Today is bittersweet.
I think about my father, who has passed, and many others like him. These are the parents and grandparents who Barack Obama is referring to when he talks about the people who may not have had certain opportunities, but did what was necessary so that WE could have those opportunities. Because of them, we have reached a day that we may elect a President, not based on the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. These are people that have always taught us that if we work hard and do the right things, we can become anything we aspire to be. Barack Obama is the evidence of this truth.
Today is a historical day; a day for celebration – no matter the outcome of this election. But it is a day to remember those who, like my father, had visions of the mountaintop, but who did not make it there with us. It is also a day of dedication to those who have come before us, who worked and struggled and sacrificed and hoped and dreamed so that we could experience a day such as today.
And this is a day for US because this election was about us. I feel that we have been inspired and motivated to become involved. And because of the message of change and hope, we can again dare to dream of a better future for ourselves and our children.
These are photos from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The wait was at least three hours to vote in DeKalb.
About 600 people were in line when the polls opened in Snellville at 9 a.m. on Wednesday. Waits of about five hours were forecast. Phil Gast / pgast@ajc.com
Allen Hedrick, 41, of Atlanta, checks his cell phone while waiting in line to vote at the Fulton County Government Center on Friday morning. By 11 a.m., the line stretched around the building and the wait was about 4 hours. Jamie Gumbrecht / jgumbrecht@ajc.com
Terrie Spencer, right, arrived at Centerville Community Center in Snellville at 3:45 a.m. on Wednesday to vote early. Phil Gast / pgast@ajc.com
Early Voters Friday, October 31, 2008, 11:00 a.m. - Line wrapped around county tag office on E. Broad St.and down Perry Street - wait time 4 - 6 hours. Busiest day since early voting began. Genene Green
Line Outside South Cobb County Government Center in Cobb. Around 2 pm. Took more that 6 hours to get through the entire line. Darius Wood
General Powell was very thorough in detailing his reasons for endorsing Senator Obama for President. His reasons make it difficult for anyone to have any doubt about and to pick apart his reasons.
In articulating the reasons for his endorsement, General Powell used words that define change…• Transformational Figure• New Generation• Serves the Needs of the Nation for this period of timeHe also included words that show how, as Senator Obama has said, this campaign is about US…• Broader, more inclusive reach into the needs and aspirations of our people• Crossing lines…ethnic, racial, generational• All villages have values; all towns have values; not just small towns• Reaching out all across AmericaAnd he talked about the qualities of a successful, effective President...
• Ability to inspire• Steadiness• Intellectual curiosity• A depth of knowledge• Approach to looking at problems• Intellectual vigor• Definitive way of doing business that will serve us well• Style and SubstanceThank you, General Powell, for not just saying you will vote for Senator Obama, but also for eloquently and thoroughly defining why he is the best choice for President.
We often see people or groups try to define others by the way they themselves act. If they lie and cheat, they assume that others will lie and cheat. If they are selfish in how they treat others, they assume that everyone else will do the same. Their basic rule is "Do unto others before they do unto you.
This is one of the reasons why the GOP tries to give a negative spin to Senator Obama’s economic plan. The past 8 years have been years of selfish spending that has resulted in unprecedented debt. It has been years of spending that has had no economic benefit to the majority of Americans. Because this has been their MO, they try to spin Senator Obama’s plan as being the same. The tax cuts and loop holes of the past administration has in essence been a handout to the wealthy and to corporate America. Few, if any of these benefits have been passed down to middle and lower income individuals.
There is a difference.
First, the “spending” that is included in Senator Obama’s plan is more of an investment; not just spending. It is an investment, because the expectation is to create more jobs and reduce our energy dependency. And with job creation, people will be able to work and provide the basic necessities for their families. People would be able to do the things we used to take for granted like put food on the table, or pay our mortgage. It is an investment because the expectation is to improve our education system and to make college more affordable for students. At the same time, students will give back in the form of “community” service. It is an investment because the expectation is a more efficient health care system, more affordable insurance, and ultimately, healthier citizens.
Second, Senator Obama’s plan will benefit the many, not just a few. It will not be just the corporations and upper income that will reap the benefits. Senator Obama’s plan primarily targets working, middle income families which comprise the majority of the population.
Third, as the result of middle income families benefiting, there will be a trickle up effect. People will have more disposable income to spend, and will be more willing to spend. Ultimately, the wealthy will still benefit because it is their companies that will be reaping the benefit of people’s willingness to spend again.
Think of it as a person -- the GOP/Bush-Cheney Administration -- moving into a house that is in excellent condition. Over the years, there is much spending on the decorations, purchasing the latest technology, etc., but nothing spent on maintaining the structure and foundation of the house. As a result, it looks "okay" from a distance, but in actuality is on the verge of being condemned. The new owner/manager -- Senators Obama and Biden -- will have to spend a large amount of money to get the house back in livable condition. They will have to invest in an EXTREME makeover. (Thanks April from Vegas for your input in this analogy.)
So once again, don’t allow the other side to distort what Senator Obama is trying to do. We can’t continue to allow others to think for us. That’s one of the reasons we are where we are today. As Senator Obama reminds us, we have to start paying attention, thinking for ourselves, taking more responsibility, and becoming more involved; especially in the processes that impact us.
