Pro Obama Boomer

MYTH BUSTERS: Health insurance reform vs. small business

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:41:03 EDT

There’s no shortage of allegations that small business will be hurt by healthcare legislation, as Nancy Duff Campbell, a founder and co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, points out today at Reuters, with: “Women small business owners really need healthcare reform“ (subtitled: We need reform.)

Small businesses owners are suffering from the current system. That graduated surcharge that some say is a job killer? Campbell found that only 1.2% of all taxpayers, including 4-5% of those with some business income, would be affected. Not exactly a death-knell for job creation when you examine the spin coming from big insurance companies more closely.

Health Care reform is not just a good idea, it's an overdue necessity.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:38:03 EDT

President Obama has arranged for several large trade groups, including the AMA, to join an event Monday afternoon to discuss ways to wring cost savings from the health system through more efficient practices, according to officials who briefed reporters on tomorrow's meeting. The President is expected to say that we can't continue the same way we've been going, with costs that are out of control -- that reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a pressing necessity.

According to a Reuter's article published on Sunday:

"A centerpiece of Obama's health proposal would be a new government health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The administration says the public plan would help cut costs by introducing competition, and cover the uninsured.
Republicans and insurers oppose a government plan, arguing that it would undermine the private healthcare market.
By focusing on delivering more efficient care, Obama is weighing in on one of the least controversial aspects of his healthcare proposal rather than the much more heated topic of whether to establish a new public insurance plan."

While you're wondering why anybody would oppose a plan that would both cut costs and cover the uninsured, do ask your friends that same question. Health Care is a 2 trillion dollar per year industry. Maybe somebody's making some serious green? Point friends at the article, perhaps.
It's at: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54A01P20090511?sp=true

The fight's not over.

Cap & trade, or Cap & tax? Who's spinning, and why?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:09:51 EDT

The way for the U.S. to secure a leadership role in the 21st century is by leading on all the issues that confront the world, to exhibit thoughtful strength and realistic ideas. It will require more than military strength, diplomacy, reversing the current economic chaos, and strong alliances. Our place in the world, our rights, and our freedom depend on leading based on principles we don't just preach, but practice.

In the case of our reckless, decades-long descent into a position where we are addicted to fossil fuels mostly coming from abroad, the time for new ideas is past due. Clean new energy sources aren't just good for our children and the environment, they're a key to our national security. Now more than ever our leaders must partner with innovative businesses and entrepreneurs to make the United States more self-reliant again. The President and the Congress must resist the insidious temptation to do nothing about energy while dealing with the various other domestic and global challenges.

Of course, no matter if the business is banking or big oil, well-funded special interests don't want to give up the loopholes they've lobbied for over the years. They work to preserve their special deals with Congress, while lobbying the media into misleading Americans with catch phrases such as "Cap & tax" to keep us from thinking about what's at stake.

While most Americans support a cap on carbon pollution there's now a flood of "talking points" and sound-bites circulating about the supposed short-comings and dangers of any new plan. The real threat of cap-and-trade is that it doesn't favor the mega-corporations, and the ultra-rich energy barons. Changing to new and cleaner energy sources changes where the money goes - more of it stays in the U.S., in smaller, newer companies; it creates jobs that we desperately need to recover from the fiasco of letting the financial giants "self-regulate."

"It looks like green jobs are real. Recently, two solar energy companies — Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. and Wacker Chemie AG — announced billion-dollar investment plans to build plants near Clarksville and Chattanooga."
U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)

In fact, a cap and trade system simply uses pure capitalism to reward efficient, innovative businesses while it effectively penalizes out-moded industries. Used world-wide it plays to American strengths, conveying tremendous economic advantage to industries and countries ready to innovate, and results in domestic job growth. Only somebody making lots of money off the existing rules could possibly deny the benefits of a global cap and trade system.

Don't let D.C. insiders off the hook.

Many members of Congress benefit from huge campaign donations from energy companies. They'd be happy if we'd all stop paying such close attention to how energy policy intertwines with national security. They smile and want you to "trust" them to get it right, and the longer they've been there the more they want you to just trust, and not verify, that they're working for you. Uh huh.

Counselor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Health Reform

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:24:11 EDT

President Obama has issued an executive order establishing the White House Office of Health Reform intended to oversee "the federal government's comprehensive effort to improve access to health care, the quality of such care, and the sustainability of the health care system." Governor Howard Dean, M.D., and Democracy for America have launched the "Healthcare for All" campaign at StandwithDrDean.com, and over a quarter of a million people have enthusiastically joined in, spreading the word.

Both initiatives will help spur on reform in the health care insurance industry, and not a moment to soon. According to a recent article from Maggie Fox of Reuters,

"U.S. government economists predict that public and private health spending will hit $2.5 trillion this year, taking up a 17.6 percent share of gross domestic product. Yet studies suggest Americans get poorer care than people in other industrialized countries that have national healthcare plans, and 46 million Americans have no health insurance at all."

While Howard Dean is a visible and credible public face, the effort requires your commitment, too. Change doesn't come about in Washington unless politicians know their constituents are paying attention to an issue. You've got to keep writing to them, and to newspapers, and inform your friends, neighbors, and co-workers about the shabby state of affairs caused by insurance company profiteers siphoning off lavish pay and bonuses that drive up all our costs but add no value to the health care industry.

Even if you're not the sort who writes letters to the editor, you can help financially to provide the backing Governor Dean needs to spread the message.

Stop Insurance Industry Profiteering! Reform Health Coverage NOW!

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:07:48 EDT

1 in 6 Americans are uninsured and millions more are under-insured, yet lobbyists try to convince Congress and the media that health insurance companies are the best way to provide affordable health care to America. If the President's plan is changed to exclude an option similar to Medicare, health care in this country remains mired in the hands of insurance profiteers.

A public, single-payer option is the way to guarantee health care for all Americans. Insurance companies are in it for profit - that's what business does. Our big mistake thus far has been expecting them to behave altruistically. Where is their motive? It's on the bottom line.

New legislation without a new option is no longer a viable choice. Let people keep the for-profit coverage if they already have it, but a public health care option is overdue. Of course, competition should force private industry to provide better service at lower costs, but it still doesn't force them to help the uninsured.

"In 2009, Congress must take up and act on meaningful health reform legislation that achieves coverage for every American while also addressing the underlying problems in our health system. The urgency of this task has become undeniable."
~Senator Max Baucus, (D-MT)
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee
12 November 2008

To date, the private, for-profit payment systems have enriched a few large corporations while leaving millions of average Americans one illness or injury away from medical bankruptcy. The system is broken; it's a mass of red-tape, with medical decisions in the hands of bureaucrats instead of doctors. We spend more per capita on health care than any other nation, but our results leave a lot to be desired.

“The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.“

We need to re-define success. Big business is ignoring the problem, looking instead to their separate bottom lines, while non-profit organizations are bringing real innovation and proactive thinking to bear. We need insurance profiteers out of the health care industry - now. They drive costs up, because they're middle-men making a profit. What's right for their business is wrong for providing cost-effective health care to Americans. Let's pass the President's plan and move on to tackle the other thorny issues of our time: education and the economy.

Too soon to say the economy's recovered.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:49:21 EDT

The DJIA crept above 8000, there were slight up-ticks in consumer spending and housing sales reported, and suddenly we're supposed to believe the economy has bottomed out? The people I talk to are still feeling mighty insecure about their jobs, because losing your job threatens your health care and your retirement savings at a time when we know the job market is still very, very tight.

While the President is right to focus on the engines that create jobs in the U.S., such as small businesses and the schools that prepare us for those jobs, IBM has recently announced layoffs in the U.S. as they continue moving even more jobs out of the country. At IBM, business success is all about their bottom line - they're moving jobs to countries where workers earn less and have fewer benefits. Not quite what the President is working for, and certainly not what the U.S. workforce deserves.

Ms. Dawn Teo has written an OpEd at Huffington Post, "New Economic Reports Suggest Middle Class May Have To Wait For Economic Recovery" loaded with facts and figures, and I respect Dawn for her tenacious research. It's a dose of cold reality amid the sudden clamor of voices saying confidently, "it's getting better!" Did they see those unemployment numbers? Did they forget already that productivity declined in the non-farm business and manufacturing sectors in fourth-quarter 2008?

The impact of the financial deregulation orgy is not behind us yet. So trying to goad us into optimism based on a few isolated numbers, cherry-picked for their "improvement," isn't a story I'm ready to buy just yet. Not while mega corporations like IBM can still scoff and do layoffs with impunity.

Despite the setback at the end of 2008, productivity has roughly doubled in the U.S. in the last several decades, yet the benefits have flowed to the super rich, while their companies and strategies and "financial products" have abused those of us who dared to believe in terms like "privatized retirement accounts." Returning to preeminence in manufacturing and agriculture isn't simply about recapturing the American Dream, it's essential to our economy and security. The big business leaders that have touted the virtues of capitalism during those decades will be proven wrong if they fail to recognize that their profit - their success - is a direct result of the creativity and productive labor of the middle class.

When IBM can be as proud of how they treat their workers every day as General Motors was during its glory years,
when I see people going back to work at jobs with good salaries and benefits, then I'll be ready to believe the U.S. economy is back on its feet. We've got a lot of work to do.

