The Obama Candidacy: A Historian's View

On Winning White Working Class Votes in November

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 10 May 2008 08:48:26 EDT

Much has been made of Obama's supposedly weak support among working-class whites with less than a college education. This from Alan Abramowitz, Washington Post, Sat May 10:

". . . Racial attitudes have changed dramatically in the United States over the past several decades, of course, and overtly racist beliefs are much less prevalent among white Americans of all classes today. But a more subtle form of prejudice, which social scientists sometimes call symbolic racism, is still out there -- especially among working-class whites.
Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination. Who holds symbolically racist beliefs? A relatively large portion of white voters in general and white working-class voters in particular, according to the 2004 American National Election Study, the best data available on this topic. A few answers underscore how widespread these attitudes are:
· Almost 60 percent of white voters agreed with the statement that "blacks should try harder to succeed." A startling 43 percent of white college graduates nodded at this one, along with 71 percent of whites with no college education.
· Fully 49 percent of white voters disagreed with the statement that "history makes it more difficult for blacks to succeed." Forty percent of white college graduates disagreed with it, along with 58 percent of whites with no college education. "

These numbers are very disturbing, but can also be overcome with a lot of hard work.

Headlines We'll Never See

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 10 May 2008 08:36:34 EDT

Some Headlines I'm Hoping to See Someday:

"Republican Party Crashes & Burns. Entire GOP Goes Down in Flames"

"Karl Rove Has Spiritual Transformation - Opts to Scale Mt Everest Barefoot & Wearing Only Loincloth to Repent for Past Sins."

NYT, January 2014. "Ex-President Bush Fails in Speaking Tour Bid; Drinking & Carousing Lead to Divorce, Destitution, Downward Spiral; Secures Job Clearing Brush in Montana under Obama Sustainable Public Lands Program."

More coming soon! Add your own!

Limitations of Dialup Internet for Poor & Rural ObamaBlog Users

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:00:55 EDT

Friends,

Last night on the Open Thread (Thurs May 8) there emerged a Critical Issue that HQ would be well-advised to address as expeditiously as possible - the difficulties experienced by visitors to the Obama Website who have a dialup connection to the Internet. The connections are too slow to load up the Blog pages, and a Thread with 800 or 1,000 comments freezes up folks's computers, effectively SILENCING people who want to participate in the Blog but can't because of technical limitations. There MUST be a simple technical fix for this problem. HQ, it seems to me that you ignore this issue at your peril . . . . .

It is Possible

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:02:31 EDT

IT REALLY IS POSSIBLE • That the American People Really Have Finally Woken Up from their Long Political Torpor • That a Critical Mass of the Electorate Really Have Seen through the Crap • That Alternative Media Really Do Make Mainstream Media Vulnerable to Subversion & Displacement • That We Really Can Mount an Effective Challenge to the Richest & Most Powerful Interests on Earth • That this Nation's Long Downhill Slide over the Past 30 Years Really Can Be Arrested & Even Reversed • That a Critical Mass of Young People Really Have Actually Begun To Care About Politics & Public Life • That Divisions of Race & Class & Gender & Religion & Culture & Politics Really Can Be Bridged • That this Nation's Future is Not Bleak but Promising • That in the Next Eight Years under an Obama Presidency We Really Can Remake American Democracy and this Nation's Place in the World

Thank You INDIANA!!! Thank You NORTH CAROLINA!!!

IT REALLY IS POSSIBLE.

ObamaBloggers' Guidelines & Tips FINAL DRAFT - May 5

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sun, 04 May 2008 23:14:29 EDT

ObamaFamily --

In the coming weeks, as we Churn Inexorably toward the Democratic Nomination, thousands & thousands of visitors & new supporters will be flocking to the ObamaBlog. In the spirit of Barack's campaign, the Blog Community wishes to cultivate in the BlogSpace a Positive & Welcoming Spirit of Cooperation & Common Purpose. We also want to help Obama supporters who are relative Newcomers to the Internet, by making accessible some simple but very handy tricks & tips. This *FINAL DRAFT* of a set of Community-Generated Guidelines & Tips for ObamaBloggers is intended to help us along that path.

Please offer any suggestions for changes, revisions, additions, whatever!

Though the document will continue to evolve, the next step will be to Petition HQ to make these Guidelines & Tips more readily accessible to the Blogging Community – preferably as a New Page linked to a New Button on the right-hand side. If you think that's a good idea, leave a comment that says something like: "HQ – please create a new button & page!" A cavalcade of such comments will hopefully prove compelling, but HQ isn't likely to Smile Upon the Idea unless a Critical Mass of Bloggers ask for it. Target date for bringing the Proposal to HQ is early next week (wk of May 12; hopefully it'll be implemented by late spring or early summer; this is a long-term project. PS – if you made a suggestion but don't see it included then My Bad - please make again?) [ PS - HI HQ!!! Looky what we're doing!!! Organizing Ourselves!!! Look forward to Collaborating soon! ]

GUIDELINES & TIPS FOR OBAMABLOGGERS
1. GENERAL CONSENSUS GUIDELINES ON OBAMABLOG CUSTOMS & ETIQUETTE
    •    Tone and Spirit
    •    Public Profiles
    •    Replying
    •    ALL CAPS
    •    White Space
    •    For Long & Repeat Posts
    •    Spamming
    •    Hijacking
    •    Trolls
    •    Dissent
    •    Cussing & Swear Words
    •    Derogatory Labels & Ephithets & Stereotypes
    •    Intellectual Property Rights

2. TECHNICAL TIPS
     A. THE BASICS
         •   What is the ObamaBlog? How does it work?
         •   How to Make a Public Profile
         •   MyBO Individual Blogs
         •   Read More" Function on MyBO
         •   Copying & Pasting
         •   Putting Links in a Comment
         •   Searching for your Comment or a Specific Word in a Blog
         •   Right-Clicking
         •   Checking Profiles
     B. MORE ADVANCED
         •   Bold, Italics & Underlining
        •   Special Characters
         •   Being FIRST!
3. BLOGGING LEXICON & VOCABULARY

Please click "Read More" to view the full DRAFT.

Loooking 4 Work

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:01:52 EDT

Helo Obamma Peeple,

My name is Dan Quayle you may remmember me from severral yearrs ago when I ran for Vice Pressident and Lost well sinse that time things have ben kind of slow politics-wise esppecialy after that particullary trublesome Potatoe incident but be that as it May I am here to Volunteeer my Servises as Vice Presidenshul Candideat I have a Big Smile and a Big HEadful of Wavvy Shinning Hair and can Wave from Open Cars liek a Champeen and most peopple have prety much forgoten who I am so that is NOT a concerrn and I can probablly get the Rich White Republicann vote for youguys so what do you Say??

I am Reddy! One word sums up probably the responsabilaty of any vice president and that one word is "To Be Preppared!" Plus I love Washhington DC I mean almost Grew Up in Feenix!

Anyways my ressume is readdy to send at the click of a mousse and I earnesstly desire to Weild Power Yet Agaain, so Please consider me for Vice Presidenshul Materiel You Wil Not Be Sorrry!!!

Sincerely,

Farmer Senitor Dan Quayle

to the Silent One

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:07:50 EDT

You Know Who You Are.

Obama-Blog-Reader-Who-Makes- Not-A-Peep.

Intrigued by Barack Obama, Ardent Supporter or Just Plain Curious, you Visit this Blog. You Survey the Chatter. You Read what's Interesting. You Laugh at Obamacrat's Jokes.

For Every Active Blogger there are 100 of You. Maybe more. You Read. You Think. You Reflect.

You Remain Silent.

Well Consider This, O Silent One: Your Silence is Just Fine. Obama is Captivating, and You and Your Inquisitive Truth-Seeking Mind are Most Welcome Here. It is a Remarkable Place as you know, its Posts & Conversations Fascinating and Delightfully Riotous in their Variety - Informative & Deep & Comical & Profound & Hopeful & Endlessly Interesting. Your Silence is your Choice, and it is a Good Choice.

Now Reflect on This, O Silent One: Barack Obama's Campaign depends on Millions & Millions of Small Donors. Millions of Droplets of Cash of $5 and $10 and $20 drizzling drizzling drizzling to make this Campaign of Hope possible. A Flood of Droplets of Cash from People Just Like You.

You know the critical issues -- • Jobs Bleeding Overseas • HOUSING CRISIS • the Iraq Disaster • HEALTH CARE • Political Rancor & Division & Partisanship & Gridlock • POLITICS OF SMEARS & FEARS • Corruption By Special Interests & Lobbyists • SKYROCKETING GAS PRICES • Obscene Oil Company Profits • AL QAEDA, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN • Climate Change • VENAL & INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP • Education & Schools • GOVERNMENT SECRECY • Tax Breaks for the Super-Rich • SKY-HIGH DEFICITS & DEBT • Rising Unemployment • GROWING ANTI-AMERICANISM WORLDWIDE . . . and so much more . . .

You KNOW Barack Obama is a TRUE LEADER the likes of which comes along only once every Generation or more. You FEEL the Optimism & Hope that Saturate this Site. You SEE how Barack Obama is Transforming American Politics by Wrenching Our Democracy Away from the Corrupting Influence of Lobbyists & Special Interests.

You KNOW it's an Uphill Fight. That the Odds are Against him. You see it now with the Flag-Pin distraction & the Rev-You-Know-Who distraction & more. You Feel you should Do Something.

Well here's my suggestion: Listen, O Silent One. Listen to the Drizzle. Listen & become a Drop in the Flood!

♪ ♫ $5 ♪ ♫ $10 ♪ ♫ $25 ♫

♫ ♪ Be a Drop in the Drizzle of Hope ! ♪ ♫

Care

Learn

Act

* LINK *

Click Here Now & Help Heal the Nation & World • Obama '08 •

Public Appeal

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:27:14 EDT

♪ ♫ See a dollar pick it up ♪ ♫

This Note Is Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private . . . Public? . . . Private?

PUBLIC ART
PUBLIC DEBT
PUBLIC SPACE
PUBLIC PARKS
PUBLIC LANDS
PUBLIC ACCESS
PUBLIC SPHERE
PUBLIC BEACHES
PUBLIC INTEREST
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC AIRWAVES
PUBLIC LIBRARIES
PUBLIC FACILITIES
PUBLIC BUILDINGS
PUBLIC SIDEWALKS
PUBLIC SANITATION
PUBLIC WATERWAYS
PUBLIC BROADCASTING
PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES
PUBLIC ISSUES & DEBATES
PUBLIC RADIO & TELEVISION
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONS
PUBLIC COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES
PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
PUBLIC WATERFRONT
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC EDUCATION
PUBLIC MEETINGS
PUBLIC SUBSIDIES
PUBLIC UTILITIES
PUBLIC SERVANTS
PUBLIC HOUSING
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PUBLIC DOMAIN
PUBLIC STREETS
PUBLIC HEALTH
PUBLIC SECTOR
PUBLIC VIRTUE
PUBLIC WATER
PUBLIC GOOD
PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE

PUBLIC: Government. State Apparatus. Law. Courts. Bureaucracy. USA: Federal-State-Local Levels. Based on Social Contract of CITIZEN & STATE: Citizenship, Civil Rights. Taxes & Loyalty in Exchange for Protection of Life, Property, Rights. PUBLIC creates infrastructure for PRIVATE: Constitution creates Rights, Law, Property. PUBLIC densely woven with PRIVATE from the get-go.

PRIVATE: Property. Capitalism: Production & Exchange. Markets. Families. Homes. Worship. Faith. Businesses: Small, Medium, Large. Small Business: Cannot Compete: Disadvantaged in Globalized Economy: Startups, Failures. Big Business: Dominate: Big Fish Eat Little Fish: WalMarts Eat Mom&Pops. BIG MegaCorporations: Sole Purpose: Maximize Profits. Nothing Sacred but PROFITS: Not Land, Water, Air, Earth, Human Life. BIG PRIVATE INTERESTS: Corrupt PUBLIC Sector: Big Money Buys Public Power: Lobbyists, Special Interests. Immense Power, Resources: Ruthless Pursuit of Profit. Military-Industrial-Media Complex: NYT 4.26.08 * Joe Ruwe's War Machine *Joe's Blog *

WHAT'S TRUE

     • Proper Role of Government is Pursuit of PUBLIC GOOD by Balancing Public & Private
     • Public & Private Sectors Interwoven since the Founding
     • Today: Public Sphere Deeply Corrupted by BIG Business
     • Charges of Communism & Socialism are like FlagPins: Distractions
     • Big Business: Deeply Opposed to Obama Presidency: Working to Destroy
     • Common Decency & Basic Fairness are Essence & Core of PUBLIC GOOD
     • A question of BALANCE

OBAMA SEEKS TO RE-BALANCE PRIVATE INTERESTS & PUBLIC GOOD

OBAMA SEEKS THE PUBLIC GOOD

Care
Learn
Act
* Give! *
to Rebalance
Public & Private Good
Click Here Now and Help Rebalance the World   • Obama '08 •

We Should Boycott Those Stupid Faux Polls

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:39:01 EDT

Friends,

I think we should Boycott Sponsored Internet "Polls". They're a bad idea and we shouldn't play into Sponsored Faux Polls unless it's purely for sport - like shooting clay pigeons or catching waterbugs or something. Otherwise they're counterproductive and Should Be Boycotted.

Why? First, they're totally worthless statistically. They don't mean anything in the realm of statistics or science. We can get into that but it's just true.

The only other arguments for them are (a) they're fun, and (b) they're part of the "battle of perceptions". Reason (a), okay, go for it. Reason (b): Participating & voting because of "the battle of perceptions" plays into a System that represents the Old Politics and plays into the hands of our Enemies.

Why? At least Three Reasons.

First, our Enemies are Nefarious Demons, and they have Oodles & Oodles of Resources. Reason 1 is that Our Enemies have more Power & Resources than We do, and they are using those Resources to undermine Obama's candidacy every second of every day. Faux Polls are a small part of their arsenal.

Second, whose "perceptions"? Considering the Vast Sea of Relative Indifference covering most of North America, and the super-abundance of Real Polling Data, all Sponsored Polls do is add to the background noise. They clutter & confuse perceptions, not clarify them.

Reason 3: Imagine the Opposite. Imagine if We Didn't Play. Imagine if we BOYCOTTED FAKE POLLS. We would get 10% in the Faux News Polls. Obviously worthless. Rush Limbaugh would have to call out his shock troops to boost our numbers.

It would be totally obvious. "Look!! the Internet "Click-N-Vote" Polls say Obama 10% but Gallup & Rasmussen & other Reputable Polls say 58% ! ! DUH! Which is Real? Which should I believe?"

It's the Wrong Game to Play. Why?

Because it Plays to our Enemies' Strengths. It gives Them the Field. They have the Money and Power, people. They can BURY us with their resources. We do not have POWER. Yet.

Our Enemies Can Buy More & Bigger Faux Polls Than We Can.

So let's not play by the Rulebook given us by our Enemies! Unless you feel like voting in these things is like catching waterbugs & tadpoles in the springtime - something done for the Pure Joy of it. If that's the case, who am I to stomp on someone's fun?

Otherwise I think it's in the interests of the Obama campaign that Obama supporters Boycott Faux Polls.

Please sign on if you agree - or make suggestions about what types of Faux Polls to participate in and which types to to boycott - this is directed mainly at the "Hillary vs. Obama" Faux Polls - here on the ObamaBlog we get dozens of postings every day encouraging people to vote on these things and to my mind it's a waste of good effort & good BlogSpace.