Obviously, SP's strategy for the VP debate was to ignore the questions asked by Gwen Ifill and just talk about what had been programmed into her by the campaign and the GOP. I guess it was able to work for her because no one expected much from her in the first place; the bar had been set so low based on her most recent performances. We also know that if she HAD directly answered the questions that were presented, the result would have been as bad if not worse than the interviews. Plus the fact that there were a lot more people that would have been paying attention.
Will that also be McCain's MO? To me, he sometimes comes across as having the attitude of entitlement. That since he was a POW (he's going to milk that for all that it's worth) he is entitled to bend the rules or say untruths or be condescending, and it will be okay. It will be accepted. So it wouldn't be a stretch to think that he would expect to be able to ignore the moderator's question or Senator Obama's question and he will be able to get away with it.
Of course, it will be up to the moderator to push the issue; to call McCain out if he does not directly answer a question. It will also be up to the moderator to challenge both candidates, but especially McCain when the facts are mis-stated. They should also call McCain on those situations where he denies making a statement. Statements that have probably been replayed so many times that to deny it would be an outright lie or raise a question of McCain's mental capacity. But will they? The problem is, unless the moderator went to the "Tim Russert School of Moderators", there is little chance that they will do what they should do.
AND it will be up to Senator Obama, not only to highlight when McCain does not directly answer a question, but to also raise questions in American's minds as to why he won't answer a question. It will be up to Senator Obama to highlight the untruths/half-truths that McCain makes. Show the funny accounting that is doing to come up with the numbers. Where possible, use McCain’s funny accounting to show how his numbers are just as bad or worse; just like in the 477 ad. It will be up to Senator Obama to keep McCain on the defensive. In the midst presenting his plans and policies, Senator Obama should continue to contrast it to McCain’s and show how McCain’s policies only benefit the rich and the corporations.
I don’t believe McCain can win the debate based on his knowledge and eloquence. He won’t win based on his awareness of how the issues affect middle and lower income Americans. He definitely won’t win based on his charming personality. The only way he can win is by keeping Senator Obama from doing what he needs to do…that is, getting out his message about how he will bring about change. Getting out his message of how he and Senator Biden will address the needs of working, middle and lower income Americans. How they will work for long term improvements to our energy situation (not just quick fixes). And how they, through diplomacy, will again bring back the honor and respect in the World's view of the US.
Don't let them get you off your message Senator Obama.
McCain often talks about reaching across the aisle to get things done, but his actions, especially during the debate, make me wonder. Do you reach out only if the other side shares your viewpoint? McCain strikes me as a “my way or no way” sort of person. How willing is he to admit when someone else is right or openly agree with something his opposition does or says? A good leader can motivate or inspire others to do the things that need to be done. (Note I said motivate or inspire, not bully.) I can’t see McCain as a motivator. It is one thing to deal with people that you like. But the true test of a leader is dealing with people you don’t like or people with whom you disagree. Would a true leader not look at them? Constantly take pot shots at them? Talk to them in a condescending manner?
Barack Obama is constantly showing that he can reach across the aisle. Although he is often criticized for commending his opponents, acknowledging their accomplishments, highlighting their good qualities, isn’t this the sort of thing you do when you are trying to reach out to others? When you are trying to reach out, you also learn to pick your battles. During the debate, I’m sure many of us saw “missed opportunities” for Senator Obama to ding McCain. But sometimes, it’s a matter of timing. There are other debates scheduled and other forums. Some of those missed opportunities will still be there. Senator Obama showed that he will reach out, even when the other person is being resistant. A true leader shows that he can be the bigger person and not be petty.
The US needs to regain its standing in the world. When you look at the leadership qualities displayed by Senators Obama and Mccain, who would you rather have sit down with not just our allies, but with our adversaries? Which person do you see as being, not a bully, but a motivator? Which person do you believe will keep a level head and make sound judgments? Which person do you trust to do a better job of helping us to regain our standing?
Hands down, Barack Obama!
[This is a letter I sent to the editors of the following newspapers: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Gwinnett Daily Post, Macon Telegraph, USA Today, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Fulton County Daily Report, Rockdale Citizen]
John McCain is a big supporter of deregulation. He supported deregulation of our Financial Industry and we see the mess that we now have.
In recent months, John McCain has said that he would deregulate the health care industry "as we have done over the last decade in banking." When he made that statement, he was obviously so out of touch that he did not realize, even then, that the system was broken and that many Americans were suffering. The current health care system has many problems and needs to be fixed. To offer a solution that has ruined our financial industry shows a lack of thought and judgment. The solution(s) that he offers also says that when John McCain talks about "Country First", "country" means Wall Street, not Main Street. Country means big business, not the average American. Country means those who have, not the have-nots. Barack Obama understands the problems of average Americans regarding healthcare. He is offering a plan that addresses the quality and affordability of coverage. He recognizes that the system needs to be overhauled and has outlined plans to modernize the system and therefore, reduce costs. Senator Obama also recognizes that healthcare goes beyond "traditional" illnesses and is proposing initiatives to address other conditions such as mental health and autism. Senator Obama knows that our economic crisis -- including our healthcare issues -- is due to government catering to lobbyists and special interests. He will be responsible to the American people and has proposed that the legislative process be more transparent. His plan includes demands for independent accountability and oversight. His plan will also reform our regulatory structure -- the faulty groundwork that resulted in this economic crisis.
We can't afford to elect John McCain, a person who doesn't understand the plight of the average American.
Barack Obama understands. The plans that he has already proposed highlight his understanding. He is the better bet for our future.