Let's put medical decisions back in the hands of trained professionals.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:36:19 EDT

Single-payer national health insurance isn’t socialized medicine (and if it was you can bet most doctors in the U.S. wouldn’t support it.) Single-payer is simply a streamlined system in which a single agency organizes health-care financing and payments: delivery of medical care remains essentially as it in in the U.S. today - largely private. All that’s lost is the red-tape and restrictions.

Who’s against it then? Insurance companies, because they profit enormously from the current system - even though they add no value. In fact, many people will tell you that insurance companies make it hard to get what they deserve and pay for with the premiums. That’s why it was such a major focus of Obama’s campaign in 2008: he proposed that modern health care should include giving everybody in the U.S. coverage.

To get there we need the freedom to choose between keeping private insurance—for those lucky enough to have any—and opting into a universally available public health insurance option (something like Medicare.) Ultimately, by reducing the number of agencies handling the payments we simplify the task for hospitals and clinics - less of the time and money goes to red tape, and more goes to actual medical services.

Ultimately that also means diminishing the power and profits of the private insurance companies currently siphoning their lavish earnings off your health care payemnts. They make money off the red tape, and by letting non-medical personnel decide what should and should not be prescribed to treat patients, and that’s a large part of what has caused costs to soar while coverage just shrinks.

It’s time for a reality check. Insurance companies profit from the current system, so naturally they’re opposed to changes that hurt their bottom line and their corporate bonuses. What value do they add to the process?

Digg this article…

MinnesotaCAN help the food shelf!

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:42:42 EST

Minnesota FoodShare's annual March Campaign kicked off on March 1st and your generous donation can play an important role in tackling hunger in our community.

In 2008 the Brian Coyle Food Shelf distributed more than 113,000 pounds of food to residents in the Cedar-Riverside and Seward neighborhoods and has a goal this year of collecting 5,000 pounds/dollars to restock their shelves. Non-perishable goods or financial contributions (checks made payable to Brian Coyle Food Shelf) will be greatly appreciated by the more than 900 families who visit the Brian Coyle Food Shelf each year.

Drop off hours are 2:00pm until 6:00pm on Sunday, March 15th, at the home of DonnaMarie Woodson, who was one of the tireless metro area Obama volunteers. Even one can matters, every little bit helps.

The Coyle Center, named after former vice president of the Minneapolis City Council Brian Coyle, is also proud to host a Farmer's Market once again this summer! Local farmers will sell fresh produce at the Coyle Center on Mondays from 3-7 p.m. beginning July 7th through September 29th, 2008. The Coyle Center is creating choice, change, and connection, one person at a time.

Be part of the solution.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:29:22 EST

It’s time for politicians to pay attention to what voters said in November 2008. Voters said, government is here to stay, so stop running against government and just start running the government well. We had a failure of leadership in Washington, and Obama won the Presidency because most voters felt it was time for a change. The task of restoring the jobs, the task of rebuilding the American dream, is urgent. Real people are losing their paychecks every day. Real people are losing their health insurance every day, while millionaire bankers send their lobbyists to D.C. to make sure executives of badly run companies don't lose their bonuses, let alone their pensions or their jobs.

Barack Obama and his team in the White House are clear that they work for the people who elected them, because special interests didn't fund his campaign. He's turned his attention to health care plans that regular people can afford, and won't lose when they lose their jobs - the President knows our wages aren’t keeping pace with the price of gas, food, and prescription drugs. He's rolled up his sleeves; Obama's working every day.

This is what happens when you elect a former community organizer. Voters saw that this is a man who leads by example, a man who's more interested in action than repeating memorized talking points in a press conference. Will you be part of the solution? If you're not talking with your neighbors about community needs and priorities, rest assured there are people who have every intention of controlling how the money is spent.

Obama won’t sit idly by and let our country become even more dependent on foreign oil and imported goods while big companies outsource our jobs. He's targeted education, for example, an investment in our children that will renew our economic power and secure their future.

President Obama gets that government is only as good as the people who run it; he and his staff were working even before the inaugural. Voters are hungry for more leaders with the common sense values Obama has shown, with the courage to do what it takes to lead a clean up of the mess in Washington - so that government "for the people" serves us all by keeping teachers and policemen employed despite special interests and partisan posturing that most of us find disingenuous if not downright unpatriotic in a time of crisis.

I'm not asking who anybody voted for, or if they're a member of a political party. My question is: What are you doing while Obama's team works to save the economy, jobs, and our environment?

I'm not asking if you can help, but as a citizen of the USA I'm hoping you will.

When was the last time you heard of a Democrat - ANY Democrat - challenging a voter's eligibility?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:07:35 EDT

We know, frankly, that part of the Republican strategy is to challenge votes, not only to disallow that one individual, but to create conditions that ultimately disenfranchise others, either by intimidation, misinformation, or simply slowing down lines at the polling place. After all some may think, "Why bother if the line is long, right?" They've heard Obama has it well in hand, so how important is that one vote, after all?

And what if it rains, or snows, and the line is slow or stalled with dozens of people waiting in bad weather?

Here's the deal:

Make sure everybody stays in line and votes. Look around, find others like us. You know YOU will vote, so if you see the line is long, let others go in front of you. Make a big deal of it. Make it obvious. "Look, I'm absolutely staying, so if you're in any hurry, go ahead of me."

Futhermore, know your rights as a voter in your state. Don't fall for the tactics that turn away students, don't believe for an instant that a foreclosure means you can't vote in the precinct you live in. Don't leave without casting a ballot, and don't let others, either.

There is a lot at stake, but McCain's amazing confidence has to come from more than faith in voting machines working for his goals... and based on what I've learned, the odds are that in key wards and precincts in battleground states there will be tactics to delay and discourage.

There is no question that ON ELECTION DAY the work includes your time right there at the polls. Take your cell, take your contact info for the campaign, and be the eyes and ears.

Voting is more than a right, for those who believe in the beauty of democracy as a form of government it's an obligation, it's the ultimate act of patriotism to select those who will sit in power in local or federal office. Take the time to learn, and on election day if there's any reason to doubt the fairness of what you see, do two things:

Open Letter to Obama Supporters

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:19:27 EDT

Senator McCain is not, with all due respect, a coward, but you hear/read that and other vituperative personal attacks on him and his family lately. Folks describe his debate style, the attack ads, and the increasingly negative tone of his campaign as evidence of many undesireable things - but those are behaviors, not the Senator himself.

The Senator's mistakes relate to who he's trusted to run his campaign. The "That one" comment, for example, is clearly not his own style - you know it, and I know it. Somebody with a lot less concern over congressional courtesy dreamed that one up, and advisors prepping the Senator for the debate convinced him to use it.

I'm not trying to excuse such behaviors, particularly since he asserted early on that he'd avoid them. The choice was his. Spinning the record of one's opponent was to be expected - this is politics, and a lot is at stake. My point is: the attacks, be they Palin's words, electronic ads, or the phrases and style in the debate are evidence that McCain has picked the wrong team. His campaign advisors have put him farther behind in the polls than he ever imagined he'd be - and don't forget, any savvy GOP insider knew the odds were bleak following the Bush administration even before the economy belly flopped.

(Not Just) Women for Obama

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:16:22 EDT

On the last evening of summer 2008, Mary Lewis Grow hosted a meeting of Women for Obama in her home.

By clicking on the images you can view larger versions of the files. They don't quite capture the excitement and good fellowship, let alone the smell wafting from the coffeepot or the taste of the treats...

As the title makes plain, it was not a meeting that excluded men, though the majority of those present were female... It was an opportunity for the Obama Field Organizer, Emily, to share her needs with people ready to lend their energy to Barack Obama's candidacy to become the next President of the United States.

Emily list was not the highlight of the evening. Nor was the phone call from the Speaker of the Minnesota State House of Representatives, Margaret Anderson Kelliher (parts of which can be heard in the video. Wish I could still get video embedding to work here...)

Volunteerism, Community Organizing, Habitat for Humanity

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:15:17 EDT

Founded in 1976, Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) is dedicated to the simple idea that shelter from rain, wind and sun is a basic human need. Obama Works is a national grassroots organization comprised of volunteers dedicated to implementing Senator Barack Obama's message of positive change through public service. Both organizations rely extensively on unpaid help - people who do the right thing with no expectation of any payback beyond a smile.

This is what COMMUNITY ORGANIZING is all about!

On September 13th, 2008, the Obama Works Twin Cities volunteers partnered with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity organizers to apply some elbow grease to two projects in Minneapolis. Hearty volunteers under the guidance of Master Gardeners who volunteer with HFHI helped a family beautify their home, and neighborhood.

The family may not be entirely comfortable with operating the lawnmower yet, but they've got curb appeal. They've also got new friends who are invested in their success, new connections to more established residents of their community.

Read the full story at Actualizers, and please pass along this example of how Obama's history inspires acts of community service.

Pictures and video amplify the story of volunteers beautifying a Habitat Home in south Minneapolis on behalf the the new homeowners, immigrants from Somalia who have only been in the house since mid-summer. A cool, rainy September day, but the result was sunshine in the Twin Cities.