Thanks for listening.

"ObamaBloggers." Basic Books, © 2025 (excerpt)

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:45:19 EDT

Excerpt from "ObamaBloggers: Political Communities of Hope & Change at the Dawn of the Digital Age, 2007-2016" (Basic Books, 2025).

Chapter 4. Toward the Nomination
     The twenty-four hours around the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania illustrate the growing size, energy, coherence, and incoherence of the ObamaBlog Community.   In rapid-fire sequence of New Threads, HQ's wizards posted 24 threads in 24 hours – a new record. Interest in the First! Game dwindled as attention riveted on the crucial Pennsylvania contest . Polls opened at eight o'clock Tuesday morning.   In the 24 hours after ten o'clock Monday night, Bloggers posted some 12,000 comments – one every seven seconds –  nearly twice the average in the previous weeks.   Long announcements, solicitations, and link-lists were replaced by clipped one-liners– Barack on CNN! – YES WE CAN! – Hillary on the ropes – OBAMA'08! – Barack on Jon Stewart *Link*.   Several scuffles and shouting matches broke out on various threads. Most were quickly smoothed, but the Community's nerves were clearly frazzled.
     Over the course of this 24-hour period, the intensified chatter focused on polls, projections, speculations, Hillary-thumping, and ObamaCheers, while blogspace was peppered with prayers, poems, analyses, reports from the field, and personal testimonies of volunteers and supporters.   The long-awaited moment sparked an outpouring of emotion across the board. Two separate dances broke out spontaneously on Christopher Hass's afternoon Blog announcing the endorsement of 29 North Carolina state legislators.   Wild enthusiasm and predictions of smashing victory were tempered by appeals to prudence and patience.   Ever-helpful Lace continued her Troll-patrols; Joe Ruwe paused in his blistering critiques of a failed Iraq policy; SaSa fluttered about squelching rumors and offering reassurances.  The six weeks were finally over, and the Community's attention focused laser-like on Pennsylvania.
     That evening, as the magnitude of the MSM's reported 10-point defeat began to sink in, the day's earlier optimism yielded to commiseration, appeals to faith, and reminders to keep things in perspective. "Hello?" "need a hug," read the first two posts on Tuesday's Election Thread II. "((((hugs)))) to all," read the third. "I feel your pain.. here is a big hug from NY." "I need a beer," shrugged Altar Eggo; "I need (another) cheesesteak" confessed MtnMom. The frowny-faced chatter continued until Patrick in NM's sharp rejoinder – "Come on people! Get up, Stay up!"
     So it continued through the night and next day – reflections on (and incessant challenges to) the MSM's reported 10-percent margin of defeat; reminders of the previous weeks' dramatic gap-closing; calls for Hope & Belief as well as organizing, strategizing, and action.  The next major caches of delegates came in the May 6 primaries in Indiana – where polls showed the race neck-and-neck – and North Carolina, where Obama was expected to score a major victory.
     The Community drew together in the aftermath of the Pennsylvania defeat, mirroring the days after New Hampshire.   Donations skyrocketed, reaching a staggering all-time high in April, . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's Make History People! Let's Truly Turn the Page on the past 28 years of conservative Republican domination! This is The Moment, and Our Time Is Now!

Bloggers' Guidelines & Tips DRAFT

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:08:26 EDT

ObamaFamily --

This is the *DRAFT* of a set of Community-Generated Guidelines & Tips for ObamaBloggers. The goal is to improve & enhance the ObamaBlog experience for individual Bloggers and the entire ObamaBlog Community.

Please click on "Read More" to see the full *DRAFT* and leave Comments & Suggestions in the Comments section.

Thanks!

GUIDELINES & TIPS FOR OBAMABLOGGERS
1. GENERAL CONSENSUS GUIDELINES ON OBAMABLOG CUSTOMS & ETIQUETTE.
2. TECHNICAL TIPS. (A) THE BASICS. (B) MORE ADVANCED.
3. BLOGGING LEXICON & VOCABULARY.

Please click "Read More" to view the full DRAFT.

What Are We Doing Here Anyway?

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:24:02 EDT

Friends,

Well like everyone else I'm still trying to wrap my head around what this Internet Revolution means for the Great American Democratic Experiment that started 221 years ago this summer. The Big Issue, o'course, is Campaign Financing - Giant Rivers of Cash from FatCat Donors being displaced by Endless Streamlets of Cash from Millions of Donors (that's us!!). The emerging system has the potential to profoundly subvert the way American Politics has functioned since the invention of the Railroad - say, the 1840s.

So that seems Kinda Big. Closer at hand, because I'm strangely addicted to them, are these ObamaBlogs. It's weird. We all zip along on these Blogs like it's the most natural thing in the world to chat & exchange ideas with thousands of people scattered across the Planet. We have instant access to an astonishing array of information that we constantly share & exchange. We create and re-create a virtual community that swirls around the Sharing of Information that we hope will help lead to an Obama presidency. Needless to say, none of these things have ever existed in the History of the Human Species. We're in uncharted waters here, folks.

What does all this mean? What kind of community are we creating? Where are we going with it? Who knows?

Given the state of things in the world today, and the extraordinary interest the Obama candidacy has sparked internationally, it's likely that the ObamaBlogs are among the most heavily trafficked blogs on the Planet. If so it shows. It's like the Wild West in here, a relentless cavalcade of chatter & cheers & insights & ads & screeds & rants & laments & troublesome trolls & avalanches of information zipping past and then - NEW THREAD! and it starts all over again - nonstop, 24/7, day after day, month after month. Will it continue after Obama's elected? Hope so, but who knows?

The vast bulk of the traffic stays completely invisible, as ObamaFriend Dale Tucker's very interesting experiment of 4/19 showed. For every semi-regular contributor there's at least 100 people out there, watching, listening, paying close attention & never making a peep.

We're smack in the middle of creating something here, ObamaFamily, and we're not even sure what it is. It's cluttered & confusing & constantly changing & we're all part of it, somehow.

But despite all the confusion, some things seem clear. For one, we all agree we're creating a community infused with a certain sensibility based on the broad principles laid out by Barack Obama. These include -- Integrity in Government. Truthfulness. Honesty. Deepened Democracy. Bridged Social & Class & Racial & Political Divisions. Environmental Sanity. Peace & Cooperation Abroad, to the extent possible in today's global environment. And, we all mostly agree that Barack Obama is an Honest & Smart & Inspiring Leader with sound principles that focus strongly on the Public Good. These seem the vortices around which these Blogs swirl. Basic principles upon which we all agree. So that part's easy. Mostly.

Second, we DO stuff. Lots of what goes on here is organizing events, expanding phone calling, gathering donations. We do real, concrete, boots-on-the-ground stuff here. That's a large part of what these ObamaBlogs are all about. Action. Integrating Web-Action and Street-Action. It's a huge part of what makes Obama's campaign so powerful – the integration of Web & Street.

Third, a certain spirit infuses these Blogs, a shared sensibility that's focused on notions of the PUBLIC good. A set of principles & values that focuses on the Collective well-being, while at the same time protecting & defending Individual rights & privileges. Collective in the sense of, hey -- We're All In This Together. The Spirit infusing these Blogs is a Fight-the-Good-Fight spirit. It is a Truth-Justice-Peace spirit. It saturates everything. There's even a Consensus Policy on Troublesome Trolls. Lace is the point-person on that.

So sure the Blogs are raucous and crowded and we're elbow-to-elbow jostling each other around, and people get shoved out of the way in the race to be FIRST! on the NEW THREAD! but we're also courteous & kind & watch out for each other & do favors & go stand in corners and have great conversations about all kinds of stuff.

There are so many aspects to this Internet Wild West – and I got to thinking how the American Revolution originated in the Correspondence Societies that emerged in the wake of the Seven Years' War & especially from the early 1770s – Patriots who "Corresponded" with each other in the major cities & towns up & down the Atlantic Seaboard, in opposition to British rule. In other words, Networking & Correspondence were at the core of the American Revolution. Exchanging Letters & Ideas leading to sharpened Public Debate and the organizing of actions, boycotts, meetings, and the like. So here we are, in 2008, Networking & Corresponding & creating new kinds of Correspondence Societies, new kinds of Communities. Of course so are all the Hate Groups, as Jim in Arizona pointed out the other day. Somebody should write a thesis on all this stuff.

So I throw these musings out as a kind of Provocation, an Initial Blurt-Out in what I hope might become a wider conversation.

There's a Cluster of Questions Here, ObamaFamily, and you are invited to comment on any or all of them:
- What are YOU doing here? What do the ObamaBlogs mean to YOU?
- Are you addicted to blogging here? Why? What do you find especially compelling about these Blogs?
- What do you see as the "Animating Spirit" of these Blogs? What Blog-Community values are most important to you?
- What kind of a Community are we creating here? What binds us together, and what has the potential to divide & fragment us?
- What kinds of changes or modifications would you like to see in the structure of the site?
- Where do YOU think the site is headed, or should head - in the short term, medium term, and long term?
- What do YOU think we're doing here?
- Any other questions or topics that the foregoing sub-questions elide or ignore.
IN SHORT, FRIENDS -- WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?
Your job is to SEIZE any of these questions & make them your own!

Please click on READ MORE to see the dialogue generated thus far. I will be adding people's comments to the "READ MORE" section as time passes, copying-and-pasting from the "Comments" section.
I'm hoping that the compilation that results from these efforts, which may run into hundreds or even thousands of comments, might be of some small help to this Web community in the wider process of its own Self-Creation.
Thank you for participating & for being part of this Community!

The Bush Years: Comprehensive List of Accomplishments

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:29:25 EDT

Friends! -- You are all cordially invited to contribute to this comprehensive accounting of all the positive accomplishments of the two Bush Admistrations - a list that just seems to grow longer by the minute! Thanks for all your creative ideas! (Purpose - to generate some ammunition for when the race turns to McSame).

NOTE: In the unlikely event you've developed selective amnesia about all the "accomplishments" of the past 8 years, you might wish to review the following YouTube videos: Bushisms [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRYPYuFZLk], Bushisms II [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA9tOE-2ej8&NR=1] and Best Bushisms [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K05KMqyKk88&feature=related] - hell, just search "Bushisms" on YouTube & it's guaranteed to roil all those dormant brain cells & stir up all those repressed memories.

WARNING! Viewing these videos & participating in this compilation means you might actually start remembering what it's been like.

The Bush Years: Comprehensive List of Accomplishments

1. Kept the brush down in Crawford TX. (Michael in MI)
2. Showed that children's books can be read upside down. (Sally)
3. Created alot of new assignments and jobs for English grammar teachers as they tried to edit their jobs. (GlobalCitizenLinda)
4.  Provided stand-up comedians with an abundance of laughlines. (GlobalCitizenLinda)
5. Promoted job growth among manufacturers of rally protest signs.  (GlobalCitizenLinda)
6.  Made Gulf War I look much better, along with the rest of his father's time in office. (SaSa)
7. Created many new & useful words like "strategory". (Nancy "Hope" B from PA)
8. Turned Al Gore into a deity. (Suna Z)
9. Prompted many Americans to come to their senses and become Democrats. (WomanOver60)
10. Yep. (Joe Ruwe)
11. . . . .
12. . . . .
PLEASE CLICK ON "READ MORE" BELOW TO SEE THE ENTIRE LIST!

Please submit any suggestions you might have in the comments. Thank you.

♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ Ode To ABC News ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:51:13 EDT

♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ Ode To ABC News ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫

Well They Did Them a 'Debate' down at ABC
Not Worth a Puddle o' Donkey Pee!
Mop-Head Georgie-Boy & Charlie-Nothin'-New
Not Worth a Pile o' Donkey Doo!

"FlagPins, Bombings, t' Guns They Cling"
That Georgie-Boy's Neck I surely wanna Ring!
An' there's Doofus-Charlie Askin' Questions Like a Dork
Straight Into His Backside I wanna Stick My Fork!

Mop-Head Georgie-Boy Stephalopo-Lame
Askin' Questions Like His Viewers They ain't Got No Brain!
Charlie-Nothin'-New, he'd be Tweedle Dee
Dissin' All the Voters that'd be You & Me!

Y'got Fat-Cat Sponsors Pullin' all the Strings
Tellin' y'all jus' what Song To Sing!
They Say "Jump!" 'n y'all ask, 'How High?'
A Pack o' Faithful Lapdogs Barkin' Lies!

Y'say, 'Our Viewers? hah! They got Heads o' Wood!
So we c'n ignore that pesky varmint called the Public Good'!
Y'got Mop-Head Georgie-Boy Spoutin' Diarrhea
So y' can't be su'prised when all y'ur Viewers say 'See Ya!'

Well They Did Them a Debate Down at ABC
Not Worth a Puddle o' Donkey Pee!
Mop-Head Georgie-Boy & Charlie Nothin'-New
Not Worth a Pile o' Donkey Doo!

Repeat

All part of the venting process. Thank you for your indulgence.

Thank-You Letter to President of ABC News re "Debate"

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:31:47 EDT

David Westin, President of ABC News                   April 17, 2008
Dear Mr. Westin,
We write to thank you for your ABC News "Debate" of April 16. This "debate" served an important public function by showing ABC News to be fundamentally craven, insipid, inane, and an insult to the intelligence of every American who cares about this country's future.
As you know, many Americans believe that the "MSM" (Mainstream Media) serves the interests not of viewers or voters, but of corporate sponsors and its own bottom line. Many also suspect that Barack Obama, in calling for an end to the power of "lobbyists & special interests" in Washington, represents a direct threat to the Mainstream Media's continuing power, profits, and capacity to influence public opinion.
Last night's "debate" provides powerful evidence in support of these beliefs & sentiments. Indeed, there are certain "moments" in history when the essence & core of an individual or institution suddenly become crystal clear – such as Bill Clinton's "I did not inhale" prevarication, or the Bush Administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. In these singular moments, the truth of things suddenly becomes clear.  The same was true of the April 16 "debate".
The "debate" exposed with uncommon clarity the essence & core of ABC News - that it has no interest whatever in serving the public good.  As a symbol of "how things really are," the "debate" also reminds us of the events in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. As you know, in their struggle for civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the SCLC hoped that the city authorities of Birmingham would respond with violence, thus revealing the essence of Jim Crow – ugly, violent, and morally indefensible. The strategy worked. Bull Connor & his police dogs & water-cannon, trained at thousands of peaceful demonstrators, gave the Civil Rights Movement exactly what it needed at that critical juncture - proving to ordinary Americans, and to the world, the violence & evil at the core of Jim Crow.
On a much lesser scale, your "debate" served a similar public function. It demonstrated with stark clarity that ABC News has no interest whatever in promoting substantive public discourse on the issues facing American voters. Instead, by focusing on "flag-pins," "bitterness & guns & religion", and a host of other irrelevant & distracting non-issues, ABC News revealed its essence & core - a "news" organization whose only interest is in securing its own profits and advancing the interests of its sponsors, and with deep antipathy toward the prospect of an Obama presidency.
We therefore thank you for revealing with such clarity the truth about the core mission & values of ABC News. We also thank you for providing us with a symbol around which we might rally in our struggle against the interests your "news" organization serves and the values it espouses.
Sincerely,
Goal: 100 signatories.
(Sign on in the comments)

Some Tips on Being FIRST!