After the last presidential elections, people said that they were tired of the dirty politics and the negative attacks on people. People said they wanted to focus on the issues; the things that mattered.
When Senator Obama made the decision to run for President, he said that he wanted to run a positive campaign. He did not want politics as usual. He wanted CHANGE.
It is this vision of changed that attracted many of us to this campaign. It is his ability to inspire that is motivating us to be involved. It is his intelligence and integrity allows him to continue to excel though he has been held to a different set of rules than the other candidates: rules that are constantly changing. It is the consistency in his message that tells us that we can rely on him to follow through on the things he says he will do. It is his ability to keep a level-head that let’s us see that he will be successful when negotiating with foreign leaders and will restore the US’ honor to the rest of the world. These, and other things, make me believe that he is the person that will help to bring about an America as it SHOULD be.
Even as this campaign season takes on a negative tone, I see Senator Obama attempting to adhere to all the things that his campaign has been about. His “game” is to stay focused on the issues. And while I agree that he has to “fight back”, we have to realize that Senator Obama must also be smart and careful in his response(s):
· Senator Obama has values that I’m sure he wants to maintain. Therefore, he will want to do the things that will not compromise them. Because when all is said and done, he will have to live with himself and his choices.
· Senator Obama is aware that he is being held to a different set of standards; while it is okay for others to engage in negative politics, it never seems to be okay for him. Every word he says is scrutinized, taken out of context, and often reported with an unfavorable spin.
· Senator Obama is at his best when he plays HIS “game”. Typically, when people try to play someone else’s game, they often end up being the losers.
I think it is okay to offer our suggestions, because Senator Obama said that he will always listen to us. So I would like to believe that he is taking all suggestions into consideration. But just as we believe that Senator Obama will do right by us when he is elected President, we should also believe he will do the right things for this campaign.
Just my opinion
So the economy is not an issue as Harold Meyerson’s op-ed discusses: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202442.html
According to Harold Meyerson in today's NYT Op-ed, the republicans"...seem to have nothing to say" on the subject of the economy."Then again, the Republicans here plainly don't believe that the economy needs fixing. On Monday, a New York Times poll of Republican convention delegates showed that 57 percent believe the American economy is in very good or fairly good shape. The only economic concern of ordinary Americans that finds expression inside this year's GOP convention is the price of gas, for which the chief solution, as you would expect at a convention where the American Petroleum Institute is hosting the party's governors, is offshore drilling. Republican silence on economic matters stands in sharp contrast to the Democratic convention last week in Denver, where there were close to 20 forums on "green" jobs, reviving progressive taxation, balancing the budget, rebuilding infrastructure, the economy of alternative energy and the like. The Democrats have devised a macroeconomic strategy for a beleaguered economy. The party's commitment to alternative energy and green jobs opens the door for, among other things, a public-private jobs program, a WPA for the 21st century. "
Judgment is also not a big deal given the vetting process (or lack there of?) used recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/03wills.html?ref=opinion
“The lesson from George McGovern’s campaign was that a vice-presidential candidate should be thoroughly vetted — a lesson apparently neglected by Senator John McCain.”
Then there are the talking points used by the republicans to justify their actions or opinions. And when all else fails, pull out the POW or sexism card.
Maureen Dowd talks about that in her NYT op-ed:
For many years, reality was out of vogue with Republicans...When confronted with their colossal carelessness around the globe and here at home, their mantra was, as Rummy put it, “Stuff happens.” It seems like a long time since Vice President Dan Quayle denounced Murphy Brown for having a baby out of wedlock, bemoaning a “poverty of values.” It also seems like a long time — and another McCain ago — that Republicans supporting W. smeared the old John McCain by spreading rumors that he had fathered an illegitimate black child. This week, the anti-abortion forces celebrated the news of Bristol’s pregnancy, using it as further proof that their beloved Governor Palin — who will no more support sex education than polar bears — was committed to the cause. Since John McCain played craps first and sent the vetters to Alaska afterward, Republicans have been defending Governor Palin by saying that, while she has no foreign policy experience — except, as Cindy McCain pointed out, that “Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia” — she has a lot of domestic policy experience as a supercharged P.T.A. and hockey mom.As more and more titillating details spill out about the Palins, Republicans riposte by simply arguing that things like Todd’s old D.U.I. arrest or Sarah’s messy family vengeance story will just let them relate better to average Americans — unlike the lofty Obamas.
If we stay on point and talk about the issues, it will force them to have to talk about it too. And if Americans are paying attention, they will see that the Republicans don't care about the average working person. After all, Phil Gramm refers to us as "economically illiterate and whiners''. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/phil-gramm-mcca.html
That appears to be the same attitude of the current administration.
So it comes down to this choice: OBAMA/BIDEN ...
...or More of the Same
Washington Post
Tuesday, September 2, 2008; Page A15
ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Has anyone noticed that Sarah Palin's central claim to political fame is a fraud? She represents herself as a fiscal conservative who abhors pork-barrel projects and said no thanks to the "Bridge to Nowhere" -- a $398 million span that would have linked Ketchikan, Alaska, to its airport across the Tongass Narrows. But as mayor of Wasilla (pop. 9,780), she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring home the bacon. And as a candidate for governor just two years ago, she supported both the Ketchikan bridge and the congressional earmark that would have paid most of its cost.