I'm not going to suggest volunteers who support other candidates can't or won't do such selfless work; I'm absolutely certain some of them do even though I don't yet see much evidence of it. I'd rather read about how working together we can make a difference in our community than hear more dishonorable old-school attack politics out of the McCain~Palin~Rove campaign. Until the mainstream media has the spine showed by the ladies hosting "The View" we obviously can't let them dictate the narrative of this election - it's just too important to continue tolerating their conflicts of interest. From taxes and the economy to health care, they're letting lies stand unchallenged - and such uncritical, lazy "reporting" is not good professional journalism.

The planning was donated.
The plants were donated.
The labor was donated...
Senator Barack Obama's example might not have come to the attention of so many of us if he'd not become a candidate for president -- but community service is ALWAYS a postive action.

Read the whole article | DIGG it!

open letter to Senator McCain: fixing health care

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:46:33 EDT

Dear Senator McCain, I watched your acceptance speech, start to finish, and it's raised certain questions in my mind. First and foremost due to a coincidence of timing, I'd like you to explain more about your comment that Obama wants to put health care decisions in the hands of bureaucrats, please. Here's why:

I have a close friend who's struggling with her current insurance provider's decision makers. I thought they were bureaucrats making decisions about her health care - without evidently consulting medical practitioners - so I'd like to tell you her story. I hope together we can figure out who the problematic bureaucrats are, my friend.

She's divorced, so technically a single mom of two children. The youngest is away at college, but she's part of the story, too. You see, during an unplanned VBAC delivery resulting in the delightful arrival of her now college-age daughter she suffered irreversible nerve damage that left her with an incontinence issue.

After struggling with many courses of treatment over the years, her Urologist has settled on a particularly effective medicine. But her insurance provider, Health Partners, decided that was too expensive, and since she was a woman of a certain age they determined that she could just as effectively be treated with another class of less-expensive drug. They didn't consult with her Urologist, mind you, they just decided she was obviously one of those middle-aged women who has bladder/incontinence issues, and that she'd have to change to another medical treatment. After all, they'd paid for 5 years of an effective course of therapy already, so it was time to try something cheaper.

It didn't work. So they proposed another drug. It didn't work. They proposed a third alternative. You guessed it: no success. She got assertive and asked had any urologist - or any medical professional at all - reviewed her case? Well, no, Health Partners admitted, they had just decided that women her age on the one drug should be moved to the other class - a class she had tried previously, but when she pointed that out the bureaucrat -- oh sorry, the curiously powerful non-medical person she was allowed to talk to who was obviously looking only at the bottom line, not the health and/or well-being of the actual person -- they said that she absolutely had to try the drugs that had previously proven ineffective, because they had neither interest in nor any appreciation of the particulars of her diagnosis and prescription by a specialist.

So, Senator, tell me again about how we will lose control of our health care choices in the U.S.A. if Obama starts moving away from the current oh-so-capitalism-friendly system of health care decisions - and how well it's working now? This isn't the story of somebody on medical assistance who lost her coverage, this is actually a practicing, experienced, board-certified, hospital-based R.N. who knows full well how to deal with the clerks and other non-bureaucrats at insurance companies - she does it daily on behalf of her patients.

Waiting for Obama's acceptance speech

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:47:11 EDT

On the 28th of August, 2008, the Democratic party nominated U.S. Senator Barack Hussein Obama to be their endorsed candidate for President of the United States of America. The 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream..." speech on the mall in Washington D.C. now marks Denver, Colorado as another key site in the long march for racial equality in the U.S. - Senator Obama is bi-racial: his mother was a caucasian woman from Kansas, and his father an African from Kenya

It was a bright, warm, sunny afternoon in Denver. The line for admission streched for miles as excited attendees including the 6,000 conference delegates made their way into Invesco Field, the home of the Denver Broncos, to watch the last day of the Democratic Nominating Convention, culminating in Obama's acceptance speech.

First, some volunteers:

http://www.youtube.com/v/hpwu24G8q5M

http://www.youtube.com/v/QLPHKIcmkZU

And no story about August 28th would be complete without comments from delegates. Two Minnesota Delegates took the time to comment on the goings-on, Mira Vats-Fournier of Faribault...

...and Minneapolis Mayor Raymond "R.T." Rybak, an early advocate of the draft-Obama movement, and the first big-city Mayor to announce his endorsement for Barack Obama's improbable candidacy.

Janet Napolitano on Obama & Biden winning the west

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:23:39 EDT

The Democratic Convention is shifting into high gear. On the day that Michelle, Malia, and Sasha landed in Denver, Sunday, August 24th, the Westerm Majority Project made Governor Janet Napolitano available to the media prior to the official start of the Convention in Denver, Colorado on Monday the 25th. Governor Napolitano did a number of brief one-on-one interviews with mainstream media, and then conducted a short, somewhat informal press conference with bloggers who were on hand, too. So a number of us got the chance to ask her questions, snap photos, etc.

When asked about the addition of Senator Biden as Obama's running mate, she was enthusiastic, saying Biden was a "great addition" to the ticket who would compliment Obama's skills and experience. She noted Biden is not a yes-man, and cited this because, "Obama thrives on hearing different voices."

Beyond the economy, which is clearly a key isssue, she thinks the Native American voters will play a significant role in the 2008 election, noting the the Democratic Party has a very strong platform on Tribal Sovereignty and Treaty rights, which are "not just a phrase" to Senator Obama. Obama's campaign has featured extensive communication with Tribal Leaders, who respect his stand on the need to leave the decision about the Cherokee Freedmen to Tribal processes rather than drag them into the U.S. Courts - based on the existing treaty - which has earned Obama some negative feedback from the Congressional Black Caucus.

Napolitano said that the Native American vote could very well prove decisive in key southwestern states, where participation is running high.

When asked about the matchup with McCain, Napolitano pointed out that 25% of those eligible to vote in Arizona this November will never have seen McCain on a ballot, that Arizona is a younger demographic in terms of median age than many people realise, and the new Deomcratic voter registrations are running well ahead of Republicans. She says Obama can win Arizona by doing what she did, carry 60% of the independent voters.

She's looking forward to the Convention, including the speeches from the Clintons, and expects that the voters at large will start to take a renewed interest in the election as the summer draws to a close with the two conventions.

If Warren isn't complicit, who is it that feared McCain would flub Saddleback?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:40:24 EDT

With Rick Warren’s revelation that McCain wasn’t even in the building as Warren began interviewing Barack Obama those of us who had dared to believe that it might have been a genuine forum are left to try to puzzle out the reality — and decide who we trust. Just who was so unsure that McCain would prevail that his handlers needed to provide even more advantage than just feeding him some obviously scripted “witty remarks” on top of his normal talking points?

Did they doubt McCain’s message would carry the day, or was it his ability to handle a clearly amicable interviewer that concerned them?

Surely this wasn't McCain's OWN insecurity that led to the cheating, was it? How could anyone confident enough to run for the Oval Office be that unsure of himself? And now, in arguably the stupidest campaign fiasco since Nixon directed the plumbers to break in at the Watergate, have we just witnessed McCains's own "Saddlegate"?

Is Senator McCain TOO experienced to win the election?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:03:52 EDT

John McCain's seasoned and savvy as politicians go; he's been in Washington D.C. a long time. His team knows that the devil's in the details, so they won't give many on his website or in interviews. For years the people who revealed too much went down in flames because they provided the opposition with specifics to target. Clever campaigning relied in part on taking no stands most of the time, perhaps, but it makes it hard for a voter to make an informed choice.

Fact: we're all in favor of lower taxes and cutting federal spending; we'd all like to have more discretion in spending our personal income on what we personally favor and enjoy.

So at first it seems that the advantage may be in McCain's cagey, vague responses. By avoiding details there's only so much ANYBODY can say about his plans with regard to taxes. He's avoiding talking about Social Security, for instance, because politicizing it with details is bad for campaigning. McCain's answers are from the classic Rove textbook that got George Bush elected - when asked a question, repeat the closest talking point you have. That way there are only a handful of things to quote you on, but nobody can say you didn't reply even if the reply seems as though you may have missed the question.

Arguably more important to your campaign advisors or Karl Rove, even if you're quoted out of context there's nothing there that can be mis-used. It's all constructed in advance with caution, and your handlers have vetted everything you say. A sixth-grader with a good memory could stand in on your interviews and press conferences.

Meanwhile the present budget deficit means that whoever wins the November election faces a gargantuan task leading the country out of the hole. Are the voters really tired of politics as usual, or will the talking points algorithm work again?

Obama's been so up front with his answers that it's shocked people. Pundits assert he's too nuanced, and there's no question that his opposition can grab soundbites out of context and run with them. But this is the era of Snopes, and Google, whether McCain knows it or not. Facts may be hard to come by, but they're out there - and so if voters want the information, it's there to be found.

As with the theory behind free market capitalism, our elections are based on the premise that people have good access to information. Of course, advertising is a part of both, and thus the gap between the theory and what happens in practice has always been exploitable by those in control of the flow of information.

