't model Grand Haven or Traverse City, but I'm sure Michigan coastal areas would be affected also.