I know, we're not supposed to pay attention to such inconvenient details. We're supposed to be dazzled by how unaffected she is, how plain-spoken, how "genuine."
Indeed, if you don't get hung up on her actual record, Palin simply is who she is. It's not her fault that she's a former Miss Wasilla with a campy "Northern Exposure" vibe, doctrinaire social-conservative views and no discernible qualifications for being vice president. It's undeniable that people in Alaska apparently like her well enough, though they seem to have been even more shocked than the rest of us when she was named to the Republican ticket. In any event, she's not the one who created this farcical situation.
We learned last week that John McCain is not who he is -- not, at least, who he claims to be. The steady, straight-talking, country-first statesman his campaign has been selling is a fictional character. The real McCain is either alarmingly cynical or dangerously reckless.
You will recall that McCain gave the same prime criterion for choosing a running mate that every presidential candidate gives: someone who is ready to step in as president if, heaven forbid, the need arises. Barack Obama echoed those words before picking Joe Biden, who is about as prepared as a vice presidential candidate could ever be.
You will also recall that McCain and his supporters have been lecturing us about the grave and urgent dangers our country faces -- Islamic fundamentalism, the resurgence of Russia and other geopolitical threats. In a menacing world, McCain says, he will keep America safe.
So, at 72 and with a history of cancer, how could McCain choose a vice presidential nominee who has, let's face it, zero experience in foreign affairs? Being the nominal commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard doesn't count, unless you think Vladimir Putin is about to order an invasion across the Bering Strait.
At a time when the nation also confronts enormous challenges at home, Palin has, um, slightly more than zero experience in domestic affairs. The reason most people move to Alaska is that it's different from the rest of the country. Salmon fishing and snowmobile racing are not front-page news in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida.
McCain's political calculation in choosing Palin is obvious. Social conservatives, who had been unexcited by his candidacy, are ecstatic that he has picked a running mate who staunchly opposes abortion, favors the teaching of "intelligent design" in the public schools and generally embraces the agenda of the religious right.
I have my doubts about the other objective of McCain's gambit: to win the votes of blue-collar women who supported Hillary Clinton. For one thing, these voters disagree sharply with Palin on most of the issues. For another, initial indications are that many women were insulted at the notion that they would automatically swoon over any candidate who happened to have two "X" chromosomes. Republicans tend to have a comically simplistic view of how "identity politics" works. They should recall how African Americans reacted when Clarence Thomas was named to the Supreme Court.
Whatever the political impact, so much for the John McCain we thought we knew. In choosing Palin, he cynically did the kind of thing that his party is always accusing Democrats of doing: He selected a running mate based on her potential ability to appeal to targeted segments of the electorate rather than for her honestly assessed ability to lead the nation should the occasion arise.
The other thing we learned about McCain is that he is willing to take an enormous gamble based on limited information. He only met Palin once before summoning her for a final interview. He realized he needed to shake up the presidential race, and that's what he did. But we are reminded, if we did not realize it before, that the three things not to expect from a McCain presidency are caution, prudence and a willingness to always put the nation's interests above his own.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090101716.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Thankfully, there are those on the blog that keep reminding us to remain positive and not listen to the MSM when they spout doom and gloom or continuously give negative analysis about Senator Obama and this campaign.The thing we have to remember is that this campaign is not like any other and this election is not like any other. Senator Obama has already induced changes that make it difficult for the MSM to speak with any degree of certainty.Frank Rich in his NYT op-ed sums it up very well:
STOP the presses! This election isn’t about the Clintons after all. It isn’t about the Acropolis columns erected at Invesco Field. It isn’t about who is Paris Hilton and who is Hanoi Hilton. (Though it may yet be about who is Sarah Palin.) After a weeklong orgy of inane manufactured melodrama labeled “convention coverage” on television, Barack Obama descended in classic deus ex machina fashion — yes, that’s Greek too — to set the record straight. America is in too much trouble, he said, to indulge in “a big election about small things.”
As has been universally noted, Obama did what he had to do in his acceptance speech. He scrapped the messianic “Change We Can Believe In” for the more concrete policy litany of “The Change We Need.” He bared his glinting Chicago pol’s teeth to John McCain. Obama’s still a skinny guy, but the gladiatorial arena and his eagerness to stand up to bullies (foreign and Republican) made him a plausible Denver Bronco. All week long a media chorus had fretted whether he could pull off a potentially vainglorious stunt before 80,000 screaming fans. Well, yes he can, and so he did.
But was this a surprise? Hardly. No major Obama speech — each breathlessly hyped in advance as do-or-die and as the “the most important of his career” — has been a disaster; most have been triples or home runs, if not grand slams. What is most surprising is how astonished the press still is at each Groundhog Day’s replay of the identical outcome. Indeed, the disconnect between the reality of this campaign and how it is perceived and presented by the mainstream media is now a major part of the year’s story. The press dysfunction is itself a window into the unstable dynamics of Election 2008.
At the Democratic convention, as during primary season, almost every oversold plotline was wrong. Those Hillary dead-enders — played on TV by a fringe posse of women roaming Denver in search of camera time — would re-enact Chicago 1968. With Hillary’s tacit approval, the roll call would devolve into a classic Democratic civil war. Sulky Bill would wreak havoc once center stage.