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:07:45 EDT

Some Tips on Being FIRST!

1. Carve out a couple hours’ free time.

2. Click “Refresh” or "Blogs" every few seconds when you think it’s about time for a new Blog to pop up. If you click "refresh" make sure you're on the main page and not inside one of the blogs, otherwise you'll never know a new thread's popped up till you read a post that says "New Thread!".

3. Keep clicking “Refresh” or "Blogs" till your finger’s about to fall off.
4. KEEP SHARP!  Stay fresh, remembering every second what you'll do in case a new blog actually does pop up. Go through the steps in your mind. Where do you click next? Paste next? Are you sure? DON'T DAYDREAM!

5. Meantime compose whatever it is you want to say in a word processer.  In the view of many authorities, this is very important step.  This is called the "Have Something to Say" school of thought on Being FIRST! If you subscribe to this school of thought, write something then copy it (highlight-Control-C). If you subscribe to the "Just Holler Into the Microphone" school of thought, don't worry about it.
6. When the new Blog pops up, Move Like Greased Lightening! DO NOT HESITATE! Move at 0.9 percent the speed of light through all the necessary steps, NOT HESITATING a nano-second at any step along the way.  If you "Have Something To Say," quick paste your comment into the box (Control-V), dash off a Title in the Title Bar, and QUICK CLICK SUBMIT!

6. Sit back, sip your coffee, smile smugly, and enjoy your 15 Minutes of Fame!
Warning: These Tips are Copyrighted. Any effort to copy and paste them will be detected and thwarted. They must be memorized and then forgotten. Only then, Grasshopper, will you Truly Be First.

Pass the Remote, the Truth Sucks

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:09:27 EDT

The Truth Sucks.

You people keep talking about the Truth. Well let me tell you something: I'm sick and tired of the Truth. The Truth is Ugly & Depressing & Troubling & Sad. The Truth bums me out & pisses me off. The Truth reminds me of how bad things are. And I don't want to feel bad. Who does?

So I watch TV. Rent movies. Go to the bar & drink with my buddies. Engage in mindless chit-chat. Talk about sports. Football. Funny commercials. Beer commercials especially. Did you see the one with the talking frog? Hilarious!!

Fact is I work hard to avoid the Truth. Don't read. Don't look at the newspapers. Don't watch the TV news. Try not to think. Don't listen when politicians start squawking about what they call the "Truth." You'd have to be an idiot not to know they're all a pack of lying dogs. Who can believe a word they say?

So I close my ears. Walk away. Change the channel. Grab a beer. Drive to the liquor store. Roar around on my speedboat. Blast off on my snowmobile. Go fishing. Head to the firing range. Listen to my iPod. Play with the kids. Tumble in the sack. Go to the AOL chat rooms. Futz around in the workshop. Change my oil. Rent another movie. Watch reruns of Gilligan's Island. Sleep.

The Truth Hurts. It is Painful. Ugly. Troublesome. Depressing. Think I want to hear about the sub-prime mortgage mess? How we're losing in Iraq? Climate change? I need to think about "climate change" like I need a hole in the head.

I get enough trouble from my bosses every day, thank you very much. At two different jobs. More like two and a half. The wife too. A constant struggle to pay the rent & put food on the table. Heating bill almost doubled last year. Gas costs a fortune. Troubles? I got plenty. And now you want me to think about the Truth? What do you think I'm a masochist or something?

I'm done talking now. My head hurts from thinking about it. The Truth Sucks. Pass the remote, I'm watching the talking frog again.

Bush Signs Truth Bill, Slams Dems

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:01:39 EDT

BUSH SIGNS TRUTH BILL, SLAMS DEMS. Washington, April 11 (Foxx News)
Standing amid dappled sunshine in the White House Rose Garden today, President Bush signed into law the God, Truth, and Freedom Law requiring that all presidential utterances be considered by all Americans as God's Truth. "There's been some confusion about whether some of the things coming out of the White House are, you know, true," said President Bush, flanked by 41 of his leading generals, 2,008 fluttering American flags, and a battery of 43 nuclear-tipped missiles. "Well, that confusion is now a thing of the past. With this law, all Americans who love God and freedom, and their children and grandchildren, can rest assured that everything their president says is God's Truth."
Opposition congressional Democrats reluctantly agreed to the measure after a series of focus groups and polls revealed that a solid majority of Americans love God, freedom, and truth.
The measure calls for a series of detention facilities to be built in eastern Montana on 1.5 million acres previously devoted to cattle grazing. The facilities are expected to house upward of 3 million Americans, the number expected to violate the law next week, according to preliminary studies. Because the law suspends habeas corpus and mandates indefinite detention for suspected violators, there is little likelihood that implementing the new law will clog the courts, experts say.
After signing the measure, President Bush slammed Democrats for their nagging criticism of his Iraq policy. "The surge is succeeding, there's not a doubt in my mind, and that's the Truth," said Bush. "Part of my job as Decider is deciding what's True. And what's True is we're winning." The Democratic leadership had no comment on Bush's claim.
The first detention to result from the measure took place in St. Louis, Missouri, where 12 year old Sammy Johnson, playing baseball in Southside Park, remarked that Bush was a "friggin liar." A passing military satellite picked up the remark, and minutes later the Missouri Branch of the Truth & Freedom Enforcement Squad converged on the area. Johnson is not expected to be heard from again.
A Presidential Task Force commissioned to identify additional locations for detention facilities have focused most of their attention on remote regions of Nevada and Utah, sources say.

On "Potential" Turning Points

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:55:07 EDT

"In fact, this is a potential turning point for Obama's campaign," writes Mike Allen on Politico (Saturday, April 12) in response to the "bittergate" controversy.

Yes Mike, and in fact the Moon is potentially made of green cheese. And you are potentially an Android from Planet Zortex. What the hell does that mean, Mike? "In fact a potential"? I guess if you say something's in fact a potential that makes it possibly potentially true.

Which in essence means NOTHING AT ALL.

I'd like to thank you, though, because you provide an exquisite example of how the punditocracy & talking heads & MSM work to manufacture reality with their constant rhetorical sleights-of-hand.

Think about it, Mike. ANYTHING is "in fact a potential". The Universe is cram-packed full of potential. Zillions & zillions of potentialities out there. Gobs & gobs of 'em. Fact is, Bullwinkle is potentially my squirrel-headed Uncle Nellie.

The Plain Fact is, Mike, it's downright infuriating to encounter fabrications like yours. You're spinning a narrative out of whole cloth & presenting it as real.

You were also, as we now know, proven wrong. The "potential" fizzled before it even became one.

So kudos to you, Mike, for a potentially brilliant piece, and for providing a superb example of ONE of the things that's profoundly wrong with the Mainstream Media today.

The Counter-Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:38:59 EDT

It's snowballing as we speak. In corporate boardrooms & five-star restaurants & politicos' offices coast-to-coast. The counter-revolution against Barack Obama has commenced.

We don't know what they're whispering, exactly. We know their basic weapons of Smears & Fears – he's ultra-liberal, black-and-angry, elitist, out of touch, a snob, effete, cocky, one of "those". But we can't know the full gamut of twisted narratives until they start coming at us.

The Plain Truth is that Barack Obama is poised to become President of the USA, and some of the most powerful people & interests on the planet don't want it to happen. So they'll pour billions of dollars & millions of staff-hours into destroying his candidacy & agenda. They have no morals, no scruples. Anything goes. They absolutely will not stop until they grind his Agenda for Change into the dirt or die trying.

Revolutions breed counter-revolutions – that's just how it works. The US Patriots had the Loyalists, the French Jacobins the Royalists; the Bolsheviks (Reds) had the Whites, and the Sandinistas the Contras; FDR's enemies were legion, as were MLK's.

Who's Obama's core oppositional constituency? He calls them "special interests & lobbyists." What he means is the rich & powerful – those with Washington in their hip pockets: Oil & Gas & Coal & Auto Industries, Insurance & Finance Capital & Big Pharma & AMA & Defense – some of the most powerful economic entities on Earth.

All whispering & organizing & plotting & scheming about how to stop Barack Obama. No, it's not a vast conspiracy. It is a vast & powerful confluence of interests. Of rich & powerful people who aim to keep power at any cost.

We can't know exactly how they'll attack. We know they'll fabricate & distort & twist & lie. We know their two main strategies: Scare 'Em & Fool 'Em We know they'll be relentless.

What can we do? Exactly what we've been doing. Talking to people. Canvassing neighborhoods. Registering voters. Making calls. Sponsoring fundraisers. Spreading the word. Never forgetting about the magnitude & nature of the opposition.

Always mindful that our Two Most Powerful Weapons in this battle are the Truth, and the document that begins

"We the People".

The counter-revolution will not be televised. It never is.

Outraged & Embittered R Us

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:23:43 EDT

NEWS FLASH!

NOTHING in US History would have EVER CHANGED if people had not ACTED on their EMBITTERMENT & OUTRAGE at the status quo.

Some prominent examples:

No Declaration of Independence. Think the colonists weren't royally pissed off at the British and King George III? After the first couple of flowery paragraphs it's basically a long list of gripes & grievances against the tyranny of ol' George & his cronies.

No Abolitionist Movement. Think Frederick Douglass & William Lloyd Garrison & Wendell Phillips & Underground Railroaders were not OUTRAGED at the horrors & brutality of slavery?

No Emancipation of Slaves. Think slaves happily accepted their lot? In fact it wasn't Lincoln & only partly the 13th Amendment – it was mainly the slaves who freed the slaves – slaves unutterably embittered by their enslavement.

No Populist Movement. Think the Populists weren't royally pissed? Google "1892 Populist Party Platform" for some wonderful rhetoric of outrage!

No Progressive Movement. Think Upton Sinclair was not incensed? Jane Addams? Emma Goldman? Social reformers, political reformers, moral reformers – all delighted with the status quo?

No Labor Movement. Think working people gracefully accepted being ground into the dust by the bosses every day of their lives?

No Vote for Women. Think women were not embittered by their exclusion from the nation's political life? That Susan B. Anthony & Elizabeth Cady Stanton & later Alice Paul all the rest were not supremely outraged as they chained themselves to the White House fence?

No New Deal. Think people weren't royally pissed off during the catastrophe of the Great Depression?

No Civil Rights Movement. Think MLK was a "dreamer" or the Freedom Rides came out of complacency with Jim Crow?

No Vote for Black People. Think it was white people's generosity of spirit that extended the right to vote to African Americans?

No Environmental Movement. Think environmentalism exists because people were not and are not incensed about all the crud & crap dumped in the water, air, and earth?

No Reagan Revolution. Yes well we'd surely all be better off but . . . it most certainly was born of outrage!

Think there's not a zillion other examples? In fact every significant expansion of rights in this country was rooted in a mighty upsurge in popular anger, outrage, and bitterness.

The plain truth is, every time we act on our social & political outrage, we follow in the footsteps of a grand & glorious American tradition!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Morning News, Sun April 13

This Test Is Not Barack's To Fail

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:48:43 EDT

Truth be told I saw this "bitterness" flap coming a mile away. Not the exact words, of course, but something like it. It's how politics works nowadays. Political opponents & corporate media are like packs of jackals – one stumble and they go straight for the jugular. "No mistakes," I kept writing on the blogs, mostly to myself of course, knowing that at some point Barack would say something that his opponents would pounce on and rip apart like starving hyenas.

And so here it is, the whole "bitter & clinging to guns & religion" brouhaha. It's another test, Obama Friends. Just like the Rev. Wright flap. Another test of whether Barack Obama's message of TRUTH, HONESTY, and INTEGRITY can or will prevail in the modern American political system. The jury is still out. There's nothing inevitable or preordained about an Obama victory in November. If it's more than 50 percent likely today, that number could drop through the floor tomorrow. There are no guarantees. In fact I'm fairly skeptical about the so-called "wisdom" of the American people. We did elect G.W. Bush twice, after all. Twice.

Truth is, it was the second time that about killed my faith in the electorate's basic political competency. After 2004 I saw a pretty fair likelihood of a steady slide into a kind of quasi-fascist police state, robustly capitalist, with a quasi-literate populace, politically inert, anaesthetized by a Disneyesque, Murdochesque mass media, the economy dominated by giant corporations, with a permanent underclass (1/4? 1/3? 1/2?) of poor working people, mostly of color. I still think it's entirely possible that's exactly where we're headed.

So this "bitterness" bullshit is a test. Can the American people see through all the twisting and spinning and crap? Can they actually discern the TRUTH? Do they have that capacity? I guess we'll see. And there's something else too – it's going to happen again. Because Barack Obama is too damn smart not to keep speaking his mind with uncommon eloquence about every issue under the sun. And every once in a while he's going to say something that doesn't come out exactly right, and his enemies are going to pounce on it like packs of hungry wolves. It's going to happen again, and again.

Whether he survives these assaults will not be a test of Barack Obama. It will be a test of the basic political competency of the American people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Open Thread, Sun a.m. 4/13)

Prof Noodlehead's Rants on the Past, No. 2

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:21:41 EDT

Explanatory note: Immediately after delivering the following rant, Prof. Noodlehead suddenly departed for southern Patagonia in response to an unexpectedly enthusiastic response he received from feldspar miners & ferret herders there So let's all wave goodbye to Professor Noodlehead!

PROFESSOR NOODLEHEAD'S RANTS ON THE PAST
An Occasional & Occasionally Coherent Series, Found Exclusively on the ObamaBlogs
Prof. Noodlehead's Three General Principles of Historical Change
Last time we talked a bit about ol' Karl and his notion that "all hitherto existing history is the history of class struggle." I suggested there's a key insight here that's the baby we shouldn't throw out with the rest of the Marxist bathwater: the notion that History is made through struggle.   Among & between not only classes but also races, genders, nations, states, religions,  and so on. We also talked about the unpredictability & contingent nature of history and Michael Mann's notion that History is a Patterned Mess.
Tonight let's add a third general principle that also borrows from Karl but moves beyond him. And that's the notion that History works in fundamentally ironic ways, or, the Pattern of Unintended Consequences.
In Marxist jargon this is known as "the dialectic" (or "dialectical materialism" or "historical materialism"). The basic idea is simple - how actions & events & trends spark backlashes. Generate their opposites. (In Marxist jargon, borrowed from Hegel, it's THESIS – ANTITHESIS - SYNTHESIS, but we don't need to get into that). And how those backlashes are almost always unintended.
There's zillions of examples, e.g.:
Excesses of the Gilded Age (1870-90) lead to Populism (1890s) and Progressivism (1900-1916).
Excesses of the 1920s leads to the Great Depression & New Deal.
US imperialism in the circum-Caribbean (ca. 1898-1930) generates enormous anti-US sentiment across Latin America.
Vietnam War sparks an Anti-War Movement.
Women's oppression leads to the Women's Liberation Movement.
Jim Crow & black oppression leads to the Civil Rights Movement.
Invasion of Iraq sparks an insurgency.
Excesses of two Bush Administrations lead to the candidacy of Barack Obama.
The US didn't INTEND that its imperial meddling in LA would spark a humungous anti-US backlash. The architects of the Vietnam War did not INTEND to spark an Anti-War Movement. White people did not INTEND that Jim Crow & lynching & innumerable daily insults would spark a nationwide Civil Rights Movement. And so on.
And Bush did not INTEND that his idiotic policies would lead to the most exciting candidacy in modern American history.
So that's a bit about How History Works in Fundamentally Ironic Ways, or the Pattern of Unintended Consequences.
Thanks BigBeard!