In politics, the old hands rely on mud-slinging and smear-mongering, knowing an apology later never fully erases the impact of the earlier impression about taxes, or national security. etc. Even better, have a surrogate launch the attack, and then denounce it... we've seen that work countless times. Yet Obama has taken a different approach, and November is the acid test.

So the questions loom: Is the infornation superhighway sufficiently integrated into the lives of U.S. voters that we finally face an election where facts matter more than spin and perception? Is this the year that voters fight back against old-school political tactics? Is John McCain's campaign style evidence that he's been in DC too long?

on taxes, when it's McCain vs Obama? Advantage: OBAMA

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:30:18 EDT

Let me state at the outset that you can't know. I don't just mean that politicians don't always follow through on campaign pledges, either. Among other things, circumstances change, and the economy is neither stable nor predictable, so while we may be able to discuss goals, vision, and philosophy, it's not entirely possible to figure what it will take to turn the economy in a better direction while dealing with the costs we've incurred in Iraq.

But the question is hard to answer for another reason, too. Senator McCain and his team have avoided releasing any specifics. Taylor Griffin, for instance, one of McCain's trusted, close advisors, danced away from details about Social Security, because he says McCain fears the debate might become politicized. Seriously. Here's the most beef I can uncover from Griffin or McCain:

"The history of the Social Security debate has taught that too many specifics, especially during a presidential campaign, has polarized the debate."

In contrast, if you want to know what Obama's plan is you can readily find volumes of information describing his specific positions and detailed proposals on taxes and the economy, or virtually any other issue.

McCain's savvy; he's been in Washington a long time, and his team knows that the devil's in the details, so they won't give any on his website or in interviews. Clever campaigning, perhaps, but it makes it hard for a voter to make an informed choice.

Let's not dither: we're all in favor of lowering taxes and cutting federal spending, we'd all like to have more discretion in spending on what we personally favor and enjoy. Meanwhile the present budget deficit means that whoever wins the November election faces a gargantuan task leading the country out of the hole.

“I will not pretend we can achieve them without cost, or without sacrifice, or without the contribution of almost every American citizen,” Senator Obama said on Monday, “But I will say that these goals are possible, and I will say that achieving them is absolutely necessary if we want to keep America safe and prosperous in the 21st century.” I'll return to Obama's New Energy speech in a bit, but in terms of taxes and the economy? Vision alone won't do it, and both candidates owe us specifics of how they'd manage the budget to overcome the deficit.

The Tax Policy Center, in a report disputed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin (arguably McCain's key economic advisor,) said that McCain's "...proposals on the stump are often far more sweeping than the more measured options outlined by his campaign." That they might as much as double the tax impact of his formal proposals, while Obama's off-the-cuff additions would reduce the impact of his plan (by roughly one-sixth, they say.)

Who can we believe? And who are we?

There's nobody following the campaign who doubts Obama will champion tax policies that will impact those who earn a quarter million dollars or more in a year. Fortunately, while those folks have economic challenges, they need not worry about the price of a gallon of gas or the cost of bread, and their children will probably be able to afford any college they choose. In his "New Energy" speech on Monday (see below) in Lansing Michigan Obama, for instance, repeated his call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies while focusing on eliminating oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years, while McCain's speeches and press releases on energy are somewhat vague - basically, "drill now, and build nuclear plants."

Obama offers New Energy for America So, what of the various rumors circulating in email or reports echoing in the media lately? Let's turn to a non-partisan group that has found fault with both major candidates at times, PolitiFact. Here are some highlights from their clear summary page on taxes. Click the meter(s) if you want the details on each of these "facts."

"Obama will charge a 28% tax on all home sales."
Obama wants to "restore" the estate tax that George W. Bush "repealed."
McCain will keep the estate tax at 0%, the same as it is now.
Obama will "cut taxes for working families."
McCain July 30th, 2008 in a television ad: Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity."
Tax rates were significantly higher "in the '40s, the '50s, and the '60s."
Obama wants to "enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War," according to John McCain on Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 in Washington, D.C.
McCain and Bush are millionaires who are "for tax cuts for millionaires."
John McCain on Monday, August 4th, 2008 on the Bush tax cuts.

PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly to help track truth in the presidential campaign. The Times and CQ analyze the candidates' speeches, TV ads, and interviews daily to determine and report on whether the claims are accurate.

From James Dobson to Jesse Jackson

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:02:41 EDT

While both these Christian pastors are entitled to their comments and opinions, they have each lately acted in ways to remind us that they are both abundantly human. I choose to make my decisions about politics and politicians based on a wide variety of factors, some of which are surely at odds with the choices made by Reverend Jackson and/or Pastor Dobson. I don’t speak for them.

I wish both of these so-called leaders would exhibit the same sort of moral rectitude and Christian charity they call for from those who follow their exhortations rather than talking about fruitcake and nuts. I wish we all practiced respect in dealing with each other. I wish we weren’t at war in Iraq. I wish there was one reliable, objective source of information reporting. I wish there was a quick solution to hunger and poverty in the world, too.

I don’t, however, wish harm, even in some metaphorical sense, on anyone brave enough to run for public office - even those I disagree with on many issues. I work to insure the one I trust and admire has the best chance to exert leadership.

I speak for myself; I make up my own mind; I allow others to disagree, and hope they do so without behaving disagreeably.

I know the difference between a person and a person’s thoughts and actions.

Jesse Jackson doesn’t speak for me.

Media conflict of interest - covering funding of PACs and 527s

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:39:24 EDT

Once Senator John McCain and the RNC began circumventing the McCain/Feingold limits via the creation of the “McCain Victory ‘08 Fund” with its $70,000 per individual donations they really left presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama with no reason to keep extending his offer to limit campaign spending by accepting public financing. They sprang into faux outrage, of course, ready to accuse him of a flip-flop despite the fact they’d not accepted Obama’s conditional offer. Follow the money, not the spin, and you discover that this has gone virtually unreported. The commercial media outlets have a conflict of interest; reporting on the McCain fund undermines their profits.

Here’s the simple truth:

Disturbing evidence in a search log

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:10:23 EDT

I don't know how much thought you give to tags and search terms when you submit a blog entry, but here's one that's got red-flag written all over it. The search was on:

"michelle obama" promiscuous

So obviously somebody is looking for dirt. While I doubt there's any to find, it occurs to me that if a story had both those terms in it then that would make it that much harder on somebody hunting for smear material. Think of it as giving them more to look through.

And the word promiscuous can be worked into a story in a number of ways that have nothing to do with sexuality, obviously.

For instance, promiscuous is a song recorded by pop singer Nelly Furtado and Timbaland for Furtado's third album, Loose, in 2006, or consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused: "Throngs promiscuous strew the level green" (Alexander Pope)... or there's the looser meaning, "not selective" of a single class or person, as in: "Clinton was criticized for his promiscuous solicitation of campaign money."

Obama Rocks the Twin Cities May 31st 2008

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:04:34 EDT

click to enlarge

Trocadero's at 107 3rd Ave N in Minneapolis
will be ROCKIN' on
Saturday night, May 31st starting at 7pm.

Proceeds will support the
Obama for America campaign.

If you can't be there,
please donate now through
Obama's secure server.

Tickets are $50/guest, $100/host, and $250 to be an event sponsor.

Tickets are still available online.

It's The Honey Dogs
&
The Big Wu
&
Roma di Luna!

Are some "isms" less repungnant than others?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:49:35 EDT

David Gergen slipped in a gem during the CNN coverage, although it's been hard to document. Here was his comment on Senator Clinton:

She’s raised the issue of sexism in this race and she’s complained some about it the in the last 24 hours? Race is playing … it’s an increasing issue. That raises the question in my judgement, whether she shouldn’t say, “You know, if you want to vote against him because he’s black, then I don’t want your vote.”

I'm one of those who accepts Senator Clinton's ongoing campaign as a way to keep media focus on the Democrats. I recognize her supporters have valid reasons for advocating her candidacy. I'd just like to see her adopt a stand on racism that's consistent with the platform we all expect to endorse at the Denver convention.

The UNITED States of America

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:59:02 EDT

There could hardly be a more fundamental difference between the two candidates for the Democratic nomination.

Having witnessed from close range the stunning effectiveness of the Republican machine at shaving just enough votes in key places in many recent campaign cycles, the Clintons set out to use their hard-won savvy. Arguably comfortable with their data and their sense of how the trends would develop they set out confidently atop a well-tuned campaign machine with a distinctive message implicit in the Senator's campaign for the nomination. It ran something along the lines: The Republican old boy network can't attack the patriotism of a female U.S. Senator who voted to support Bush's Iraq mission.

Yes, it would take work. Still, the country was in a mood to reverse course, the political pendulum was swinging back, and the attacks that had been launched during President Clinton's term in office had cemented Hillary's celebrity, as demonstrated by her success running for the Senate in a "new" home state. Now, having carefully orchestrated her voting record and honed her campaigning and rhetorical skills in the interim, (and make no mistake about it, the skill-set needed to campaign effectively is distinct from what's needed to actually be President,) the Senator Clinton could take back the White House. The Clintons are campaigning with the Rove tactical toolset, targeting whatever gives them leverage within specific groups to shave a few points off their opponent(s) in carefully selected spots, trying to apply just enough pressure to energize specific voters, while the Obama vision of "strength through unity" dictates reliance on an appeal to selflessness, turning on voters who have not been engaged, and a reliance on the intelligence of the voters to consider the issues we must confront, like it or not.