On TV, each of these hot-air balloons was inflated nonstop right up to the moment they were punctured by reality, at which point the assembled bloviators once more expressed shock, shock at the unexpected denouement. They hadn’t been so surprised since they discovered that Obama was not too black to get white votes, not too white to win black votes, and not too inexperienced to thwart the inevitable triumph of the incomparably well-organized and well-financed Clinton machine.
Meanwhile, the candidate known as “No Drama Obama” because of his personal cool was stealthily hatching a drama of his own. As the various commentators pronounced the convention flat last week — too few McCain attacks on opening night, too “minimalist” a Hillary endorsement on Tuesday, and so forth — Obama held his cards to his chest backstage and built slowly, step by step, to his Thursday night climax. The dramatic arc was as meticulously calibrated as every Obama political strategy.
His campaign, unlike TV’s fantasists, knew the simple truth. The New York Times/CBS News poll conducted on the eve of the convention found that the Democrats were no more divided than the G.O.P: In both parties, 79 percent of voters supported their respective nominees. The simultaneous Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found that 79 percent of Democrats support Obama — which, as Amy Walter of National Journal alone noticed, is slightly higher than either John Kerry and Al Gore fared on that same question (77 percent) in that same poll just before their conventions.
But empirical evidence can’t compete with a favorite golden oldie like the Clinton soap opera. So when Hillary Clinton said a month ago that her delegates needed a “catharsis,” surely she had to be laying the groundwork for convention mischief. But it was never in either Clinton’s interest to sabotage Obama. Hillary Clinton’s Tuesday speech, arguably the best of her career, was as much about her own desire to reconcile with the alienated Obama Democrats she might need someday as it was about releasing her supporters to Obama. The Clintons never do stop thinking about tomorrow.
The latest good luck for the Democrats is that the McCain campaign was just as bamboozled as the press by the false Hillary narrative. McCain was obviously itching to choose his pal Joe Lieberman as his running mate. A onetime Democrat who breaks with the G.O.P. by supporting abortion rights might have rebooted his lost maverick cred more forcefully than Palin, who is cracking this particular glass ceiling nearly a quarter-century after the Democrats got there first. Lieberman might have even been of some use in roiling the Obama-Hillary-Bill juggernaut that will now storm through South Florida.
The main reason McCain knuckled under to the religious right by picking Palin is that he actually believes there’s a large army of embittered Hillary loyalists who will vote for a hard-line conservative simply because she’s a woman. That’s what happens when you listen to the TV news echo chamber. Not only is the whole premise ludicrous, but it is every bit as sexist as the crude joke McCain notoriously told about Janet Reno, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
Given the press’s track record so far, there’s no reason to believe that the bogus scenarios will stop now. The question of why this keeps happening is not easily answered. Ideological bias, unshakeable Clinton addiction and lingering McCain affection may not account for all or even most of it. Journalists are still Americans — even if much of our audience doubts that — and in this time of grave uncertainty about our nation’s future we may simply be as discombobulated as everyone else.
We, too, are made anxious and fearful by hard economic times and the prospect of wrenching change. YouTube, the medium that has transformed our culture and politics, didn’t exist four years ago. Four years from now, it’s entirely possible that some, even many, of the newspapers and magazines covering this campaign won’t exist in their current form, if they exist at all. The Big Three network evening newscasts, and network news divisions as we now know them, may also be extinct by then.
It is a telling sign that CBS News didn’t invest in the usual sky box for its anchor, Katie Couric, in Denver. It is equally telling that CNN consistently beat ABC and CBS in last week’s Nielsen ratings, and NBC as well by week’s end. But now that media are being transformed at a speed comparable to the ever-doubling power of microchips, cable’s ascendancy could also be as short-lived as, say, the reign of AOL. Andrew Rasiej, the founder of Personal Democracy Forum, which monitors the intersection of politics and technology, points out that when networks judge their success by who got the biggest share of the television audience, “they are still counting horses while the world has moved on to counting locomotives.” The Web, in its infinite iterations, is eroding all 20th-century media.
The Obama campaign has long been on board those digital locomotives. Its ability to tell its story under the radar of the mainstream press in part accounts for why the Obama surge has been so often underestimated. Even now we’re uncertain of its size. The extraordinary TV viewership for Obama on Thursday night, larger than the Olympics opening ceremony, this year’s Oscars or any “American Idol” finale, may only be a count of the horses. The Obama campaign’s full reach online — for viewers as well as fund-raising and organizational networking — remains unknown.
None of this, any more than the success of Obama’s acceptance speech, guarantees a Democratic victory. But what it does ensure is that all bets are off when it comes to predicting this race’s outcome. Despite our repeated attempts to see this election through the prism of those of recent and not-so-recent memory, it keeps defying the templates. Last week’s convention couldn’t be turned into a replay of the 1960s no matter how hard the press tried to sell the die-hard Hillary supporters as reincarnations of past rebel factions, from the Dixiecrats to the antiwar left. Far from being a descendant of 1968, the 2008 Democratic gathering was the first in memory that actually kept promptly to its schedule and avoided ludicrous P.C. pandering to every constituency.
Nor were we back at Aug. 28, 1963. As a 14-year-old in Washington, I was there on the Mall, taken by my mother, a tireless teacher, with the hope that I might learn something. At a time when the nation’s capital, with its large black population, was still a year away from casting its first votes for president, who would have imagined that a black man might someday have a serious chance of being elected president? Not me.