Clinton Denies Repudiation

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:45:00 EDT

Posted Wed April 9

CLINTON DENIES REPUDIATION. Washington (Rooters), April 9.

Denying earlier denials of a repudiation of denunciations she denied making last week, New York Senator and Democratic presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton denied today that her earlier repudiation of her previous position amounted to a flip-flop on her denunciation of her past statements. "I have been consistent on this issue throughout the campaign," Senator Clinton announced in a hastily called news conference. "My position is clear, and let me just state for the record that I deny any reports that I have repudiated the denunciation of any previous denials issued by this campaign. My goal, as always, is to find real solutions to America's problems."

In campaign headquarters in Pittsburgh, spokesperson Harry Icky later amplified her remarks. "There can be no doubt that Senator Clinton's denunciation of the denials she rejected last week demonstrate her clear commitment to help all Americans put food on the table and pay the electric bill. She knows what it's like to be homeless and hungry and a wounded war veteran. She's worked the late shift. She's been a single mother whose house was foreclosed. And she is determined to find solutions. "

Democratic rival Illinois Senator Barack Obama, speaking at a gathering in Malvern, PA that included among its members an illegal immigrant ex-felon drug addict rap musician with dreadlocks, ignored Senator Clinton's denial and focused instead on his trademark themes of change & hope, turning the page, and not this time. Random passerby Kyle McNulty expressed his view of the presidential contest. "I don't give a [expletive] who the [expletive] the [expletive] president. We're all [expletive] anyway, so who gives a [expletive]?"

Around the corner at Starbucks, a group of college students slurped down latte coffees and gushed about Senator Obama's speech. "Actually, he's sort of like, you know, a god or something," said Robert Michaels, 19, through unkempt locks of shoulder-length hair. "Sort of like, you know, Tlaloc the rain god of the Aztecs." His roommate Tiffany Beaconhill, 20, wearing cut-off blue-jean shorts and a tank-top shirt, agreed. "Oh I just love him so much, he's just the most wonderful thing ever!" she said, wiggling her toes. The Aztecs, rulers of a vast empire in Mexico before the Spanish conquest, rejected Christianity. Asked about Senator Clinton's denial, Michaels said "I know so many things, but I don't know about that."

Prof Doodlehead's Rants on the Past - No. 1

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:22:38 EDT

( Dialogue on the Open Thread, April 10 )

PROF. MIKE'S PEDANTIC LECTURETTES
VOL. I, NO. 1
AN INTERMITTENT SERIES

ON HISTORY & STRUGGLE

My old buddy Karl Marx used to say "all hitherto existing history is the history of class struggle." Well my bud Karl was right about a lot of things, and wrong about a lot of things too. Here I figure he was more than half right. You're right Karl, but it's not just CLASSES that struggle for power. There's also RACES (as social constructs of course). And GENDERS. And NATIONS. And STATES. And RELIGIONS. And there are other axes and arenas of struggle.

But you know, Big Karl had a point about STRUGGLE. A Big Point. Because if you think about it, it's through STRUGGLE that history is made. In fact, it's made through struggle even if you DON'T think about it. You don't think much about gravity either, but it keeps your feet on the ground. That was another one of Karl's Big Points – that there are distinct patterns and principles that govern the nature and direction of social change. He said they were like NATURAL LAWS, but I don't agree. They're NOT like gravity or thermodynamics. History, since it's made by humans, is inherently unpredictable and filled with will and desire and agency and uncertainty.

But there are also patterns in history. Regularities. Tendencies. One of my favorite phrases for thinking about this stuff comes from US sociologist Michael Mann, who says history is a kind of PATTERNED MESS. I like that. It really captures the dual nature of it – totally unpredictable AND tightly patterned.

And one of those patterns concerns STRUGGLE. Specifically, STRUGGLES FOR POWER. Power being the capacity to impose your will. Usually at somebody else's expense. Domination-Subordination. That's power. And it's through these various STRUGGLES FOR POWER - between different classes, races, genders, nations, states, and religions - that history is made.

So I say let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater – ol' Karl might've been a mite of a class reductionist, but he got the struggle part down cold. That pretty much IS how it's made. And that should give us ObamaLanders HOPE, because we sure enough got some FIGHT inside us.

On Making Musical Notes & Such ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:36:48 EDT

A conversation that tells you how to make musical notes ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ and boldface & all kinds of fun secrets!

All this stuff on the Late Nite Open Thread, April 10 - The conversation is in the "Read More" section; day after tomorrow I'm gonna summarize everything here so's I can remind myself how the blazes to do it.

McCain Blasts Obama, Demands Retraction

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:26:04 EDT

(Posted on the Mon. a.m., April 7, 2000)

```````````````````````````````````````````````````

McCAIN BLASTS OBAMA, DEMANDS RETRACTION. OBAMA CAMP KEEPS MUM.

WASHINGTON, April 6 (Foxx News)

His soft gray hair blowing gently in the desert breeze, Arizona Senator John McCain demanded that rival Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama denounce and reject the statement of a 76 year-old Pennsylvania supporter who, speaking through her screen door to Obama volunteers, referred to Sen. McCain as "that old fart."

"That kind of talk has no place in politics," insisted Sen. McCain from campaign headquarters in Sedona. "To liken a presidential candidate to the expulsion of putrid intestinal gases, well that's a new low," said McCain, 71. "We call on Senator Obama to beg the forgiveness of every American who's ever been portrayed as a distasteful bodily function."

The controversial remark, made by Beatrice Badpyrzn of Annville, has heightened tensions across the nation, sparking a tense national discussion about age, incontinence, and the role of intestinal gases in politics. President Bush, recently returned from clearing brush from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, plucked burrs off his denim overalls and twirled a six-shooter on his finger as he made his position clear at a press conference in Washington. "Senator McCain is an American hero, there's no doubt in my mind, no sireee, not a doubt in my mind," said Bush. "I know MickeyBoy, I like MickeyBoy, and MickeyBoy ain't no old fart. Barack Hussein Osama oughta take it back a'fore high noon tomorrow," he said, his steely eyes squinting into the sun, before correcting himself. "I mean Hussein Obama, not Osama, not Osama, not Osama."

Democratic contender New York Senator Hillary Clinton, speaking from campaign headquarters in a spacious penthouse overlooking Central Park in Manhattan, expressed outrage at the remark. "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" said Clinton, her fingers wagging and her eyes bugging out of her head. "You promised the nation a new kind of politics, and I guess this is what you mean. What an a-hole."

Flatulence-related epithets have a long history in politics, according to Godfrey Goodchrist, director of the Political Studies Department at Pepperdine University in Los Angeles. "These kinds of perverse scatological labels stretch back to ancient Arabia. A lot of Muslims use them, which scholars trace to the region's camel-based culture." The Obama campaign later denied rumors that the widow Badpyrzn 's remark was part of a larger strategy to distract attention from the Chicago-based Reverend Jeremiah Wright's hatred of America.
```````````````````````````````````````````````
(Today at 9:52 am EDT)
BUSH ISSUES EXECUTIVE ORDER ON CAMPAIGN SLURS

WASHINGTON, April 7 (Foxx News)

Standing before a giant American flag fluttering on the White House lawn, President Bush today issued an executive order imposing steep punishments on persons using offensive terms relating to distasteful bodily functions to describe presidential candidates, the White House said today.

The executive order, dubbed the We Love American Heroes Act, was sparked by the remark of 76 year-old Beatrice Badpyrzn of Annville, PA, who reportedly referred to presumptive Republican nominee Arizona Senator John McCain as "that old fart." Mrs. Badpyrzn 's controversial comment was made through her screen door to volunteers working for presidential aspirant Illinois Senator Barack Obama and picked up by a passing military satellite. The widow Badpyrzn was detained by federal authorities this morning and is currently being held in an undisclosed location, sources say.

President Bush, appearing tanned and fit after a six-month vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, clearing brush, mountain biking, and watching old movies in his underwear, issued a statement justifying his new executive order. "The American people are sick and tired of this kind of unseemly name-calling," the statement said. "John McCain is a genuine American hero, and for someone to liken him to flatulence is the kind of thing that disgusts real patriots, real Americans. We must make our voices heard and stand together behind the real American heroes – just not too closely behind."

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union in New York said it would challenge the order in federal court, before a heavily armed joint Army-Navy special operations squad swooped down on their offices, confiscating incriminating files and detaining the staff, estimated at 50. All are being detained in an undisclosed location, source say. Boris Badpyrzn, grandson of the offending party, said he was told by the special-ops commander that his grandmother was being extradited to Saudi Arabia for questioning.

"Poor Grandma, she was baking cookies when the Obama volunteers came to the door, and now they (the cookies) are burnt to a crisp," he said. "It's all Obama's fault." The official Saudi newspaper today featured a photograph of the widow Badpyrzn, bloodied, unconscious, and hanging from her thumbs in a dungeon beneath the royal palace in Riyadh, sources say. From campaign headquarters in Arizona, Senator McCain responded with a pained grimace and a series of staccato chain-saw-like sounds emanating from his rear.

FIRST on the Sun Nite Open Thread!!! Thoughts on the Moment

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:19:00 EDT

This was so exciting, my FIRST FIRST on any ObamaBlog! Snuck it in just under the wire! I need a drink now.