Spotlight on Sound-bites

And now, as Andrew Sullivan has been documenting insightfully for months, those differences are being tested, and the soundness of the forecasts has come to dominate the limelight. The Obama message, which critics have derided via sound-bites combat, is at once both complex and simple, and judging by recent history that's a real gamble. Why craft policy papers and present your stand on the issues in nuanced ways? Simple talking points are what has won elections, after all.

Why? Because Obama has faith in Americans. He has worked alongside the men and women who did not complete college. He understands that it's not indicative of their intelligence, that there are brilliant thinkers scattered throughout rural and urban areas of the U.S., that it's possible to talk to people who have had different opportunities without deprecating their wisdom. In other words, he knows that data-analysis and statistics which refer to groups of voters inevitably diminish the richness of those individuals.

Senator Clinton has recently suggested, for example, that other journalists refer to an Associated Press story including, "how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." Most of those 'uneducated' white voters are capable of hearing the underlying text, and being insulted at the implication that their support is linked to their educational level in a sort of class-based oppression that's familiar to them, but not welcome. Visit any Union hall, or construction site, and you will find that most know who among their "peers" is conversant with the subtleties of any major issue, that there are on-site pundits without college degrees who garner more respect than most of the talking heads and media experts. No, not everybody agrees with them, the differences are present, but that's just the point: differences ARE present, and Senator Clinton arrogantly lumps all of them together as though none will notice.

Obama's experience

Senator Obama, having spent more time in the last 35 years associating with less-educated people, respects the diversity and intelligence of the people he has met. He knows college and grad school afforded him opportunities denied many who don't get that experience, and that while it's not unusual for folks to gravitate to the familiar it's foolish to underestimate individuals based solely, for instance, on their level of education. Sullivan cites an event filled with predominantly black donors and activists, when Obama recounted how a supporter greeted him at the anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Selma."That was a great celebration of African-American history," the supporter said.

Obama: Proud to be an American

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:20:25 EDT

Have you seen this video yet? Featuring the Lee Greenwood song, God Bless the USA, this is an amazing video. It's circulating around on several blogs, and you should check it out and rate it up at youtube.

Here's the direct youtube URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=55ZFDUvHj-I

Now, DIGG this!

Obama Supporters out for "Cinco de Mayo ~ May Day 2008 Parade & Festival" in Minneapolis

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:16:28 EDT

There was a strong DFL presence for the May Day parade to Powderhorn Park on Sunday, May 4, 2008. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer worked the crowd seeking support for his bid to become the DFL-endorsed nominee to face Norm Coleman in November's Senate race, and Congressman Keith Ellison worked the crowd tirelessly, jogging back and forth across the parade route with a beaming smile. The people of Minneapolis unite to celebrate the combined holidays of Cinco de Mayo and May Day, and the mood is always festive even when the May weather doesn't always seem spring-like.

There was also a lively, energetic "Minnesota for Obama" contingent, organized by the audacious Carl Holmquist and lead down the parade route by Minneapolis Mayor R.T.Rybak, one of the prominent early supporters of Barack's run for the Democratic nomination - and the White House.

The weather was perfect, the crowd was friendly and appreciative, R.T. got his picture taken with countless fans, and we handed out stickers and buttons as we chanted our way along the route. The music was great, the presentation by the Heart of the Beast Puppet Theater was another success... All we really needed to complete the day was a talented face-painter to apply logos to our cheeks, and you.

Clinton Clinging to a margin in PA doesn't mean every white guy will vote for McCain

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:51:31 EDT

One of the enduring mysteries of life in the U.S.A. is that children are taught, routinely, that this is a melting pot country, that we are enriched by the overlapping cultures and traditions, that here anybody can grow up to be anything - yet "like-me-ism" persists as a decision mechanism for so many. I got thinking about this again while reading "Pennsylvania Primary Provides New Litmus Test for Racism" by Marisa Treviño (on her Latina Lista blog.) In fact, you'll find a very similar comment there, beneath her thoughts weaving together threads seen from events in Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, and the plight(s) of the children of the FLDS in Texas. We lament the blindness of others Why is there so much tension between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland? They're Caucasian Christians who eat the same foods and speak the same language, yet they perpetrate acts of hatred and terrorism upon their neighbors... Well, thankfully that situation does seem to be moderating, but it's a perfect reminder on how small the differences that lead to strife can be. Neighbors in Iraq who have adopted different versions of Islam have taunted, shunned, and vilified each other in much the same patterns as those Christians in Northern Ireland. Am I more like an Iraqi or a Honduran? Reading my words you don't know. My skin may be darker or paler than yours; I was born in Chicago, Illinois, and raised in the U.S., so am I more like the Protestant from a large family in Northern Ireland or the kid born in Hawaii and raised by a single mom who moved to Chicago after law school to organize destitute communities ravaged by unemployment - and is now running for President? Like-me-ism is easy to understand. Like-me-ism doesn't ask us to get out of our comfort zones. In fact, it is only relatively recently that we developed many alternatives to being just like our parents were, and their parents before them. If my ancestors were slavers, or crusaders, is there any comfort in that? If my ancestors lived in Moscow, Berlin, Bangkok, or Rome, would I not find a lot more people like me by going back there? No, I would not, because my grandfather's grandfather raised his family here, and while I am visually similar to those ancestors, I am culturally quite different. I am a product of my roots, but I am defined by my experiences, not my ancestors. I like Thai food, but I like Mexican food and Margaritas, too. I like Fettucini Alfredo with Australian wine, and the Ethiopian food at the Blue Nile in Minneapolis. I suppose that the place my grandfather's grandfather was born may even feature "American" restaurants now, but I would not be at home there. No, I am at home here, in the great melting pot, where vestiges of like-me-ism will linger long after I have passed. I am a bit more comfortable around people with similar views and tastes, but I am energized and enlivened by the myriad of choices and differences I encounter when stepping outside my own little world. Diversity is opportunity, and I hope to help those who distrust it discover how much there is to taste in life. The time is now: we must lead by example. Are you like me?

Get a Latina Lista Politics Widget from

A bitter pill to swallow

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 01:02:49 EDT

MISHAWAKA, Ind. - A political tempest over Hillary Clinton and John McCain's faux outraged reactions Barack Obama's comments about bitter voters in small towns has given Obama a new opening to court working class Democrats 10 days before Pennsylvanians hold a primary that he hopes to use to show that his lead is dominant.

Obama enjoyed the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly."If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that," Obama said in an interview with the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal.

But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will make the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well, forget that she's almost as rich and elitist as John McCain.

Political insiders differed on whether Clinton's comments would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Obama who already has has more pledged delegates. Clinton supporters were blind to the possibility, failing to realize that voters are bitter about the sort of insiders who have controlled Washginton for decades, and haven't yet forgotten the previous "out of context" attempt to make Obama look like he can't fit in with the experienced politicos.

Spontaneous celebration

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:50:08 EDT

Former PA Senator Harris Wofford was looking on as Barack made an appearance, and Obama's efficient staff got him the information that it was, in fact, Wofford's 82nd birthday. Well, sure, there's a chance Barack just kept that in his head, but I prefer to credit his staff... that's what I expect of a well-run organization, that they get the boss these sorts of details.

Now then, watch a statesman when an appearance takes an unexpected turn:

Feel free to share the link! (If the embed doesn't work, click here. They're tough to work with in this blogging editor!)

Obama's mother

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:37:17 EDT

Unlike her son who has been teased and queried about his middle name, Ann Soetoro had an atypical first name: Stanley. Her father wanted a boy.

"It turns out that Obama's nascent career peddling hope is a family business. He inherited it. And while it is true that he has not been profoundly tested, he was raised by someone who was.
In most elections, the deceased mother of a candidate in the primaries is not the subject of a magazine profile. But Ann Soetoro was not like most mothers."

Indeed, her son is not like most sons, either. Time magazine had put Obama on their cover in December 2007. Now, as we head for the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd, the magazine turns to examine his mother in an article full of information about the woman who first shaped the person we know today as U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

find audacious blogs | read the TIME article | digg story

John McCain has every right to smile

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:33:27 EDT

Senator John McCain is surely delighted to have Senators Obama and Clinton, among others, chide him over his reply when Dave Tiffany asked him how long the U.S. military may continue its occupation of Iraq: “…maybe 100 years.” I’m guessing, of course, because McCain hasn’t talked with me directly; I find no reason to take much of what’s said in most campaigns literally in any case. The majority of those re-elected to the U.S. House and Senate clearly find it conducive their retention of their position(s) to typically limit their candor, relying instead on stock phrases and talking points. They use any expedients deemed necessary to get over the obstacles to reelection, which becomes in point of fact the goal of many who attain an elected office without term limits, while limiting that which an opponent might use to truncate their tenure. Yes, I can understand why John McCain’s smiling more lately.