But even as we stop, take a deep breath and savor this remarkable moment in our history, we cannot linger. This is quite another time. After the catastrophic Bush presidency, the troubles that afflict us on nearly every front almost make you nostalgic for the day when America’s gravest problems could still be seen in blacks and whites.
As Obama said, this is a big election. We will only begin to confront the magnitude of our choice when and if we stop being distracted by small, let alone utterly fictitious, things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/opinion/31rich.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion
In the midst of all the upbeat, positive thoughts, we see a lot of naysaying and worrying.Although we shouldn't take things for granted regarding the campaign and the election, we also shouldn't get to the point where we are the ones that are hurting ourselves by giving in to the negative tones.
We have to remember why we are in this and why we have invested so much in this campaign and in this election. Senator Obama is the same person today as the one inspired us a year or so ago. We trusted his judgment then (and that of his campaign advisors), so why shouldn't we trust it now? Are we allowing "others" to make us second-guess what it is WE want?
Eugene Robinson talks about our worry-wart tendencies in his Washington Post Op-Ed:
"The Worrywart Party"
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, August 26, 2008; Page A13
DENVER -- If they want to win in November, Democrats have one task to accomplish this week: Snap out of it.
Somehow, tentativeness and insecurity have infected a party that ought to be full of confident swagger. It's not that Democrats don't like their odds of winning the presidency and boosting their majorities in both houses of Congress. It's that they are even bothering to calculate and recalculate those odds.
That's what you could catch Democrats doing last weekend as they assembled for the convention. We'll win, they would say, but we just have to do this or Barack Obama just has to do that or the Clintons have to do this, that and the other. And the stars have to align just so.
People, the stars don't line up any more auspiciously than this. George W. Bush is to presidential unpopularity what Michael Phelps is to aquatic velocity. The Republican candidate for president is a wooden, uncharismatic denizen of Washington whose "maverick" image belies the fact that he has supported Bush on practically every big issue. The economy is sagging, the financial system is in crisis and gasoline prices remain punishingly high. In recent polls, as many as eight out of 10 Americans have said the country is on the wrong track. You don't need a soothsayer to read omens like these.
Since I landed here Saturday night, though, I haven't heard a lot of Democrats crowing about the terrible whuppin' they're about to administer. I've heard predictions of victory, yes, but also a lot of questions. Will Hillary Clinton's die-hard supporters refuse to lay down their arms, even if their champion begs them to? Will an unreconciled Bill Clinton steal the show? Will Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field be so stirring and poetic that the Republicans will slam him again for excessive eloquence?
In other words: Are Hillary Clinton's followers, many of whom care deeply about women's issues, ready to accept a Supreme Court majority that would do away with Roe v. Wade, which John McCain would surely deliver? Has Bill Clinton forgotten everything he ever learned about politics and forsaken his lifelong loyalty to the Democratic Party? Would Obama be wise to effectively renounce the use of his great oratorical gifts, which constitute one of his most powerful and effective weapons?
All these questions are just excuses to fret. Unlike Republicans, Democrats like to obsess about what could go wrong. It's kind of a partisan hobby.
I was going to say that the Republican Party's hobby is driving Democrats crazy with worry, but the truth is that the Democrats are doing this to themselves.
People here complain that the polls are too close for comfort, forgetting that there is rarely anything comfortable about a presidential contest. When was the last time a non-incumbent Democrat cruised to the White House? Clinton, remember, won only a 43 percent plurality of the popular vote in 1992. You have to go all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. Why would anyone think for a moment that Obama could win this without a fight?
I'm being somewhat unkind, because the truth is that the Democratic Party has tried mightily this year to fight its depressive tendencies. The party is even playing offense for a change, taking the fight to McCain in states that used to be a forgone conclusion for the Republicans. Here in Colorado, recent polls show Obama with a small but significant lead; in Virginia, which hasn't gone Democratic since 1964, the race is a dead heat.
As for the Democratic states that McCain is trying to contest, Democrats should take the advice of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. On Saturday, as Joe Biden was being announced as Obama's running mate, Rendell was asked how to keep his state in the Democratic column. His answer, and I'm paraphrasing here, was to quit whining about it and just go out and win the state. He helped the Clintons pummel Obama in the primary, and he pronounced himself raring to help Obama and Biden do the same to McCain in the general.
Even with the fundamentals teed up and the stars smiling, winning the White House was never going to be a walk in the park for any Democrat. The party will have had a successful convention if, at the end of the week, Democrats stop all the worrying and declare a moratorium on second-guessing. Go shake some hands and kiss some babies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/25/AR2008082502336.html
So Stay Positive, Stay Firm, and Keep Your Eye on the Prize!!!
Obama/Biden '08
There are those that continue to claim that they don’t know Barack Obama. In my opinion, the people who make this claim are those that don't WANT to know Obama, whatever their close-minded reason(s).
But how many of us really know John McCain, in spite his years of “public service"? When we listen to the things that he says (and the things that he tries to avoid saying), when you observe his attempts to try to define Barack Obama so as to take the focus away from himself, the flags should go up...BIG TIME!
Eugene Robinson raises this concern in his Washington Post op-ed
.
There's a candidate in this presidential race who remains a mystery -- hazy, undefined, so full of contradictions that voters may see electing him as an enormous risk. I'm referring to the cipher known as John McCain.