Midnight, April 6-7, 2008

``````````````````````````````````````

So in the past couple weeks the Clinton attack machine has been pretty much silenced by the campaign's ineptitude – starting with HRC herself & Bosnia. It's been downhill since, reaching a new low today with Penn's ouster. What a skunk-fest it's been – such a burbling stew of lies & misstatements & disregard for the truth. A putrid couple of weeks for HRC.

Meanwhile the BARACK OBAMA POPULAR ORGANIZING ORGANISM Rocks On! ORGANISM, not MACHINE. This is not MACHINE POLITICS as scholars understand it. It's more like ORGANISM POLITICS. (Please be REALLY careful typing that word, "ORGANISM". Thank you.)

ORGANISM POLITICS embrace but transcends GRASSROOTS POLITICS. Organism Politics happens from the BOTTOM UP and TOP DOWN, and is only possible in today's Web Environment.

When Barack says "Change happens from the bottom up" I have to smile, because we all know it's only half true. Change also happens from the top down.

Barack and his team are at the top, We the Teeming Millions are at the bottom. A shared vision and dense relations bind us together. It is a remarkable thing.

Together we work toward a shared vision:

A President and Administration that understands and cherishes values like SOCIAL JUSTICE. PEACE. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. CIVIL RIGHTS. EDUCATION. BASIC FAIRNESS.

A federal government that's decent. Supports good things. Fights the good fight.

I have never experienced that. I wonder what it's like?

I hope it feels like this campaign. That it has the same spark, the same feel of optimism and possibility. Reality bites, of course, and President Obama will inherit an astoundingly colossal mess. In every sphere. In the rosiest scenarios the next four years look very rough. President Obama will have his work cut out for him.

But I have faith that the spirit of the campaign will carry into the Obama Presidency. Not blind faith, because I can see very clearly who Barack Obama is. In fact, I feel surprisingly intimate with his personhood. The truth is I've never experienced anything quite like it. Not with a politician. Maybe with Nelson Mandela, but that was halfway around the world and many years ago. Barack Obama is right here. Right now.

It is a good day to be on the Right Side of History!

AGENDA FOR THE WEEK

1. Continuing watching Clinton campaign self-destruct.
2. BarackOn!

On the Race to be First on the ObamaBlog

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:30:19 EDT

(Posted April 5 in response to comments on the race to get the first comment on a new ObamaBlog)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Such infantile behavior. Such immature obsession with an obscure ranking that NO ONE cares about. I read today that the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies are going to collide in about 2 billion years, wrenching the Earth out of its orbit, vaporizing the oceans, and eradicating all forms of life. And you people are squabbling about who's first on the ObamaBlog. Unbelievable. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

President Obama, Education & Citizenship

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:36:57 EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA & EDUCATION

Another thing that makes the prospect of PRESIDENT OBAMA exciting: renewed emphasis on EDUCATION and the meaning of CITIZENSHIP.

What is a "citizen"? What are "civil rights"?

Probably fewer than one person in four, stopped randomly on the street, would come close to saying that CIVIL RIGHTS are the rights guaranteed to individual citizens as enshrined in the US Constitution, especially the first Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights).

One in 10? Maybe.

President Obama's $4,000 college tax credit in exchange for Social Service is such a wonderful idea in part because it restores the MEANING OF CITIZENSHIP, especially for young people. It makes citizenship tangible and real. Makes it clear that citizenship means a contract between STATE and CITIZEN. And that citizens have power & rights & a stake in the system.

President Obama, former professor of constitutional law, will make the meaning of CIVIL RIGHTS tangible & real to every person living in the United States. Because he understands in his bones what CITIZENSHIP actually means. Where it came from historically. What it is today. What it can be tomorrow. He gets it.

And that's a really good thing, because my sense is we're poised on the edge of an educational abyss. What people don't know can be astonishing.

In an average class of 100 college students, for instance, fewer than one in ten can say what the State Department is. Or what the Secretary of State does. Or define what a CITIZEN is.

That is scandalous. Outrageous. Unacceptable. When ignorance about very basic ideas - like CIVIL RIGHTS, PUBLIC SPHERE, REPUBLICANISM, DEMOCRACY. - when that kind of ignorance abounds, it becomes fertile ground for authoritarian government.

The combination of economic depression, popular ignorance, an aggressive executive, and terrorist attack could prove fatal to the American democratic experiment.

The notion that the USA could end up a kind of consumerist free-market police state is not far-fetched. It is one possible alternative future. It is certainly consistent with the Bush/Cheney vision of the future.

Another possible alternative future is that fifty years from now people will look back and say that starting in 2008, President Barack Obama set the nation on a different path. That he nurtured and strengthened EDUCATION at every level, enhancing and deepening the meaning of CITIZENSHIP and CIVIL RIGHTS for tens of millions of ordinary people.

That his presidency turned the tide.

That's my ObamaHope.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Posted 4.5.08 on "Missoula Mayor Endorses Obama" Blog)

Hard-Boiled Discussions

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:32:17 EDT

Hey I'm a white male and as such I've been first in line lots & lots of times, usually without even realizing it. I also live in a country that contains less than 5% of the world's population but consumes 40% of the Earth's resources. I'm also healthy in a world full of sick & disabled people. I also have a full belly in a world where one of every five people goes to bed hungry every night. I also have some money in the bank in a world where half the people scrape by on around $2 a day. So I'll wait my turn, thanks anyway.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted 4.5.08

(Tucked into a silly discussion about being "first" to post on a new blog item)

Barack's where in North Dakota?

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:20:37 EDT

Our Barack gets around, doesn't he?! I had to laugh seeing the blog headline, "Barack in North Dakota". Last I heard he was wrapping up the PA bus tour and - POP! - he's in North Dakota! This campaign just never stops suprising! In delightful ways.

And the polls draw tighter in PA! The trend lines, like two pincers edging toward each other - and definitely into the single digits! Yahooo!!!

It's increasingly clear that Hillary's on her last legs, and it's actually kind of pathetic and sad seeing it finally starting to sink into her skull that she's gonna lose. It's been such a hard concept for her to wrap her head around. Like being told your parents are Space Aliens. Or you're eating fried dirt for supper. Or something so in-credible that you just can't imagine it's possible. It hurts, folks. The inevitable creep of a Painful Truth into the Human Mind is a god-awful thing to experience first hand. Let's just remember that.

No mercy till it's in the bag, of course. Then we can focus on helping Hillary & Bill through their profound grief & loss & pain.

Till then our main goal is to whomp the bejeebers out of 'em.

Aikido-style of course - by telling our own, far more powerful story, and letting the popular energies flow where they flow - into the mighty and swelling river that is this campaign.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted on Fri 4.4.08

Pitch for Timothy Tyson, "Blood Done Sign My Name"

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:02:58 EDT

Friends,

In the spirit of building on Barack's call for a genuine national conversation on race, let me recommend a book I found really helpful & illuminating:

Timothy Tyson, Blood Done Sign My Name (2006, paperback $14)

Have you read it? A superbly written story about a racially-motivated murder in the small tobacco town of Oxford NC in 1970 and its prelude and aftermath. Tyson's writing is tight as a drum. He's also really funny. Such a humane voice. It just shines through every page. I found myself re-reading paragraph after paragraph because his writing is just so wonderfully fresh & pungent & textured & real.

The book combines a kind of micro-history of this particular racial incident with a personal memoir as a white boy growing up in Oxford, with a profound meditation on the history and consequences of race in America. From a progressive anti-racist scholar who knows exactly whereof he speaks.

It really is a terrific book. Especially as we celebrate the life of Dr. King on the 40th anniversary of his assassination. Tyson does a terrific job of "de-sanitizing" Dr. King - "de-whitewashing" what he was really all about, may his soul rest in peace.

From the back cover:

"If you want to read only one book to understand the uniquely American struggle for racial equality and the swirls of emotion around it, this is it." -- Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

The thing is, Tyson is really good at examining race as a RELATIONSHIP - at unpacking RELATIONS of race - not just the white experience, or the black experience, but how they entwine, collide, merge, and mutually constitute each other - in this time & place, in people's minds & imaginations, and in the broad sweep of US history.

Anyway it's really worth reading:

Timothy Tyson, Blood Done Sign My Name.

Peace!

Clinton Wins Major Press Award

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:13:16 EDT

HILLARY CLINTON WINS MAJOR PRESS AWARD
WASHINGTON, April 4 (ACP)

In an unusual move, the Annual Meeting of Association Journalists Who Respect the Truth granted its highly coveted Crap of the Year Award to New York Senator Hillary Clinton for her assertion, made just today, that her rival in the race for the Democratic nomination, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, was "timid and unenthusiastic" about addressing the nation's economic woes.

"We've heard some whoppers before, but this one took the cake," said Woodward Bernstein, President of the AJWRT. "All signs were that Clinton's Bosnia fabrication was going to win hands down, but this latest concoction really shook up the assembly. When she said 'timid and unenthusiastic' everyone in the auditorium started rolling on the floor laughing hysterically. We couldn't stop it. So in the end we didn't have much choice. It was either vote for 'timid and unenthusiastic' or die laughing."

The AJWRT's Crap of the Year Award is granted annually to the public statement containing the highest percentage of ridiculously absurd crap.

"We have a whole year's worth of crap to sift through," said Huffington Post delegate Safire Williams, 106. "I have spent a lifetime seeking, shall we say, Ur-crap, and to have such a perfect specimen of utter crap suddenly appear on the last day of voting, it is, shall we say, a singular event in my vast experience." Others offered a less analytic appraisal. "Barack is TIMID and I'm a BABOON, watch!" said Daily Kos delegate Willy George, before hopping away barking and screeching. "'Unenthusiastic' is what did it for me," said Washington Post-News delegate Geyers Georgiani. "I mean, here's a guy who has generated more electricity about the economy than anyone since Martin Luther King Jr. in 1967-68 – gotten more people excited about changing things than any politician in at least a generation – and Clinton describes him as 'timid and unenthusiastic.' I tell you it brought the house down. I mean, we see a LOT of crap – but THIS?"

Campaigning in Portland, Oregon, former President Bill Clinton refused comment, wagging his finger at a reporter and turning red in the face before disappearing into a local deli. Chelsea Clinton, 28, campaigning for her mother Hillary in South Bend, Indiana, said people should just mind their own business.

In Philadelphia, Obama campaign headquarters responded with a barely suppressed smile before getting back to work.

Mike's Incisive Analysis & Astute Predictions Re FL & MI

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:11:21 EDT

For the record, there is 99% probability that events in Florida & Michigan will work out as follows:

It'll get incredibly byzantine and complicated and contentious and the total number of human-hours of jawboning about it will amount to about 10 billion and when all is said and done it's going to work out in our favor.

Because when a lot of people are paying attention, you can't just break the rules and get away with it.

Spirited Discussion on Campaign Transparency

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:04:01 EDT

This is a series of responses and counter-responses to some questions I posed about campaign transparency (April 3, 2008). Unfortunately the tone of the responses to my questions took a somewhat nasty and accusatory turn. Some bloggers interpreted my questions as me somehow "demanding" answers, and as I reread my postings, I can see how they might have been misinterpreted.

I leave the final word on the topic to my ObamaFriend Yumei, who read all the postings and offered her observations on the exchange:

"Hi Michael, First of all, as I said in my comment, I thought your first posting on campaign structure interesting. In many ways, given how much time, effort, and money we put into this campaign, we do feel that we have ownership of this campaign and expect, perhaps unrealistically, to be privy to the inner workings of the campaign. On the other hand, as grassroots as this may be, this campaign would not have been half as successful if it was not well organized--which means that there is an inner circle responsible for all the major decisions. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Can you imagine the kind of sabotage the media and other campaigns could have subjected Obama to if Obama did not have a tight knit group? If I got it right, Howard Dean's campaign suffered quite a bit from lack of cohesion (and discipline?) among the senior staff members. For Obama to get decent, competent, experienced, and hardworking people of the caliber he needs to run the campaign, he may indeed have to pay some. If you look at how this campaign manages its finances (see NY Time's article from Feb. "Small Online Donations Add Up to Huge Fund-Raising Edge for Obama"), you know they are not wasting money. So I personally am not at all concerned about who gets paid what. I took a look at your second posting. It did not strike me as unreasonable, although I don't think you will find answers to your questions, not at this point at least. Too much is at stake. It did come to me as a surprise that this seemingly "open" and friendly network has limits (as it should), but then I had little experience with FaceBook and such. From all I have read, Senator Obama seems to be the type of person whose life is an open book with little to hide. And he is in charge here. What I am saying is that I trust him. Hope this helps."

In the end I decided to follow Yumei's sage advice and let it go. There are too many other, more productive things to focus on. And I trust Sen. Obama to do the right thing.

Campaign Structure & Organization?

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:16:39 EDT

ObamaFamily - So I was thinking to myself, y'know, one of Barack's real strengths is his ability to surround himself with really smart and capable people - an ability that, along with JUDGEMENT, is a key counterargument to the "experience" issue, which still looms large in a lot of voters' minds.

Then I started thinking, y'know, it's about time Barack began announcing the members of his national security team, as prelude to developing the solid national security credentials that'll be essential against McCain. It'd be a very presidential thing to do, and the time seems just about ripe.

Then I started wondering: who are his main advisors now? I know the big names from the press releases, but . . . what is the actual structure of the campaign organization? Who works in what capacity? What are the various offices & titles? Who reports to whom? Who gets paid what?

Am I missing it, or is this info somewhere on this website? If not, why not? Seems entirely in keeping with the emphasis on transparency in governance.

Then I started thinking about transparency, and how windows are transparent, and wondering what it looked like from inside the ObamaBus to see the PA countryside roll by on the epic quest to become POTUS!

Then I started thinking about what a refreshing and historic and wonderful and rock-solid campaign this really is. For the record I'm still thinking about that.

Thanks for any help on the organization question!

Barack & Iraq (with community comments)

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:58:44 EDT

I love you Barack but I gotta say your response to the question the other day about troop levels in Iraq was really pretty bad. (This is the video that appeared on Mark Halperin's "The Page" and was from March 31 I think).

Barack, you've gotta have a better response ready for questions like that. You were halting, stumbling over your words (a real rarity), and gave at best a semi-coherent answer. (You said among other things that we'd keep a military contingent to protect the US embassy in Iraq, as we do in other countries, and something about stationing special forces troops to knock out any resurgence of Al Qaeda).

Honestly, you need to practice that one. You need to develop a coherent, sensible, informed response to questions about exactly how we're going to withdraw from Iraq, the kinds of military commitments we're going to maintain there, and so on.

Are we going to maintain military bases in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait, for instance? (To my mind that'd be a very bad idea, since it pisses off so many Arabs & Muslims that the West has military bases in the Holy Lands.) Where are we going to keep military bases? How are we going to deal with rogue terrorist organizations within countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.?

I'm not saying you should have all the answers. I AM saying that you need to have a well-developed, coherent set of talking points when you're asked questions like that so that you come across as informed, sensible, and strategically savvy.

Thanks for listening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Posted on Texas delegate thread, April 1, 2008)

Afghanistan Failures

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:22:02 EDT

So it's becoming clearer by the day that after more than six years & hundreds of billions of dollars & tens of thousands of lives the US has so utterly failed to do anything constructive in Afghanistan.

Today CIA Director Hayden admitted as much; he also said something so blatantly discriminatory and fear-mongering it makes your teeth ache:

"They are bringing operatives into that region [Pakistani-Afghan tribal areas] for training -- operatives that wouldn't attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles with you when you were coming back from overseas. . . (They) look western (and) would be able to come into this country without attracting the kinds of attention that others might." (Meet the Press)

What the dingdong does "look Western" mean?? Talk about code words! This is appalling.

The other part is, he's probably right about Al Qaeda agents infiltrating the US. We have pissed off so many people so profoundly it's pretty astonishing, frankly, that there haven't been any major attacks since 9/11. The "intelligence community" [sic] is doutbless right: it's just a matter of time.

Hayden also said:

"The situation along that Afghanistan/Pakistan border presents a clear and present danger to Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to the West in general and the United States in particular. It is very clear to us that al Qaeda has been able over the last 18 months or so to establish a safe haven along the Afghan/Pakistan border that they have not enjoyed before."

So much blood. So much treasure. So much death.

And for what? We're not just back to where we started from. Things are worse.

Worse.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are stronger than ever.

Meanwhile Iraq is a stewing disaster, the so-called "success" of the "surge" being a total fallacy (see my blog).

And that is just such a royal piss off.

And that's what Barack ought to be hammering home, among other things.

The bus tour is a thing of genius! I wonder if people are talking about Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq much.

Anyway had to get that off my chest. When people ask, "What does Obama mean by CHANGE?" this (among a zillion other things) is the kind of crap that's absolutely got to CHANGE. Thanks for listening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Posted on 3/30/08)