McCain, in fact, can comfortably ride his presumed affinity for the military as General Petraeus testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. The General’s visit will inevitably feature posturing from each Senator. Who can forget, for instance, that Senator Clinton used her time in September of 2007 to imply Petraeus might have misspoken in preparing his reports by asserting it took a, “willing suspension of disbelief,” to accept them? One can hardly expect her to pass up this opportunity to showcase her putative skill as a potential Commander-In-Chief, which needs shoring up in the wake of her deprecation of the judgment of the officers charged with her safety during the trip to Tuzla, Bosnia by repeatedly alluding to non-existent sniper fire when describing her arrival.

Veterans of the Washington political scene are not so different from the rest of us: they prefer working with people they already know, enjoying competency within a system they’ve mastered. It’s fascinating to contrast the manifestations of campaign strategies playing out during the current presidential contest. Three Senators, who might otherwise be expected to avoid jeopardizing their power, are jostling in a contest that only one can win. Obama has built a movement of unexpected dimensions – and while he works hard on the campaign trail he has clearly cast this as an opportunity for voters to express their will. He candidly states his positions, and more so than any politician since the late Senator Paul Wellstone adopted a, “what you see is what you’ll get,” approach, right down to shedding the help of PAC money for this campaign. He’s reshaping the nature of politics and campaigns. Clinton has relied on more traditional, old-school political strategies – she’s got savvy help, wealthy connections, and a tough-minded willingness to do whatever’s expedient in pursuit of her ambition, the very epitome of an eristic politico. If her rival was traditional she might even lead in the polls.

Dappere steun voor Barack Obama: Netherlands

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:53:07 EDT

Say what? Many in Europe are excited by the prospect of change in the U.S. Government, and I've discovered a website in Dutch proving just that: De volgende president van de Verenigde Staten.

It's inspiring what you can find in the blogs not directly affiliated with the campaign site - here's a short list of "Audacious Blogs" which can serve as a starting point. Meanwhile, even if you don't speak Dutch, it's worth a quick visit to the Netherlands to see the sort of coverage - and hope - Senator Obama's candidacy is inspiring. You can do it.

De moed van Obama, de openhartigheid, de charismatische persoonlijkheid, en de goed-gearticuleerde visie inspireren overzee verdedigers. Ons ogenblik is nu. Ja, kunnen wij!

Who is the real Barack Obama?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:13:02 EDT

In the attempt to distract voters from learning about Senator Barack Obama before the next primaries, the media narrative has turned back to the provocative rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright. Rather than present us with issues, they prefer to revive a smear which is at best a “guilt by association” tactic (and if we use that logic there’s likely not a politician in the country that would be left in office.)

But not only is the old-school tactic old news, not only is the attempt to use Wright’s rhetoric old news, but Wright himself is old news - he’s been slated to retire for close to two years now. So before we worry about how gullible a Harvard Law educated U.S. Senator might have to be to fall under the influence of religion (are we really worried about a Democrat being too Christian? Didn’t Kennedy put that to rest in 1960?) let’s meet Obama’s pastor, shall we?

Meet: Reverend Otis Moss…

Reverend Moss probably hadn’t imagined the sudden notoriety that would engulf him when the limelight first swung onto Wright’s rhetoric, but he seems to have stepped up to the challenge.

Meanwhile, the real questions for voters are:

Why cover a smear again, when there are issues that matter today?
Who decides which story to promote at various media outlets?
What matters most to us: the War in Iraq, the economy, health care, or the ratings of a “news service”?
Where can we learn what we need to know, not what they want us to think?
How is this story more important than Darfur, Afghanistan, poverty, pollution, or the price of gasoline?
When will objectivity be valued by news agencies more than smear mongering?

Is this the sort of political advantage Ms. Ferraro alluded to when she tried to backhand Senator Obama’s ethnicity into the narrative again un-noticed?

When a pot calls a kettle black

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:16:09 EDT

Just as February was ending, Rick Santorum, a strong critic of everybody in the running for a major party nomination for President in 2008, published a carefully crafted anti-Obama hit piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Speciously laden with inaccurate, divisive (Rovian) talking points and style, the article was nonetheless arguably well-drafted for one who's logical facility is routinely called into question for backing the so-called "intelligent" design concept and being anti-gay while employing an openly homosexual Director of Communications. Yet by the time he sought a 3rd term it seems Santorum was out of step with Pennsylvania voters. What can we learn or deduce from his piece "The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image"?

Perhaps his sense of timing isn't so great. If your advisors or partners had given the matter more thought they'd probably have suggested you delay publication by a month or more; Penn and the Clintons can time a campaign attack better than that, and clearly they'd have saved it for the second week of April. Why hurry this to press in February?

It's easy to sit back and do the Monday morning quarterback thing from my relatively obscure corner of the internet, but it's not just timing that the former Senator got wrong. The title, admittedly an attention-grabber, fails to alert those he's really talking to that he's going for a specific core-values issue. Sound-bite-wise he gets certain points for "elephant in the room" but that cleverness seems wasted on people who will react to his real thrust. Still, to be charitable the title of this bit isn't all that clever either, is it?

One difference is I have virtually no audience, whereas Santorum arguably squandered the limelight that might have highlighted the issue to focus on that "ideologue" label once he had the reader's attention. He appears to have succumbed to a desire for aggrandizement, to appear witty and biting in his diatribe.

Further, Santorum is not the first to have selected words for an attack that had the effect of focusing the charges back upon the attacker. Is it something in the human subconscious, something we really can't control, much the way the most fervent religious leaders turn out to have the most egregious problems adhering to their own doctrine? Do we simply see in others that which we most fear in ourselves? Few would argue that Santorum's not an ideologue. (Attaching "harsh" to the term is redundant in current usage although it emphasizes the irony.)

It seems simply bitterness in Santorum's case, nothing subconscious at all. I've not met the man, but evidence suggests the word choices reflect a desire to tear down another with the label he's tired of hearing applied to his own failure(s) in politics, as though to mitigate that decline by applying "misery loves company."

It must be terribly difficult to be driven to live in a world where only your career successes define you. Santorum seems bitterly mired in the echoes of his 2006 campaign. Own your failures and you'll enjoy life more. Free your mind; accept that others can and do lead ethical lifestyles, that you have no personal patent on intellect or moral rectitude. Neither the majority nor the minority is inherently correct.

None of us is perfect. We're not right every time. We can choose to either coddle our wounds, reveling in our losses, or we can heal and grow and learn and move forward. We have the scars either way. The voters in Pennsylvania grew weary of the Santorum rhetoric; they rejected the divisive campaign tactics that employed triangulation on single-issue voters which has allowed disingenuous, eristic politicians to dominate our government at so many levels, and unseated an incumbent Senator two years ago.

Still, that eristic triangulation is what Rick Santorum remembers how to do, so he's trying it again. It may even work, but at what cost? Politicians who feel a mandate to invade Iraq while millions are hungry, poorly educated, and can't afford health care in our own country while ignoring the environment and the economy? Is that the price we pay for rewarding politicians who know how to win election campaigns?

What the rest of us can deduce from his bitter, vituperative, questionably-timed, curiously-titled article isn't confined to campaigns and political self-aggrandizement: There's a better way. We're all human. Own your failures and you'll enjoy life more.

Yes, we can.

A rose by any other name

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:20:10 EST

The attempts to feign plausibility while employing "Hussein" to imply connections between Senator Obama and fundamentalist Islamic extremists fall apart when compared to behaviors by those writers and/or speakers in analogous situations. Political candidates are referred to by any serious commentator in whatever way the campaigns prefer. It's respectful to not refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton even though she employed Rodham deliberately earlier this decade. Willard chose to be known as Mitt Romney, and that wish was respected. Some years back now, J. Danforth Quayle was greeted by the pundits and columnists on both ends of the political spectrum as "Dan" which was obviously a political decision to make him sound less snobbish (or more folksy and normal.) How many voters today know that Senator McCain's middle name is Sidney, or that he's John Sidney McCain III?

Why don't we hear these full names? Primarily because it's not respectful. We all know that.

Obama rising, in the shadow of Paul Wellstone

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:53:41 EST

The home of the late, great Paul Wellstone has about 17,000 total residents. The traffic jam to get to the DFL caucus stretched through town - the scene was unlike anything long-time residents can recall. The parking lot at the Northfield Middle School could NOT accommodate the turnout, which was literally thousands. The feel was electrifying.

We have ten precincts. In one of the two which are mostly college students over 600 went to Obama and under 200 went to Clinton.

I don't know the totals, because the DFL folks headed out while I was still caucusing (and being selected as a delegate to the next level, thank you very much) but I can report that in my "normal, residential" Ward 3, Precinct 2 balloting, the count was 98 Obama to 37 Clinton (and 1 Gravel.)

Follow the money - there's something to be said for grassroots financing

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:41:42 EST

Here in the heartland we don't follow the business of Canada's Venture Exchange, or Kazatomprom in Kazahkstan, too closely. We can't. It's hardly ever mentioned by any established media "news" source. Yet intrepid reporting reveals a connection between the Clintons, an unprecedented Initial Public Offering, a suddenly significant uranium enterprise, UrAsia, and secretive meetings with Frank Giustra that resulted in huge financial benefits to the Clintons.