In fact, there are some basic things about McCain that apparently even McCain doesn't know. Asked Wednesday by reporters from Politico how many houses he and his wealthy wife, Cindy, own, McCain responded, "I think -- I'll have my staff get to you." The correct answer seems to be in the neighborhood of seven, but who's counting?
I don't begrudge McCain his multiple residences or his $520 Ferragamo shoes. I understand that he was just being flippant and unresponsive when he said at the Saddleback forum last weekend that being rich meant having an income of at least $5 million a year. But it's a stretch, to say the least, for McCain to portray himself as a Regular Joe while painting Barack Obama as some kind of jet-set celebrity.
It's understandable that McCain would want to fuzz this aspect of his biography; at a moment of great economic dislocation and anxiety, people might question your ability to feel their pain if they know that your net worth may be somewhere north of $100 million. Much less comprehensible, and much more troubling, is McCain's habit of "Straight Talking" himself into the wilderness.
When it was pointed out that McCain's pronouncements on the economy often do not conform to his official positions, the candidate's chief economic adviser indicated that we should pay attention to the authorized version -- despite the fact that McCain "has certainly I'm sure said things in town halls" that might deviate.
In other words, don't pay such strict attention to what McCain says because he doesn't speak officially for his own campaign. No wonder he was so insistent on trying to lure Obama into a series of town hall encounters, where Obama might feel constrained by such irrelevancies as consistency and arithmetic.
I guess McCain's unreliability as a spokesman for himself on the issue that voters tell pollsters they care most about should come as no surprise, given his earlier confession -- since retracted, sort of -- that he doesn't really understand economics that well. He is supposed to be an expert on foreign affairs and national security, however -- and here, too, the cannon has come unbelayed and is rolling perilously around the deck.
"We are all Georgians," McCain said in response to the Russian invasion. It was an attempt to define the moment with a memorable line, reminiscent of JFK's famous declaration in Berlin. If McCain was just trying to burnish his commander-in-chief credentials while Obama vacationed in Hawaii, okay, fine, that's politics. If he was serious, though, he needs to clarify the unsettling implications of what he intended to be a stirring phrase. Precisely what was being stirred?
Not the hopes and ambitions of the people of Georgia; by then, they had already realized that despite all the Bush administration's freedom rhetoric, nobody was coming to save them. Certainly not war-weary American voters.
What McCain successfully roiled was the nationalism and bitter nostalgia for great-power status that simmer below the surface of Russian public opinion. Strongman Vladimir Putin plays these sentiments like a violin. A candidate for president of the United States should not further strengthen Putin's hand -- and thus make the next president's job that much harder.
For months, McCain has been arguing for measures that would isolate Russia. He then called the Georgia invasion "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." If he doesn't want to help start a new Cold War, you can't tell from his loose rhetoric.
I'm leaving aside his mini-misstatements in which he confused Sunnis with Shiites or otherwise garbled salient facts about Iraq. What alarms me is the pattern of inconsistency. One day he's soothing, the next he's abrasive. One day he makes a flat-out pledge not to raise taxes, the next he says that everything is on the table as far as Social Security is concerned. One day the buck stops here, the next he's not authorized to speak for, ahem, himself.
It's true that John McCain has been around a long time. But do we really know what he'd do as president? Do we really know who he is?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103112.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Sometimes I hear reports about McCain’s brand of humor and I cringe.
"Maybe that's a way of killing them." --responding to a report that $158 million in cigarettes have been shipped to Iran during Bush's presidency despite restrictions on U.S. exports to that country, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 8, 2008
"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
"I had something picked out for you, too - a little IED (improvised explosive device) to put on your desk." --to Jon Stewart.
It is scary to think of McCain as POTUS. Imagine that while in negotiations with a foreign official, he insults the official or their country by making some comment using his off-brand of humor. Or imagine McCain, with a short-fuse, making some caustic remark that may lead to negative consequences.
In a Washington Post Op-Ed, David Ignatius talks about McCain’s penchant for using zingers, and the danger of its inappropriateness in foreign policy.
These are constant confirmations why Barack Obama must be elected President of the United States.
The Risk of the Zinger
By David Ignatius Wednesday, August 20, 2008; Page A15
It was February 2006 in Munich, and John McCain's eyes were flashing with the mischievous spark that comes when he's about to fire a verbal rocket. "I've got a zinger coming," he told me, referring to a speech on Russia he would give a few hours later at the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy.
And McCain did indeed deliver a zinger. He blasted Vladimir Putin for "the pursuit of autocracy at home and abroad" -- and then urged that Russia be excluded from the G-8 summit of industrialized nations. For good measure, he included a call for Georgia, already a thorn in Russia's side, to join NATO.
McCain's 2006 speech made news, as he knew it would. So did an address in Munich the night before from Georgia's emotional president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He recalled how he had cried the night the Berlin Wall fell -- and then pleaded for Western support for Georgia's efforts to recover the renegade province of South Ossetia and end what he called the "cancer of separatism."
Now that Russia has invaded Georgia, McCain can point to that speech and argue, "I told you so." And it's true enough that the Arizona Republican was early to warn that Putin's Russia was heading in a dangerous direction and that the West should be vigilant. But what sticks in my memory of that day in Munich was the flash in McCain's eyes before he made his provocative speech.
McCain likes zingers. We've all seen that mischievous look -- just before he shot a quip or sarcastic one-liner at GOP rivals such as former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. It's one of his appealing qualities, but in this case it worries me. Zingers don't make good foreign policy. They embolden friends and provoke adversaries -- and in the Georgia crisis, that has proved to be a deadly combination.