Observations on Hillary's Website

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:13:40 EDT

I just took a pretty good look at the blog comments on Hillary's site and I have a somewhat different take:

- Yes, Hillary's blogs display about 5 percent of the creative energy and excitement that this site exhibits. Average blog item has under 50 comments. Much less diversity of tone and substance.

- The predominant sentiment can be described as "championing the underdog". For example: "please don't quit" - "up against tremedous odds at times she has continued to fight and press on for us" - "WE WILL FIGHT TO THE END TOGETHER!!! Hillary is a true FIGHTER!!! GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!" --
That sort of thing.

- The tone of the comments struck me as actually pretty hopeful. And to me that was the sad part. A fair number of people are seemingly convinced that Hillary will end up winning the nomination. One guy talked about winning PA by 85 percent. Shooting for 86 percent and settling for 85! I am not kidding. That just seems very sad, because it's just so delusional.

- There's a LOT of pleas for money. Lots & lots & lots. Probably well over half the comments.

- Big effort to get FL & MI to count. Again, delusional.

- So I read the site as pretty sad and kind of scary. People seem to be in denial. They really do seem to think they're going to win.

- The consensus threshold for a "strong" victory in PA is around a 15 percent spread.

- Here was one interesting comment: "It's amazing how Obama seems to have survived the flack over his reverend. The media has A LOT to do with that. The media is deciding who will get the nomimation, not the people." (I bet it seems "amazing"! I read this as not comprehending what Obama is all about; as if "the media" are somehow propping the guy up; it's like, "how does he do it? He's some kind of magician!" No, gentle Hillary blogger, he's just honest, candid, forthright, fiercely intelligent, has brilliant political instincts, knows how to connect with people from all walks of life, is decent, humane, believes in justice, and has a message that resonates with millions & millions of ordinary Americans).

- It'd be fascinating for an M.A. thesis or something to compare & contrast the Hillary & Obama sites. They are profoundly different.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Posted on 3/30/08)

Three Stunningly Brilliant Ideas (with Comments)

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:39:00 EDT

A Stunningly Brilliant Idea

Last night as my eyes were falling out of my skull from spending too much time at the computer I was seized by a brilliant idea for which I'd like to take total credit because after all I'm the one who thought of it:

You know how you see those fancy sepia-colored posters with all the US presidents all lined up, starting with George Washington & the Founders and going through all the guys with long beards in the late 19th century and then going up to Jimmy Carter & Reagan & Bush I & II? You know the poster I'm talking about? The kind you get your kids for Christmas / Hannukah / Kwanza / Solstice and hope they'll at least look at it someday?

Well how about one of those fancy posters with BARACK OBAMA listed as the 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

I can see his handsome mug right now, coming after George W. Bush's squinty-eyed weasel face, right there on the Poster Depicting the Presidents of the United States of America!

Yes, I know, this is without question the most brilliant idea you've ever heard in your LIFE, thank you very much, don't applaud just throw money (at Barack if you please . . .)

Seriously, this would make the very idea of an Obama presidency seem inevitable. You heard it here first! (unless someone else already thought of it . . .)

Another Stuningly Brilliant Idea!

PODCASTS OF BARACK'S SPEECHES DOWNLOADABLE FROM THIS SITE!

Why aren't they here already? Surely I'm not the first one to propose this, but it would be an awfully good idea.

A Third & Final Brilliant Idea!

Oops I had it but Frank Rich diverted my attention . . . oh yeah, the EXPERIENCE issue:

How about some enterprising political scientist out there put together a fancy Excel chart showing the administrative and legislative "experience" of past presidents and leaders – with green, say, representing GOVERNING experience, orange, say, representing LEGISLATIVE experience, etc.

Come autumn, this whole EXPERIENCE issue is going to be the core focus of the Republican attack machine against Obama. We need to develop some eye-catching graphics and simple, easy-to-remember comparisons that reveal this whole "experience" thing for what it is – a red herring and an idiotic reason not to vote for Obama.

Well I gotta go and think up some more brilliant ideas, thank you very much you're too kind . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Posted on the Sunday Morning News, 3/30/08)

Obama Picks Up Controversial Endorsement

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:20:55 EDT

CANDIDATE OBAMA PICKS UP CONTROVERSIAL ENDORSEMENT.

WASHINGTON, March 30 (Foxx Action News)

Sporting his trademark wrap-around sunglasses, his stripes faded from a week in the Caribbean sun, famed breakfast cereal mascot Tony the Tiger endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama for president today from his retirement home in Battle Creek, Michigan.

"He's Grrrrrreat!" said the aging but dapper cartoon figure. Adored by children across the country for his promotion of the sugar-laden breakfast cereal, Kellogg's Sugar-Frosted Flakes, Mr. Tiger denied allegations that his endorsement stemmed from a Florida land deal gone sour last year. Asked how ongoing litigation in the land deal was proceeding, Mr. Tiger said, "It's Grrrreeeat!", leading to speculation that these are the only words Mr. Tiger is capable of articulating.

At campaign headquarters in Jonesville, PA, Wolfman Howard, spokesman for Obama rival New York Senator Hillary Clinton, reacted strongly to the news. "Tony the Tiger is all growl and no action," said Howard testily, adding, "just like Senator Obama." Howard went on to emphasize last week's endorsement of the Clinton campaign by Captain Crunch, mascot of a rival breakfast cereal of the same name.

"Captain Crunch has a crew of several dozen and runs a ship, which takes a lot of know-how," said Howard. "Mr. Crunch is a man of action, unlike Mr. Tiger, who only knows how to say things are Grrrreat! The American people do not want to risk seeing how Grrrreat! it is to have someone with no experience answering that 3 a.m. phone call."

Adding fuel to the controversy was speculation that Mr. Tiger had received kickbacks from the American Dental Association for his promotion of the tooth-rotting breakfast cereal. "That's a bunch of bull!" said former president Bill Clinton, evidently confused about who was endorsing whom, before being told that Mr. Tiger had endorsed Obama and not his wife Hillary as suggested in earlier reports. "Oh, well then it's not a bunch of bull at all, no sir, it's absolutely true, no doubt about it," he said.

Obama spokesman Pfluffy David hinted that more such endorsements would be forthcoming soon, before denying rumors that Mr. Tiger had received cash payments from an unknown source to compensate for sagging royalties on his decades-long sponsorship deal with Kellogg's. Asked how it felt to receive millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks over several decades, Mr. Tiger said, "It's Grrrreeeat!"

(Posted on the Thread on 22,000 in Pittsburgh Rally, 3/30/08)

Decline of the American Empire (a pitch for Berman's Book)

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:06:32 EDT

ObamaFamily,

For all your oodles of leisure time in between phone calls and canvassing, let me recommend a book that helps put Barack's rise in a broader perspective.

And no I get no royalties or pats on the back or anything, I just thought it was a really good book.

Morris Berman, "Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire" (Norton, 2006).

The book helped me to better understand the long-term decline of the American empire, especially under G.W. Bush; where the US stands in the world today; and the direction we've been heading over the past decades.

From the back cover:

"In Dark Ages America, Morris Berman argues that the nation has entered a dangerous phase in its historical development, from which there is no return [this is the arguable part-MM]. As the corporate-consumerist juggernaut that now defines the nation rolls on, the very factors that once propelled America to greatness - extreme individualism, territorial and economic expansion, and the pursuit of material wealth - are now, paradoxically, the nails in our collective coffin [if we so choose-MM]. Within a few decades, Berman argues, the United States will be marginalized on the world stage, its hegemony replaced by China or the European Union. We could also, he suggests, be just one more terrorist attack away from a police state. Berman's book is a controversial and illuminating look at our current society and its ills."

Berman's book helps me to better understand the significance of Barack Obama's candidacy. And the challenges he, and we, will face when he becomes President Obama.

Especially the sheer immensity of those challenges.

Obama cannot fundamentally transform US society or the relationship of the USA to the rest of the world. No person or movement could. But he offers the greatest promise for meeting those challenges with the greatest degree of success. Of guiding this nation through the humungous dangers that lie ahead.

Cuz it's a really messed up world out there. Sometimes we forget how messed up.

Anyway read Berman's book if you can! Signing off and YEPPER WE MOST SURELY CAN!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Posted on 3/29/08 while the PA Barack Express lay still for the night)

Barack, Iraq, and the "Surge"

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:53:29 EDT

On the Iraq War:

Barack needs to emphasize that any success that might be seen in the US "surge" in Iraq has been helped along tremendously by the cease-fire maintained by the Shi'ite Mahdi militias (Moqtada el Sadr's followers).

In other words, the "surge" hasn't succeeded at all. It has failed in its strategic objective – providing breathing space for political reconciliation, a reconciliation hasn't happened and shows no signs of happening anytime soon (as Barack rightly emphasizes).

What Barack doesn't emphasize is that one of the main reasons we've seen a decline in the bloodletting is because of Sadr's unilateral cease fire. Which from the US perspective is sheer luck.

A cease fire that Sadr is poised to end at any moment.

The mere notion that John McCain could announce that the "surge" has been a success is enough to make you want to vomit. Or scream to the heavens that he's blind as a bat and ignorant as a mule. Or something drastically and nastily and loudly oppositional.

John McCain is absolutely wrong on this point.

Barack also needs to frame his opposition to the war in more than just weapons inspections and the like. Nothing would please me more than to hear Barack say something like:

"I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq because history teaches that invasions of sovereign nations are very likely to fail. And not only fail, but backfire. The French in Vietnam. The US in Vietnam. The French in Algeria. The British in Iraq. The Soviets in Afghanistan. All failed. All backfired. Because that's how history works. The invasion of Iraq by the US was NEVER a good idea. It was ALWAYS a bad idea. Because invasions of sovereign nations spark backlashes. That's how history works. And as we know, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Or something like that. As it stands Barack's stance on the Iraq War is good; it is adequate; it is competent. It is also insufficient. I'd give him maybe a B, maybe a B-. I'd like to see him give an "A" response to the question about Iraq. And that would mean framing it in historical terms.

The US invasion of Iraq has been a total disaster. Barack needs to explain exactly why it was a terrible idea to begin with.

And emphasize that the "surge" represents, at best, the illusion of success.

A Foreign Policy Like . . . Who's?

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:06:48 EDT

A Foreign Policy Like . . . Who's??

I'm going to shut my eyes and pretend that Barack Obama did NOT say yesterday that his foreign policy would look like Ronald Reagan's and JFK's.

I know our man is fighting for white working class votes in PA. I know he needs to say some unsavory things.

So I'm going to forget he said what he just said.

Ronald Reagan??? I have to say, few things in life pissed me off more than Ronald Reagan's foreign policy.

I know Barack doesn't mean it. That he's positioning himself politically.

So I'm going to hold my nose, try to keep from vomiting, and let it go.

On Not Alienating Hillary's Supporters

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:22:34 EDT

I was very glad to read Hillary's remarks today:

"I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic Party. When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we're going to close ranks. We're going to be united ... The most important goal for us is to put a Democrat back in the White House."

And other such conciliatory comments.

My feeling is this:

We need to be careful NOT to alienate Hillary supporters - any more than we have already. And we have alienated them (recent poll showed 28 percent of Hillary supporters would NOT support Obama against McCain - a scary number, though doubtless inflated by primary-season passions).

We need to understand the source of rank-and-file Clintonista alienation from us. Because it seems to be deep and powerful, and we need to work to overcome it.

One major source is LOYALTY to the Clinton name and legacy. Sneer if you will, but this is a real thing, and loyalties are to be respected. The question becomes: How do we TRANSFER that loyalty from Clinton to Obama, among ordinary people? Allegiances aren't destroyed; they're transferred. The answer is not to undermine Hillary. It is to EDUCATE about Barack.

Another source is WOMEN'S BACKLASH against "pretty boy" Obama. A fresh-faced sweet-talking man comes along and snatches the prize from the First Viable Woman Presidential Candidate in History (FVWPCH). Seriously. This makes for a deep wound among many women who support Hillary. How to begin to address it? For one, Barack could be more attentive to women's issues than he's been to date; speak out more forcefully on policy and social issues that relate specifically to women. For Obama supporters, showing RESPECT for Hillary as a human being is sine qua non for acquiring the respect and support of women who support Hillary.

Keep your Eyes on the Prize. We cannot afford to alienate Hillary supporters. They may well prove invaluable allies in the fight against McCain.

Change Happens from the BOTTOM UP - among ordinary folks who support Hillary, and ordinary folks who support Obama. Let's not drive a wedge between us. Let's always remember what we have in common.

I really think Hillary meant what she said today. That we're going to need unity. And she's going to work toward that unity.

I think Hillary meant what she said today.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

(Posted on the Late Night Open Thread, 3/27/08)

Defeat & Dismay in Hillary's Eyes

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:58:37 EDT

Hillary looks tired. Her eyes look drawn, weary, distant. She often casts her gaze downward. When her eyes get big and round, as they do when she's being emphatic, they just don't have the sparkle they've had in the past. Her entire countenance seems more weatherbeaten, more timeworn and sad.

She has the body & face language of someone who knows they're losing the most important battle of their lives. And hates the very thought of it. And grits her teeth and soldiers on, in hopes of some miracle.

She looks like someone who knows she has failed, who knows she's been beaten, but can't quite yet absorb the fact. Her eyes seem to gaze into more distant places than the people in front of her. She still can't really believe it's true. Sometimes the split in her mental universe - between what she knows in her bones to be true (that she has lost), and what she pretends is true (that she will win) - becomes too immense, too terrible to manage. It is hard to live in a schitzophrenic universe. When you do, if you have a soul, your eyes betray you.

The weary, distant look in her eyes reflect that ongoing struggle raging deep inside. I hope she makes an enlightened reconciliation between these two parts of herself. That she comes to understand that her personal ambitions are distinct from the best interests of the nation. I hope she makes the right choice, concedes defeat gracefully, and throws her support behind Obama.

That my hopes are pipe dreams is betrayed in the darkness of her eyes. She gazes into posterity and despises the narrative of her failure to become president. That immense failure is what those drawn, distant, downcast eyes seem to be seeing.

She sees her fall as unjust and tragic, and thus will behave mercilessly toward her adversary. Her eyes betray that she will show no mercy. That she sees this as battle to the death.

Then again, things change. Maybe she'll wake up tomorrow to the sounds of robins singing outside her window, gaze out on a fresh dawn, have an epiphany, see with ruthless clarity the error of her ways, and resolve to do the right thing.

Watch her eyes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Posted on the Late Night Open Thread, 3/27/08)

Obama, the Black Church, and Politics in America

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:54:00 EDT

I'd like to share the following anecdote, to illustrate the uphill battle we continue to face with the Rev. Wright controversy.

Last week, in my introductory US history course at a large public university, I deviated from the course syllabus to show Obama's historic speech on race. The video was followed up by a spirited question-and-answer session.

One young white woman in her early 20s made the following comment (I paraphrase):

"In my church we don't talk about politics, we talk about Scripture and salvation, but not politics. I don't think church is the proper place to talk about politics; it just doesn't seem right. It also seems like talking politics in church violates the separation of church and state."

Because I want to encourage student participation and not make anyone feel dumb, I didn't challenge her as vigorously as I might have. Her comment nonetheless shows the stunning degree of ignorance we face in trying to educate white America about the reality behind the Rev. Wright controversy.

What's wrong with this student's perspective? At least two big things:

1. It presumes that all churches ought to be like her church - that in the sphere of politics and organized religion, there's one standard to which all churches ought to adhere. Political issues should not be a part of any church service. Period. This is absurd. It also evinces a profound degree of ignorance regarding the historical role of organized religion in American political history, and of the black church in particular.

2. It inverts the burden of responsibility in the constitutional separation of church and state. The First Amendment forbids the GOVERNMENT from passing laws "respecting an extablishment of religion" (the "establishment clause"). The Constitution does NOT forbid churches from engaging in political discussions!

I nonetheless found the student's remarks very interesting, and troubling, because they offer a new twist on the oft-heard "why did Obama sit in the pews for 20 years listening to hate speech?" question.

To me, this student's comments illustrate the tremendous challenges confronting us in defusing the Wright controversy. It tells me that we need have a lot of work to do educating ordinary Americans about the history of the black church in America. And it suggests that many Americans do not understand what "separation of church and state" really means.

Thanks for listening.

Crustgate Scandal Widens

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:08:22 EDT

CRUSTGATE SCANDAL WIDENS, OBAMA LESS THAN WELL-ORGANIZED, EX-ROOMMATE SAYS. WASHINGTON (Foxx News), March 24
Charges that Illinois Senator Barack Obama left piles of sandwich crusts on tabletops while in grade school, a habit described as "disgusting" by a former classmate, widened today when a former roommate at Harvard University said that Obama's college dormitory room was exceptionally cluttered. "He had papers and clothes and all kinds of junk all over the place," charged Eddy Goredom, 45, who shared a room with Mr. Obama during Obama's sophomore year.   "I could have roomed with him the next year, but no way, he was just too messy."