Follow the money. It's the oldest adage in uncovering political scandal, and today at last the New York Times has shined the light on the Clinton empire. No politician is assumed to be perfect, yet when comparing this with the candor common to Senator Obama, one develops an understanding of the charisma his supporters react to. Look in Barack's closet and you find he wrote in kindergarten that he aspired to be President, and played some poker in the course of his career.

Why Senator Barack Obama?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:57:17 EST

The following is presented here with the express permission of the author, Danae Curtis. She was writing in response to being asked: Why should somebody in Minnesota vote for Barack Obama?

I just wanted to share a little bit about myself with you. I was born in the west bank neighborhood of Minneapolis and attended Hopkins schools K-12. I was raised by my AMAZING white mother and the loving farm family of Wisconsin that didn't disown her for marrying a black man from Texas a few years after they said it was legal.

My family has endured more attacks than time will permit me to comment on. This moment in time has made all of my struggles worth it.

I used to write in my journals as a young girl about how I had a dream. A dream that one day no one would ask me what I was, or accuse me of not being human. (The word mulatto was tokened in slavery days to signify that a child conceived by a black person and a white person would not be human. It would be less than human; less than a donkey; less than a mule; that animal is known as a mulatto. The Spaniards originally used the term upon arrival to the US.)

I was the first black girl to attend public schools in the Hopkins School District in 1981. My mother received hate mail threatening our lives on the playground. I received swastikas on my locker in high school. Because I was not only black (so said the uninformed,) but also poor in a land of affluence during the initial assimilation experiments of the 80s, I was a double threat.

Hopkins built their first brand new low income housing on Main Street in 1980 and we were the second family to move into these "projects in the suburbs."

Not only were we poor, but we were the first family of any color (beyond white) that moved to the city of Hopkins. Then came my close friends from Laos. My friends from Nigeria came next. Many of us who went through these experiences were scarred for life, despite our numerous successes.

The wounds are healing now, thanks to the efforts of Barack and Michelle Obama. The part of my life story that breaks my heart is that I have never been racist; it's not in genes to be able to do so. However, I have constantly been judged, by all sides, be it for my skin color, my hair, or my proper English that the mighty Hopkins School District 270 taught me with flying colors!

An open letter to the Democratic National Committee

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:47:40 EST

Recognizing that the Clintons are at once both among the most influential Democrats and some of the party's savviest campaigners, I nonetheless urge the party to hold to its initial determination with regard to the dis-allowed delegates selected in states holding their primaries in defiance of DNC protocols. There are serious questions being raised about the conduct of both Bill and Hillary Clinton in advancing Senator Clinton's bid for the party's nomination - so for the DNC to appear to cave in to their request(s) can only further energize voters to turn out in favor of whichever candidate the Republicans eventually nominate, while quite possibly depressing the commitment and enthusiasm of those who would otherwise be pro-Democrat in this most important election.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:
    That all men can be made to look foolish if they are quoted out of context;
    that apathy is the enemy of the people;
    that disenfranchisement is antithetical to a participative democracy...

Apathy is the enemy of the people.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:58:29 EST

Much has been said lately, here and elsewhere, about how the campaign feels - about how the old, acidic politics of demeaning one's opponent has drawn Senator Obama's attention off reiterating his message. One can see the temptation, and empathize with it. Not only are there scurrilous untruths circulating, but the candidate himself must feel as though he's been saying the same things over and over. The change might seem invigorating, even, to the candidate and even the followers when you consider how often the message has been delivered to another fresh audience. From Barack right down to the volunteers manning phones and knocking on doors, the same basic information has been repeated countless times.

So now we each ponder the need to balance this substantive, inspiring message against the urgency of correcting misinformation, knowing the power of first impressions. Surely the most intimate strategists in the Obama campaign are doing their utmost to respond to the shifting conditions this attack poses. Surely, too, Barack participates in the discussions, lending his composed creativity and deeply held convictions to the process. Clearly advisors and candidates in each campaign wrestle with such strategic and tactical decisions daily; you and I witness the results.

My message is not for the Senator, nor those advising him. My message is not for the reporters, editors, producers, or any of the other participants who earn their living by generating ratings and advertising revenues. My message is for you.

You, no matter if you're a campaign volunteer for Obama, a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of one of the Republican candidates, or a person who just happened to do some reading today because the time to decide is approaching and you're after some insight.

Here's the video to show to skeptics: January 20, 2008

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:41:26 EST

"On the day before the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, Senator Barack Obama delivers a speech to the congregation of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia."

If you're a DIGG user, you can help others discover it via this link; it's already a total hit at YouTube.

Go, watch it now. Barack Obama is the leader we need in the United States: candid, composed, credible, conscientious, and charismatic. This video hints at how powerful his presence is, and how his vision moves those who have the privilege of seeing him speak in person.

Dare to hope!

Who has endorsed Barack Obama?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:50:54 EST

It's actually tough to keep up with that, particularly given that endorsements come in many ways, from clips posted on YouTube to thoughtful articles that don't outright suggest a personal endorsement, yet clearly endorse the concept of Obama's vision and candidacy, such as the insightful piece by Andrew Sullivan in the Atlantic Magazine. More roll in every day.

Some ask, why does it matter? What does it mean?

"Endorsements of politicians by politicians may matter little to voters, but they are indicators of the endorsers' estimates of strengths and dangers."
George Will, January 17, 2008
Misstep in a Liberal Minefield

In terms of prominent luminaries from the Democratic party it may have started with Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak way back in January of 2007 when he told the Draft Obama movement "Count me in!"

Today it was Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. What does tomorrow hold?

How to...? Rapid Repsonse Resources

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:15:56 EST

This is an unofficial collection of reference materials and links being compiled, edited, assembled, and maintained by volunteers active in the Obama Rapid Response [ORR] group. Join that group (braving voluminous email) to help monitor, report, and correct misinformation in a timely manner.

"It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not."
U.S. Senator Barack Obama, Feb 10th, 2007

The campaign maintains extensive official materials, from the Blueprint for Change and the various position papers to straightforward fact-check resources, (but sometimes what you're looking for seems hard to find so we're adding "pointers.") The Obama Rapid Response blog is becoming cumbersome to peruse; links to other sites, such as articles, can be almost buried amid the vast number of matches when you do an online search. Search engines are great. I use them in combination with sources such as Wikipedia all the time; their reach is encyclopedic and you're likely to learn even more than you expected. The intent here is to make some of that even easier to "discover" by collecting a slightly annotated index while limiting the scope.

So, within the context of the MyBO website you can now use the blog search tool with just a few keywords and find links and answers stored right here. If you don't find them you can ask the intrepid, colletic activists of the ORR group to aid in the quest, and I will endeavor to get that information edited into this blog as rapidly as possible. This is merely a compilation of their efforts and answers - if you want to help assemble and/or distribute information the place to be is the ORR.

Search using keywords?

The antidote to allegations

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:39:02 EST

There are some folks who are going to buy the viral smears, and the negative soundbites, and the campaign can't afford to ignore them. As a member of the "Obama Rapid Response" group my responses, and those of the group, include both reporting and countering the alleged facts before they grow into problems, but we can also get beyond the allegations by proactively presenting the positives. Sure, the email(s) will still circulate and surface. Such tactics may even help opponents identify a few supporters of their own who resonate with the style and/or the substance. There is, nonetheless, a wealth of interesting, compelling, real information that's a whole lot more effective in expanding the understanding of voters, who are largely aware of the down-low tactics which visible politicians must endure.

Here's an entry at DIGG.COM, for instance, that points at an article from February 2007 demonstrating Senator Obama's non-partisan diplomacy in action dealing with John McCain, who had just issued a highly confrontational, critical assessment of the "Freshman Senator." Bringing documented cases of the candidate's exemplary actions to light helps build a context resilient enough to withstand the character assaults that outrageous tacticians, for better or worse, are bound and determined to launch.

As politically active citizens, we wear many hats.

Participation in MN DFL Caucuses

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:46:44 EST

Most of you already know this, but below is a copy of email sent to make sure folks in the Northfield for Obama group are fired up and have good information when talking to friends. If you re-use it be sure to tailor it to your own CD/precinct/etc.

Kindred spirits

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:17:24 EST

A man who clearly has the credentials coming out of law school to go virtually any direction chooses to work on behalf of low-income citizens because it's the right thing to do. Barack Obama was obviously a growing force when the DNC selected him to debut his stirring vision for a national audience via the 2004 convention, bringing him to the attention of so many of us. Had anybody dared imply he was raising "false hopes" in the wake of that inspirational speech the party leadership would have been outraged.

Senator Obama will be a factor in the direction of politics and government in this country for decades; he has the vision, drive, and integrity we all crave in our leaders. The opportunity has become: can we help him ascend to the Presidency to carry on his work, where he can spread his impact more readily across the country and the world?

Our time is now.

"Effective in the campaign," is neither sufficient, nor inherently synonymous with being worthy of our votes.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:56:17 EST

Among the nuances that get glossed over amid the fervor of this process is precisely what the campaign reveals and/or doesn't about the aspirants. The attributes voters admired in the previous general elections gave us George W. Bush, resulting in a series of policy decisions that at best leave the economy and our standing in the world in a shambles for whoever is elected to clean up. Nobody can deny that he was an effective campaigner.