In the aftermath of the Georgia war, many commentators have argued that the mercurial Saakashvili walked into a trap by launching an attack Aug. 7 on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali -- providing the pretext for the brutal Russian response. That conclusion emerges from a meticulous reconstruction by The Post's Peter Finn.
So what encouraged Saakashvili to make his reckless gamble? Partly it was the ambivalent policy of the Bush administration, which told the Georgian leader one month that "We always fight for our friends" (as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in July in Tbilisi about Georgia's bid to join NATO) and the next month cautioned restraint. And partly it was cheerleading from the pro-Georgia lobby, in which McCain has been one of the loudest voices.
Let's put aside the fact that McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has in fact been a lobbyist for Georgia. In his own feisty comments in recent months, McCain encouraged Georgians to believe America would back them up in a crisis. That expectation was naive, and it was wrong to encourage it. It was especially wrong to give a volatile leader such as Saakashvili what he evidently imagined was an American blank check.
In the post-Cold War world, small countries often get into fights they can't finish -- hoping that big powers will come to their rescue. That happened in the 1990s with Bosnia and Kosovo, which hoped their desperate vulnerability would force Western intervention, as it eventually did. On the other side, the Serbs played the same game, hoping (wrongly, as it turned out) that Russia would intervene. The better part of wisdom sometimes is to tell small, embattled nations and ethnic groups: Swallow your pride and compromise; the cavalry isn't coming to save you.
There's a moral problem with all the pro-Georgia cheerleading, which has gotten lost in the op-ed blasts against Putin's neo-imperialism. A recurring phenomenon of the early Cold War was that America encouraged oppressed peoples to rise up and fight for freedom -- and then, when things got rough, abandoned them to their fate. The CIA did that egregiously in the early 1950s, broadcasting to the Soviet republics and the nations of Eastern Europe that America would back their liberation from Soviet tyranny. After the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956, responsible U.S. leaders learned to be more cautious, and more honest about the limits of American power.
Now, after the Georgia war, McCain should learn that lesson: American leaders shouldn't make threats the country can't deliver or promises it isn't prepared to keep. The rhetoric of confrontation may make us feel good, but other people end up getting killed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081902257.html
Jack Cafferty's commentary expresses so well the frustrations many feel about our current administration, and the concerns and fears at the thought of a McCain administration.
Commentary: Is McCain another George W. Bush?
By Jack CaffertyCNN
His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to 9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New Orleans.
Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.
I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.
Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?
Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.
He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.
He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.
Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?
John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.
He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.
George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.
He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.
I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.
Michelle Obama has often referred to the shifting bar when it comes to the lives of the average American. When we do the things we have been told we are supposed to do to reach the American dream – to make a good life for ourselves, our family, and our community – the bar shifts. We have to work more hours to make less money. The opportunities that were once available to us are being taken away. Where a person could once look forward to enjoying their retirement, we now wonder whether they will financially be able to retire. Where a person could once hope that their children’s lives would be better than theirs, we now wonder what will be left for them.
By the same token, I see the bar constantly shifting with regard to the Obama Presidential Campaign. What is acceptable for other candidates is not acceptable for Senator Obama. When he tries to be concise in presenting his proposed policies, he doesn’t go into enough detail. When he gives more detail to explain his position, he needs to learn to talk in sound bites. People claim that they don’t know anything about him, but they hear too much about him in the media. He’s not aggressive enough when he chooses to take the high road. He’s negative when responds to attacks on him. When he modifies his stand on an issue (i.e., compromises), he is flip-flopping. When others do the same, they are adjusting their position based on new or changing conditions. When he takes a firm stand on an issue (e.g., Iraq), he is showing a lack of understanding or a readiness to lead, or is pandering to a particular group. When others do the same, it’s okay because at least you know where they stand on an issue, and they are not pandering. Just showing that they are willing to take a stand and not be swayed. We see a constantly shifting bar for the Obama campaign. (Some would call it a double standard.)
But the upside of the shifting bar is that Senator Obama is raising the bar. Each time he meets the shifting bar, he tends to surpass it. So in all the attacks, in all the “vetting”, the status quo does not realize that they are allowing Senator Obama to set new standards that they will have to meet going forward.
The bar is being raised as to how future political campaigns will be run. The average American will be more involved. The mainstream media will not be the guiding force in determining who the candidates will be and how they will fare in the election. Special interest groups and large corporations will not be the primary source of funding and therefore, will not be able to set the agenda. We know that there are other sources of information. We do not take everything that comes from the mainstream media as fact. WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION AS NEVER BEFORE AND WE ARE BECOMING MORE INVOLVED AS NEVER BEFORE!!!
And when Barack Obama becomes President of the United States, the bar will again be raised for anyone even THINKING about running for POTUS, or any other office. He is raising the bar as to what our expectations should be. He is urging us and encouraging us to stay involved and hold our elected officials accountable. We can demand more transparency in our government. And, we should not expect our government to get bigger. Instead, WE SHOULD EXPECT OUR GOVERNMENT TO GET SMARTER. We should expect our government to work for us – the Average American.
For Senator Obama to continue to raise the bar, we must continue to support him. It is with this thought that I have established the RAISING THE BAR Fundraiser (my first!). Together, we can help Senator Obama raise the bar.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/SMRaisingtheBarFundraiser