From a Pittsburgh sports bar where televisions blared replays of the Best of the Steelers and Penguins, the campaign of Democratic rival New York Senator Hillary Clinton jumped on the charges. "Ready from Day One to make a mess of things, maybe?" asked campaign spokesman Howard Wolfman. "These descriptions fit into a larger pattern that raise a lot of questions that the American people are asking. And it seems only right that the American people get some answers."
That view was confirmed by the Director of the Institute for Organizational Studies at Pepperdine University Donald C. McDonald.   "We see this kind of organizational dysfunction in a lot in would-be leaders," said professor McDonald. "Stirring up crowds with grandiose rhetoric about change and hope while keeping a messy desk. " McDonald observed that "voters are asking themselves – do we really want a president who can't keep track of things?"
Presumptive Republican nominee Arizona Senator John McCain, just back from what aides described as an invigorating trip to Iraq, appeared mildly reflective when asked about the charges against Obama. "I think messes are bad things and I try to avoid them," he said. "Ever since my years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam I've kept a clean desk." Top aides later lashed out at what they called a pattern of misrepresentation by Obama. "How can you change Washington if your desk is messy?" asked McCain spokeswoman Rogers Brian. "The truth is, you can't. And Mr. Obama knows it."
The Obama campaign did not respond directly to the charges, though tensions were clearly mounting at campaign headquarters in Philadelphia. "I'm not sure I can take much more of this," said one campaign worker, sitting amid piles of papers, soda cans, coffee cups, and empty pizza boxes.   "I can feel the sense of hope being sucked right out of me."   Others were more optimistic. "This 'hood been pretty much a mess long as I can remember," said longtime area resident and Obama volunteer Shakeel O'Johnson. "Messy desk don't bother me none, and I could use some change." The Obama campaign later denied rumors of rampant disorganization at regional offices in Reading, Lancaster, and Wilkes-Barre.

Obama's Childhood Eating Habits Poor, Ex-Classmates Say

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:48:12 EDT

OBAMA'S BOYHOOD EATING HABITS POOR, EX-CLASSMATES SAY. WASHINGTON (Foxx News), March 20
Several former grade school classmates of Illinois Senator Barack Obama have come forward to make startling allegations regarding Obama's boyhood eating habits. "Whenever Barry [Obama] ate a sandwich, he'd eat just the middle part and leave the crusts on the table," said 46 year-old Charlie McGillicutty. "He didn't like the crusts." Another former classmate, 46 year-old Samantha M. Powerly, recalled that Obama hardly ever ate fresh fruits or vegetables. "It was almost always peanut butter sandwiches, nothing else," she said. "I liked him, he was a nice boy and all, but he'd leave piles of crusts behind him, it was disgusting."

Rival Democratic contender Hillary Clinton's camp pounced on the news. "Once again we see Senator Obama's words do not match his deeds," said Clinton spokesman Harry Icky. "How can you call for national health care (which by the way leaves out 15 million people) if you don't think childhood nutrition is important? The American people are asking what this means about Obama's judgment and character, and we think the American people deserve an explanation."

Campaigning in Los Angeles, Republican leader John McCain declared the Iraq war "definitely under control" before pausing to poke fun at Obama's predicament. "I suppose he could give a speech about it, but that wouldn't change the facts, friends, it wouldn't change the facts, friends, it wouldn't change the facts."

Obama supporters appeared deflated by the news. "We're doomed for sure," said one unkempt young man who asked not to be identified. "I used to have hope, but with the Reverend Wright and now this, we're all basically giving up." Another was more upbeat. "I love Obama!" said a 21 year old frizzy-haired cheerleader. "He's my hero!" The Obama campaign later denied rumors that Chicago hit men had threatened Obama's former classmates last year.

ObamaResponses to Shawn, Conservative Republican

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:11:08 EDT

Herewith is reproduced a fascinating set of Obamaphile responses to a self-proclaimed "conservative republican" named Shawn. My but we're a welcoming lot, aren't we? (Except for the first responses, which were not exactly courteous).

More on Obama's Speech on Race

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:35:09 EDT

America is being transformed by this political process. Today I chatted with a lot of people, white and black in various circumstances at work and in transit, and asked if they'd seen Obama's speech. A few had, most hadn't. Most knew about it; a few didn't. Most seemed genuinely interested in the topic.

The point is - it can be talked about. Without shame or guilt or secrets. In the open. An honest conversation about race in America. Between white, black, brown, red, yellow (what absurd categories to begin with!) and all the "mongrel races" amongst & betwixt them! With knowledge of history. Of slavery & Jim Crow & the Freedom Movement. Of America warts & all.

Why can't race & slavery & Jim Crow be talked about? Here's why: The only reason "white" people might not want to have this conversation, or might want to subvert this conversation, is because of the pernicious ideology of WHITE SUPREMACY. Barack didn't touch those words. But they are integral to his analysis.

Whiteness carries privilege in this country. Historically, and today. It's just a fact. White supremacy is a very powerful force, because it confers POWER. And that's ultimately what this conversation is about: POWER.

White supremacy is about maintaining white privilege, while Barack Obama is about privileging everyone equally. He's about eradicating white supremacy, too, but he's not about to say that. But it is true.

That's why so many people are foaming at the mouth, calling Barack all kinds of vile names, spewing bile and filth across the Web and beyond. His vision for America threatens white privilege, and some amongst the privileged are choosing to fight back.

I believe what Frederick Douglass believed: that slavery harmed both slave AND master. White privilege ultimately HURTS those we see as "white." They're just too ignorant or blind to know it.

Our job is to TEACH them. To open people's minds to the very real possibility that Barack Obama is a gift to this nation that we'd be wise to embrace.

Barack has walked with enormous dignity and grace into a dangerous minefield. Thing is, he'll be just fine. He knows the terrain. He knows where the mines are. He will come through this unscathed - indeed strengthened, steeled for the struggle against McCain yet to come.

A struggle from which he will emerge victorious. With an unprecedented 58.3% of the popular vote. You heard it here first.

Obama's Speech on Race in America

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:28:11 EDT

The brilliance of Obama's speech is rooted, at least in part, in how it's framed in the context of the evolution of the Constitution and the expansion of rights in US history.

As a college professor who's wrestled with the question of what themes to emphasize in my US history survey courses, I can really appreciate Obama's emphasis here.

I generally begin my survey course in modern US history by discussing the foundational promise of America as expressed in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". Much of the rest of the course tells the story of American history as the process by which groups EXCLUDED from this promise (blacks, Indians, women, others) struggled to be INCLUDED.

Obama began his speech not with the Declaration of Independence (despite Fox News's banner, which proclaimed otherwise!) but with the Constitution and the original sin of America - African slavery - and the foundational promises and contradictions that define the American experience. That's a very powerful and compelling place to begin, and he kept that focus throughout.

In other words, it's a speech of which any college professor would be proud. He did not water things down. He did not oversimplify. Instead he wove together an eloquent summary of the foundational promise of the Republic, the realities of slavery and Jim Crow, and his own experiences as a man of mixed racial ancestry.

And gave Americans a choice: to remain stuck in the racial rut we've been stuck in since the headiest days of the mainstream Civil Rights Movement, or to engage in an honest conversation about race so we can move beyond these pernicious divisions.

The paroxysms of bile and spleen we're seeing throughout the media and blogosphere is to be expected. Revolutions always generate counter-revolutions. Many whites embrace their race privilege, and recoil at the prospect of relinquishing it. This too is entirely predictable.

History teaches that people with power don't relinquish that power without a fight.

It's now up to people of good will to continue the conversation. To seize the moment and deepen the discussion. It's the only way ahead.

In sum, it's hard to imagine a more powerful, compelling, or searingly honest reaction to the Reverend Wright controversy.

If, in the wake of this speech, America does not embrace Obama, America does not deserve Obama.

Obama and the Jewish Community

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:45:48 EDT

There's a terrific piece on Obama's relationship with the Jewish community on the JTA's website: http://jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080103obamaprofile20080103.html. In case the link doesn't work (because you have to register on the site), here's the article en toto:

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

PROFILE: THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER, OBAMA HAS REACHED FOR JEWISH SUPPORT

By Ron Kampeas Published 01/03/2008 WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Ask about Barack Obama's natural constituencies and you might hear that he's the first black with a viable shot at the White House, or about his Kenyan father and his childhood in Indonesia, or the youthfulness of his followers, or the millions of Oprah junkies swooning over his candidacy. What you might not hear is that the Illinois senator has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage in his political career. In his first run for the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he sought the backing of Alan Solow, a top Chicago lawyer. Eight years later, running for the U.S. Senate -- long before he became the shoo-in, when he was running in a Democratic field packed with a dozen candidates, including some Jews -- one of his first meetings was with Robert Schrayer, a top Jewish philanthropist in Chicago. When he launched his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in late 2006, he named as his fund-raising chief Alan Solomont, the Boston Jewish philanthropist who helped shepherd Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to the Democratic candidacy in 2004

And he chose a March gathering of the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to deliver his presidential candidacy's first foreign policy speech.

"Some of my earliest and most ardent supporters came from the Jewish community in Chicago," Obama told JTA in 2004, after his keynote speech galvanized the Democratic convention in Boston.

Three years later, addressing the National Jewish Democratic Council's candidate's forum, he made the same point when he was asked about his ties with Arab Americans and Muslim Americans in Chicago.

"My support within in the Jewish community has been much more significant than my support within the Muslim community," Obama said at the April forum, adding that "I welcome and seek the support of the Muslim and Arab communities."

His Jewish followers are fervent, distributing "Obama '08" yarmulkes early in his campaign.

His rock-star status and the relationships Obama has built in the community have helped avoid murmurings about his otherwise notable divergences from pro-Israel orthodoxies.

In his AIPAC speech, for example, Obama favored diplomacy as a means of confronting Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. "While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons," he said.

AIPAC does not oppose diplomacy in engaging Iran, but dislikes it as an emphasis, believing that talks could buy the Iranian regime bomb-making time. But his words did not stop the Chicago hotel ballroom packed with 800 AIPAC members from cheering on Obama.

A few weeks later, Obama drew more rubberneckers than any other candidate attending AIPAC's policy forum in Washington, drawing away onlookers from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), although she outpolls Obama among Jewish voters. No one winced when he said that Palestinian needs must be considered in working out a peace deal -- hardly standard AIPAC pep talk. He made the same point at the NJDC event.

"It is in the interests of Israel to establish peace in the Middle East," he said. "It cannot be done at the price of compromising Israel’s security, and the United States government and an Obama presidency cannot ask Israel to take risks with respect to its security. But it can ask Israel to say that it is still possible for us to allow more than just this status quo of fear, terror, division. That can’t be our long-term aspiration."

Early in his campaign, Obama handily killed an Israel-related controversy in its early stages. At a chat he had said that "no one has suffered more than the Palestinians."

Blame the leadership was what he meant, explaining later during an MSNBC debate, "What I said was, nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region."

Obama tempers his deviations from pro-Israel orthodoxy by going the extra mile in areas where he agrees with groups such as AIPAC. He has led the effort in the Senate to pass legislation that would assist U.S. states that choose to divest from Iran. His top Middle East adviser is Dennis Ross, who had the job during the Clinton administration and who since has principally blamed the Palestinian leadership for the failure of the Oslo peace process.

And in recent speeches, Obama tweaked his pro-Israel rhetoric to echo the recent drive by the Israeli government and pro-Israel groups to insist on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

"I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an agreement would look like," he said in a speech redistributed by his campaign. "It would mean that the Palestinians would have to reinterpret the notion of right of return in a way that would preserve Israel as a Jewish state. It might involve compensation and other concessions from the Israelis, but ultimately Israel is not going to give up its state."

On domestic issues, Obama is savvy about Jewish social justice commitments and is on a first-name basis with two of the top Jewish religious lobbyists in Washington -- Rabbi David Saperstein of the Reform movement and Nathan Diament, who represents the Orthodox Union.

That connection, however, is not enough to supplant Clinton among Jewish voters. In a recent American Jewish Committee poll, Obama's favorable rating was 38 percent, while Clinton's was 53 percent. Clinton also is being backed by most of the Jewish congressional delegation. Her years as first lady and senator have made her a more familiar presence among Jews. Public policy groups are likelier to favor her uncompromising approach to pushing universal health care, as opposed to Obama's appeal to build consensus on the issue.

Obama's appeal is in his broader vision, according to Solomont.

"This election will be about change: a change in government and the way politics is conducted," he told JTA in May. "There is a connection between gridlock and the smallness of our politics."

Critique of Joseph C. Wilson's Critique of Obama

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:23:10 EST

There's a substantive article by Joseph C. Wilson that merits close attention and detailed rebuttal, because it foreshadows much of what McCain and his camp are likely to throw at Obama in the general election.

Let me reproduce Wilson's article en toto, and then dissect and critique it. Here's a link to the article at the Huffington Post:

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Here's the text of the article itself:

"Obama's Hollow 'Judgment' and Empty Record" by Joseph C. Wilson

PARA 1: "Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

PARA 2: "Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

PARA 3: "I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

PARA 4: "There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

PARA 5: "What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

PARA 6: "But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

PARA 7: "As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

PARA 8: "On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

PARA 9: Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OKAY: Let's subject this critique to a careful, rigorous, and fair-minded critique. I should first offer the disclaimer that I strongly support Obama. This does not mean that I cannot or do not disagree with him on some issues, because I do. But my politics vis-a-vis Obama are tangential to the present discussion. They motivate it, but they do not determine its content. Its content is based on my training as a historian, which in turn relies on reason and evidence.

Critique of Joseph C. Wilson's Critique of Obama's Foreign Policy "Inexperience"

PARA 1: It is well documented that Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq consisted of far more than "a speech." Through his Senate campaign in fall 2002 Obama repeatedly expressed opposition to the Bush-Cheney push toward "regime change" in Iraq. In a series of talks, speeches, and interviews he articulated a coherent set of reasons why going to war was a very bad idea; we know the litany (it would stir up anti-US sentiment; distract us from Al Qaeda; etc.). In short, the "one speech" argument is specious. It is of course true that Obama was not privy to classified intelligence. It is also true that anyone paying attention knew of the findings and recommendations of the UN weapons inspectors under Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaredei -- continue inspections, continue containment, there is no imminent threat, do not invade. In any case the point is moot, since the vaunted "classified intelligence" on WMD proved wrong. In this case, public information available to ordinary citizens proved more illuminating and accurate than the most highly classified (and, as we now know, cherry-picked) intelligence. (Even the NYT, which editorially supported the war, and published the now-infamous Judith Miller articles, contained plenty of stories that revealed to careful readers the inflated and inaccurate nature of the Bush-Cheney claims; Blix and ElBaradei, e.g., were highly credible sources, featured frequently in the media, and turned out to be right.)

Wilson surely remembers that the debate on whether the US should go to war against Iraq was vigorous and widespread. The media brimmed with detailed critiques of the rush to war. Obama's opposition to the war did not exist in a vacuum. It was part of a much broader social discourse that recognized and articulated the dangers of the Bush-Cheney rush to war. Obama partook of that broader social conversation. Wilson portrays Obama as some kind of lone actor giving one speech. This is a flawed and inaccurate portrait.

PARA 2: Wilson sets the tone here by his description of Obama as a "minor local official" in 2002-03. Can this be interpreted as anything other than an intentional distortion of Obama's actual position as a state legislator? It would seem not. The perspicacious Joseph C. Wilson knows the difference between a local official and a state official. He is being either sloppy (unlikely) or intentionally misleading.

These three little words exemplify the core problem with Wilson's analysis: it is not judicious. It does not strive toward objectivity or fair-mindedness. It is, in short, a hatchet job. How else do you explain the very articulate and careful Joseph C. Wilson describing Obama as a minor local official? Clearly he's got something up his sleeve.

Substantively, Wilson bases his critique of Obama on the latter's Audacity of Hope. Here there is some bite to Wilson's critique. Obama could have made clearer why he foresaw disaster in a US invasion of Iraq; frankly I'd like to see a little less equivocation in Obama's opposition to the war. I'd like to know that Obama knew enough about the history of invasions and insurgencies (Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, colonial Iraq) to know that a US invasion of Iraq was a really bad idea. Still, for Wilson to reduce Obama's complex position on US-Iraq relations to a one dimensional portrait based on one quote seems another case of intentional deception. Wilson slams Obama for saying that didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried. Really now. All Obama was saying here was that he was acting in a careful, open-minded, judicious, and prudent way. That he did not foreclose possibilities. That he was being intellectually nimble, subtle, and canny. Mr. Wilson, aren't those the qualities we want in a president?

The July 2004 quote -- "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage" -- is another red herring. By July 2004 the bus had already been driven into the ditch ("at this stage"). Obama agreed with Bush that the goal now was to get the bus out. It's also a pretty bold, and refreshingly honest thing for a junior anti-war senator to say. Gutsy. And thanks to Obama's ability to use reason, common sense, and the English language, it's also a smart thing to say. I support the troops. I do not believe in behaving irresponsibly. The bus is in the ditch. I warned against driving it there, but there it is. I agree we must get it out.

The 2006 Obama quote -- "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices" -- is interpreted by Wilson to mean, "had I known, I would have agreed to going to war." That is misleading. Different "choices" could mean any number of things, including tightened sanctions, intensified inspection regimes, surgical strikes against specific facilities, etc. Again, all Obama was saying was that he was keeping an open mind. That he was open to changing his position if the evidence warranted. That he was not blindly tethered to a particular course of action. That he was, and is capable of changing his mind if evidence or circumstances changed. Mr. Wilson, aren't those desirable qualities for the president of the United States?

PARA 3: Here Wilson charges Obama with deliberately distorting Clinton's record. He argues that since he (Wilson) was in Washington during the debate about going to war, and Obama wasn't, he has more credibility about interpreting Hillary Clinton's stance at the time. Wilson is right that Clinton was critical and skeptical of the Bush-Cheney rush to war; that she advocated continued inspections; and that she was no rubber stamp for the administration. Overall the evidence supports Wilson's position on this point: Obama has oversimplified Clinton's stance toward the rush to war. She was critical. She did speak out against it. She did advocate for time to let the inspections work. But Wilson goes too far in absolving Clinton of any responsibility for what followed her speech on the Senate floor. It would not have been George Bush's war without the Senate's consent. The botton line is, when push came to shove, Clinton voted to make it Bush's war. She, and the majority of the Senate, gave him the green light. It was her war of choice, too.

The subtext here is that only those who were in Washington at the time can really judge the motivations and positions of the actors involved. This is simply not true. Anybody who read the papers and had a critical eye could see that Bush was lying and distorting. I certainly knew it, and I wasn't in Washington. Yes, even people in Peoria knew it. Here Wilson expresses typical inside-the-Beltway thinking: only those in the corridors of power really get it. On the flip side, there's ample evidence to indicate that being inside the Beltway too long can distort your vision. How else to explain lawmakers' support for Bush's folly?

In sum, Wilson's most substantive argument here is that Obama has not accurately represented the totality of Clinton's position. And he is basically right. In characterizing and evaluating Clinton's shifting stance toward the looming conflict, Obama could be more attentive to nuance and detail. He could offer a more balanced and even-handed appraisal. In truth, Clinton's support for the war was reluctant and tepid. But at the end of the day, argues Obama, Senator Clinton voted to authorize the use of force to effect "regime change" in Iraq, and her vote was a big mistake. He is right on both counts.

Wilson concludes the paragraph by asserting that "Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice." This is partly accurate. The inaccurate part, and the essential point, is that she voted to support Bush's path, making it her war of choice, too.

PARA 5: Here Wilson slams Obama for not holding oversight hearings in his capacity as chair of the subcommittee on Senate foreign relations relating to Afghanistan and NATO. Obama has acknowledged as much. In fact, he was too busy running for president to hold oversight hearings. The human capacity for multitasking being finite, Obama couldn't do both. He chose to run for president. This is a valid criticism, but it is not a very consequential one. Oversight hearings starting in winter 2007 might have accomplished something, but by this time the wheels of war in Afghanistan had been spinning for five long years, and all the oversight hearings in the world would not have changed the fundamental dynamics of the war on the ground. There is no possibility that such hearings would have had any impact on the Bush policy. They likely would have revealed bungling incompetence, corruption, ineptitude, and many other unsavory details. But they would not have changed anything substantial. Obama reasoned that he could have a bigger impact as president than as chair of a Senate oversight subcommittee. So he ignored the committee to pursue the presidency. It was a reasonable stance.

PARA 6: See above. Obama's neglect of the NATO oversight committee needs to be seen in the context of his other Senate activities, including, for instance, his work on nuclear non-proliferation. Here Wilson is exaggerating the relative importance of Obama's Senate oversight committee on NATO, and ignoring Obama's other legislative and oversight activities and accomplishments. This, too, reveals that Wilson's is, in the final analysis, an injudicious, imbalanced, and distorted assessment.

PARA 7: Same response. Here Wilson goes overboard in essentially blaming Obama for the disaster of Afghanistan. "Why didn't you do something about the Taliban resurgence, Mr. Obama? Why didn't you do something about the growth in poppy production? Why didn't you act?" Again, this reveals the nature of Wilson's hatchet-job. None of these disasters can reasonably be laid at Obama's door. Let's try another tack. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama HAD held oversight hearings. Two questions: (1) What would've been accomplished? (2) Would such hearings have led to any substantive changes in Bush policy? A genuinely honest response could only be: (1) The Bush record of failure would be more complete and more comprehensive and (2) No. The wheels of war were spinning. Anything Obama would've or could've done would not have changed the realities on the ground. Again, Obama chose to run for president instead of focusing on holding oversight hearings, reasoning that he could have a bigger impact as president than as junior senator running an oversight committee whose critiques and recommendations would've been ignored by Bush-Cheney anyway. It was a reasonable and responsible choice.

PARA 8: This is distorted nit-picking. Wilson surely knows that the legislative process is complex, that bills are imperfect, that compromises are necessary. This is politics, Mr. Wilson. A more careful exegesis of these issues, and the timeline of events, would reveal only that Obama did the best he could under complex and challenging circumstances.

PARA 9: The hatchet job's coda. For all the reasons explored above, Wilson's conclusions here are injudicious, intemperate, and unsupported by the evidence. If by "opportunism," Wilson means seizing an opportunity, then yes, that describes Obama's actions. If he means doing so for crass or self-serving political reasons, without any principles motivating it, then no, Wilson is incorrect. Obama is no more or no less opportunistic than any other politician. Opportunism is a fact of political life, and if politicians did not sometimes behave opportunistically, they would not be politicians. The final assertion - that Obama's record is "hollow" - speaks less to Obama's actual record than it does to Wilson's motivations for writing this piece to begin with: to discredit Obama. That's the purpose of this piece, and unless one is swayed by hollow rhetoric, shoehorned evidence, and tendentious reasoning, then he has failed in his goal.

Obama is not a perfect candidate. His record is flawed. His foreign policy experience is not extensive. Wilson offers some reasons to question Obama's foreign policy credentials, and some of his criticisms have merit. But the damning conclusions do not match the evidence presented. Wilson has presented no substantive evidence to support the assertion that Obama would not succeed in moving US foreign policy in a more productive or progressive direction, or would not be a highly effective Commander in Chief.

Silences in Wilson's Critique

It is important to read documents not only for what they say, but for what they DON'T say; one needs to be attentive to gaps, omissions, silences.

There are two main silences in Wilson's critique. The first is the implicit presumption that Hillary Clinton and/or John McCain is/are better equipped to serve as Commander in Chief. The second concerns the dramatically eroded moral position of the United States on the world stage, and how an Obama presidency might work to reverse that trend.

There is no substantive evidence that either Clinton or McCain would be any more effective than Obama. None have any extensive foreign policy experience. McCain has revealed his profound ignorance of Middle Eastern politics repeated, most recently in mid-March 2008 when, on a visit to Iraq, he asserted several times that Iran was assisting Al Qaeda in Iraq. McCain's comments make clear that he doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite Islam, or which Iran sect predominates in Iran, or which side Iran is supporting in the Iraq fight. Such ignorance is frankly breathtaking, and reveals McCain's exceedingly thin foreign policy credentials for what they are. Similarly with Hillary Clinton; she has repeatedly exaggerated her role in international affairs during her years as First Lady, from her alleged help bringing peace to Northern Ireland (yes, she played a role, but it was of marginal importance) to ducking from sniper fire at the Tuzla airfield in Bosnia. Yes, Hillary Clinton has a degree of foreign policy expertise, but the difference between her and Obama is a difference in degree, not in kind.

The second silence in Wilson's account concerns what an Obama presidency might bright to the abysmal state of US prestige around the world. Many commentators have observed that Barack Obama would be likely viewed very favorably by foreign allies and foes alike. Of course, whoever comes after G. W. Bush will be seen as a breath of fresh air (McCain to a much lesser degree, to be sure). But having a highly articulate, intensely intelligent, and politically progressive African American as President of the United States would offer to the world a powerful symbol of the US commitment to democracy, equal opportunity, and repairing the tarnished image of the US overseas. Much more could be said on this topic, but the fact that Wilson ignores it entirely speaks powerfully to his underlying agenda in writing this piece.

Conclusion

If Mr. Wilson were really looking to evaluate honestly whether Barack Obama is indeed a "man of substance," he would have offered a more judicious and even-handed review of the junior senator's twenty years of public service, of his substantial foreign policy expertise, and of his actual record on the Iraq controversy. That he did not attempt such a review speaks not to Obama's "hollow record," but to Wilson's political agenda in crafting this piece.

In sum, Wilson's essay says a lot more about Joseph C. Wilson than it does about Barack Obama.

Lines for Barack

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:37:56 EST

Dear Barack,

Please accept these suggested speech lines to do with as you will. May the Creator bless you and the quest you've embarked upon.

Being a fighter for ordinary Americans is a good thing. But being a fighter not enough. You have to fight smart. And the way you fight smart is you build coalitions. You bring people together. That's what I do. I build working coalitions that get things done.

I've been doing it for 20 years now. Fact is I'm pretty good at it. It's been said I give good speeches. But know this: I also have a proven track record of bringing people together to get things done.

I invite you to learn about my legislative accomplishments: They're all detailed on my website. There's a lot there. Please, visit the site. www-barackobama-com.

Then, when people say, "Oh, that Obama, he's just too inexperienced," you can tell them that in fact Obama has a deep well of experience in fighting for progressive social change. A long history of bringing people together to get things done -- in real life and actual fact.

This is the new kind of politics I'm talking about: the politics of building working coalitions of ordinary Americans that will prove to be more powerful than the power of the lobbyists and special interests.

That's how we're going to get universal health care in this country. We're going to build a majority working coalition, in which ordinary Americans are mobilized, that will prove more powerful than the insurance companies and drug companies and all their lobbyists and advertisers.

The entrenched interests will assault us with misleading and deceptive advertising. They will spread fear and use propaganda. And we will fight back. Not with propaganda. With accurate information. With common sense and determination. And with the power of numbers.

Politics, after all, is ultimately about power. And the power of the entrenched special interests is immense, as Senator Clinton so rightly emphasizes. It will be an immense challenge to overcome it.

But here's where Senator Clinton and I differ: I believe that the way to get it done is to give EVERYBODY a seat at the table. Because if there's 100 or 150 million ordinary Americans seated around that table along with the insurance and drug companies – with the biggest chair for me because I am, after all, the President – then we will have enough power to overcome any unreasonable opposition and thereby create a workable, efficient, and compassionate national health care system.

It won't be perfect. It will have flaws. But it will be a giant step in the evolution of a universal national health care system in this country.

In fact, I can't see any other way to do it. It has to be a national effort, the result of a national consensus. A national conversation about what everybody agrees is a national issue.

And my job as president will be lead that conversation and help to create that consensus. To build a coalition that will overcome the power of the special interests and lobbyists.

Being a fighter is not enough. You have to fight smart. I know how to fight smart to improve the lives of ordinary people, because I've been doing it now for 20 years.

The way you fight smart is you get people behind you. FDR steered us through the Great Depression and Second World War, and created the New Deal, because of his capacity to lead, to inspire, and to build consensus.

That is the kind of leadership I will offer as President of the United States of America.

Another area where you need to fight smart is in the international arena. Against terrorism, against hatred and violence, against global warming, and for a more just and peaceful world.

But that's a topic for another posting.

Barack & Hillary at the Democratic Gala, WI, Feb 16

Michael in PA - Outraged Hardboiled Citizen-Historian Thwacked Giddy with Hope — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:27:23 EST

HELLO WORLD:

My name is Mike, I'm a historian, this is my ObamaBlog, and this is my first posting!

Can we contain our excitement? Calm down please. Thank you.

Just finished watching Hillary & Barack give consecutive speeches at the Wisconsin Democratic Party Gala event in Milwaukee. Hillary's was very good. Once again she demonstrated her commitment to more progressive governance, and I believe her when she says she wants to make Washington more responsive to the problems of ordinary people. I think she'd make a very good president.

Barack's speech, in contrast, was magnificent. Brilliant even. If this man is not elected president of the United States, well then this country just doesn't deserve to be redeemed. I tried to watch the speech imagining myself uncommitted, skeptical, wary of this young upstart I've heard a lot about but didn't know very well. I tried to listen with the ears of someone who is just now starting to pay attention, but is unconvinced by this young man who gives a good speech but -- can he deliver? And it was just about impossible not to be convinced, because he directed his comments right at me. Boom: right into my face. It was incredible to watch.

The oratory was soaring, yet grounded; transcendent, yet gritty. It was a beautiful synthesis. More specifically:

-- The opening was not especially strong; same old talking points from earlier speeches and the TV spots; these get old; a passable opening, not great but good. Mike the Skeptic unconvinced.

-- The transition to why he's running for president of the United States -- got progressively better, until the last 20 minutes were absolutely magnificent. Brought tears to my eyes.

-- Very effectively wove SPECIFICS into his summary of major issues and problems: health care, the military, mortgage foreclosures, education -- the whole gamut of issues. Terrific job injecting those specifics without losing the larger rhetorical flow. Excellently done.

-- Extraordinary ripostes to Hillary's "Solutions for America" and the "dreams & hopes" accusations. Directly confronted those who say, "Well he gives a great speech but he's just a naive dreamer, a hopemonger." This part was absolutely brilliant.

"Words Matter." That's what he said. Over and over again. It literally brought tears to my eyes. "All men are created equal. Just words. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Just words." And so on. Brilliant brilliant brilliant.

"I have taught the Constitution, I will respect the Constitution" -- "just words" -- Magnificent!

If the United States of America does not elect Barack Obama as president, the country does not deserve to be redeemed. Besides which, who could not vote for this man?? He is so real, his feet planted firmly on the ground, his ego in check, his flaws and imperfections plainly apparent even to himself. He is an extraordinarily gifted speaker, and he'd make an extraordinarily effective leader. His speech buried Hillary's like, in a world of parallel universes, his presidency would bury hers.

Hillary Clinton would be a good president. Barack Obama has the potential to rank among the very greatest.

And that's my first posting! Aren't we thrilled? Yes we all are. Thank you very much and goodnight.

The Obama Candidacy: A Historian's View

On Winning White Working Class Votes in November

Headlines We'll Never See

Limitations of Dialup Internet for Poor & Rural ObamaBlog Users

It is Possible

ObamaBloggers' Guidelines & Tips **FINAL DRAFT** - May 5

Loooking 4 Work

to the Silent One

Public Appeal

We Should Boycott Those Stupid Faux Polls

"ObamaBloggers." Basic Books, © 2025 (excerpt)

Bloggers' Guidelines & Tips **DRAFT**

What Are We Doing Here Anyway?

The Bush Years: Comprehensive List of Accomplishments

♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ Ode To ABC News ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫

Thank-You Letter to President of ABC News re "Debate"

Some Tips on Being FIRST!

Pass the Remote, the Truth Sucks

Bush Signs Truth Bill, Slams Dems

On "Potential" Turning Points

The Counter-Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Outraged & Embittered R Us

This Test Is Not Barack's To Fail

Prof Noodlehead's Rants on the Past, No. 2

Clinton Denies Repudiation

Prof Doodlehead's Rants on the Past - No. 1

On Making Musical Notes & Such ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫

McCain Blasts Obama, Demands Retraction

FIRST on the Sun Nite Open Thread!!! Thoughts on the Moment

On the Race to be First on the ObamaBlog

President Obama, Education & Citizenship

Hard-Boiled Discussions

Barack's where in North Dakota?

Pitch for Timothy Tyson, "Blood Done Sign My Name"

Clinton Wins Major Press Award

Mike's Incisive Analysis & Astute Predictions Re FL & MI

Spirited Discussion on Campaign Transparency

Campaign Structure & Organization?

Barack & Iraq (with community comments)

Afghanistan Failures

Observations on Hillary's Website

Three Stunningly Brilliant Ideas (with Comments)

Obama Picks Up Controversial Endorsement

Decline of the American Empire (a pitch for Berman's Book)

Barack, Iraq, and the "Surge"

A Foreign Policy Like . . . Who's?

On Not Alienating Hillary's Supporters

Defeat & Dismay in Hillary's Eyes

Obama, the Black Church, and Politics in America

Crustgate Scandal Widens

Obama's Childhood Eating Habits Poor, Ex-Classmates Say

ObamaResponses to Shawn, Conservative Republican

More on Obama's Speech on Race

Obama's Speech on Race in America

Obama and the Jewish Community

Critique of Joseph C. Wilson's Critique of Obama

Lines for Barack

Barack & Hillary at the Democratic Gala, WI, Feb 16

ObamaBloggers' Guidelines & Tips FINAL DRAFT - May 5

Bloggers' Guidelines & Tips DRAFT