In the current race Senator Clinton, too, is running a polished, effective campaign. She's got good people, effective fund-raisers, and reacts adeptly to adversity, having preserved plausible deniability when a viral smear linked back to her organization emerges.

The challenge is to help voters see that while Senator Obama is undeniably a politician, he uses politics as a means to demonstrably noble goals, which is why so many believe he will wield the power of the Presidency in pursuit of bettering the country.

Unfortunately the qualities we need in our next President are not simply those of the veteran campaigner; being effective in the race is neither sufficient, nor inherently synonymous with being worthy of our votes.

Senator Clinton is as aware of what's going on with progressive voters as the rest of us are, likely more so. Naturally she's disappointed and doing all she can to regain the spotlight and momentum in the fight for delegates. I was stunned to hear her in the New Hampshire debate claiming 35 years of experience yet finding fault with John Edwards when his patient bill of rights stalled in the House of Representatives despite being passed by the Senate. The two are same sort of "experience," working hard on something you believe in which flounders - and ultimately sometimes fails, as was the case with her laudable health care initiative while First Lady. Yes, that's experience, and doubtless Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards both learned from the process.

Ironically, every experienced Democrat persisting after Iowa has taken up Obama's message, each claiming to be an Agent of Change. Yet Senator Clinton, for example, has resorted to very old-school ad hominem sound bite politics as her inevitability has evaporated.

In fact, if all we needed in the White House could be summed up as "effective campaigner" she might be the best. What we need, however, is not somebody who smiles and orchestrates a slick, effective campaign, but rather a visionary capable of reversing the disenfranchisement of the citizens of this country while restoring the integrity of the office of the President.

Imagery for GFCers to include in blogs, email signatures, etc.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:30:36 EST

To insert and use image/graphics files here at my.barackobama you need to be brave and access the HTML editor by using the button beneath the window you compose posts in, the editor wasn't set up to make adding image files easy, and so they don't show up well in the preview - but it's worth the effort. Most of you probably already know the syntax, and the file location's listed in association with each picture here.

For instance, http://my.barackobama.com/page/image/05a49de164dfab1fab_cypmv24l4.gif/@mx_150@my_150
gets you: from right here on the official website if you insert it properly in an image "tag", which is in the form: <img src="http://target_URL_here_in_quotes">

The rest of what I'm going to list and show here are files available from my so-called No Drama '08 Photobucket Album, but you can find a lot of great stuff in the My.Barack download area.

An "agent of change GFC" graphic:
(scaled down here - click it to see the full-sized version)

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd230/NoDrama_08/AgentofGFC.jpg

I've also got the GFC logo on a black background:
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd230/NoDrama_08/GFCLogoonblack.jpg

Or my newest twist, the "Agent of Change/Caucusing/GFC banner" for those of you in a state that does caucuses:

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd230/NoDrama_08/caucusagentofchangeGFC127x400.jpg

Poke around, there's lots of useful imagery out there on the web, or drop me a line here if you need help using or finding stuff. Be loud and proud, remind everybody you're raising money for a worthy cause!

Measuring the "O" factor.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:00:13 EST

An online poll about Oprah's impact on the Obama campaign. Go, vote!

You can also reference this poll already on digg.com if you're so inclined.

Are you all fired up?

Barack Obama's message

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:56:57 EST

We are in a defining moment in our history:

"Our nation is at war. The planet is in peril. The dream that so many generations fought for feels as if it's slowly slipping away.

And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do. That's why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do.

America, our moment is now. I don't want to spend the next year, or the next four years, re-fighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s. I don't want to pit 'red' America against 'blue' America; I want to be the President of the United States of America."

Skip on to some other post if you don't worry about keeping Social Security solvent.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:06:34 EST

The Social Security system doesn't need a whole lot to keep it going according to many, including Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor during President Bill Clinton's Administration) but experts agree it will need "bolstering." It's one of the foundational pillars of retirement planning for the vast majority of citizens in this country, [disclosure: I'm one of them] and as such worthy of attention.

Senator Obama proposes lifting the current cap on the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, currently just under $100,000 which is highly regressive. Those in the best position to contribute by virtue of their comfortable incomes don't want to pay more, presumably, and that includes every U.S. Senator and member of Congress. An upward adjustment to the cap amount, as Reich points out, doesn't have to be "all that much to keep Social Security solvent."

Let's be clear: currently, a person earning over one million dollars annually pays the same amount into the Social Security system as somebody earning $99,000 - is that logical?

Why is there a cap in the first place? If it's not outright eliminated, then even adjusting the cap upward is a straightforward, more progressive approach to the funding, which is precisely what Senator Obama has been advocating. It can be enacted quickly, allowing the women and men elected to look after this country's interests to focus their time on more complex priorities, such as insuring that basic health care is genuinely accessible to every citizen.

In fact, there's no reason this can't be enacted well before the Presidential election, allowing the campaigns and voters to focus elsewhere, too. Spread the word!

Weigh in on healthcare solutions

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:38:52 EST

Here's a quick link to a straightforward healthcare poll at youpolls.com, where you might also indicate your opinion on how the recent debates were conducted, who prevailed, etc. Obviously the samples is/are not a randomly selected, representative of the entire US population subset, but the site is gaining traffic, which means that if you have time you might not only learn what's on people's minds but influence some, as well.

I provide this particular link because there are a number of Senator Obama's opponents who favor mandatory insurance as the solution, but given compliance rates with mandatory automobile insurance it seems reasonable to assume that the same fate awaits that proposal as many other unfunded mandate - they work well for those who can afford it.

Here's a link to Senator Obama's vision, and proposals regarding Health Care.

Thank you

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:43:37 EST

The vibe in the media lately seems to have been that the Clinton campaign is feeling like their candidate is somehow a "target." I don't subscribe to the notion of a black and white world full of simple absolutes; I reject the insinuation that any of Senator Obama's motivation is based on beating Senator Clinton - or anybody else. I think the motivation is simple to understand.

Senator Clinton may have believed she was the annointed, heir-apparent to the Democratic nomination, and certainly there are staffers and volunteers in her cause who accept that as a tenet of the process. Senator Obama, in contrast, believed he ought to leverage the building support that his charismatic, visionary actions had set in motion - that the opportunity to accomplish his goals was enhanced by seeking higher office and all that went with it.

I'm an Obama partisan, in part because his campaign touts his personal leadership. If he doesn't secure the nomination that's not your fault, or mine, for not doing more, it's that his message didn't motivate enough response from the registered voters, whereas other candidates put the onus on anybody but themselves - their fundraising pitches emphasize that if every volunteer gives just a little more and does his or her part then the outcome is victory. Excuse me, but, "bullshit." Elections in this country are far from perfect, and while money matters in getting the message out, you've got to have a message that makes people want to to more than just donate. Barack Obama's platform, his vision, his message makes me want him IN the White House. I donate when and what I can, time and money, not because his campaign asks me for more cash, but because I want to vote this great man into the Presidency.

This is not about beating Senator Clinton, neither is it about Democrats beating Republicans, nor about the USA beating Iraq or Iran or terrorists; it's not about who's entitled to the job, it's not about "winning" -- this effort is about putting an intelligent, visionary leader with impeccable integrity in the best position to improve the world.

Can you go to an early state and doorknock? Great. Can you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Wonderful. Can you spare a few bucks? Tremendous. Can you rebut a few misperceptions in the blogosphere? Delightful. Can you call to rev up support? Excellent.

Can you talk to one person and make them at least think about why you support Barack Obama and what you see in him? Perfect.

Thank you, one and all.

Write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post and you local paper

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:02:01 EST

Here's an easy link

Tom Toles gets it:

If not now, when?

Haven't we had enough? Democrats '08

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:58:47 EST

A great article at the Huffington Post, on Ms. Huffington's conversation with ad exec Rich Silverstein: A HuffPost Project: Posterizing the Modern GOP.

...I thought he might have some ideas on how to help the Democrats, who continue to struggle with framing an election where they are holding all the cards. He did. When I suggested that he blog about his ideas, he said that since he usually expresses himself best in visual terms, he wanted to see if he could "blog visually."

The images are too large to include here, but you can click these links:

Have you registered your blog (here) through Technorati

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:38:12 EST

It's a simple process:

Create a free account at Technorati.com
"Claim" your blog here so that the Technorati process know to index it

Voila, you're suddenly much easier for people searching blogs to find - and appreciate.

You've taken the time to work on all you want to share, why not take a few moments more to make it more likely others will discover your words when they do a search?

Here's my Technorati Profile.

"...there is the United States of America."

Unofficial artwork, modestly offered

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:51:48 EST

A small, inexpertly rendered collection of alternative artwork you are free to use in blog posts or email, etc., can be found in my No Drama '08 Photobucket Album. As of this writing there are only four images, one of which is specific to the Grassroots Finance Committee.

A jazzed up logo:

An agent of change banner: (scaled down here)

A GFC banner: (scaled down here)

The man:

The truth will set us free

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:50:07 EST

Some people will focus on the Clintons alleged secret pact, but it's not necessary to do so to understand Senator Clinton's ambition. Some will focus on Senator Obama's name, as though that, too, is startling or significant.

We've arrived at a unique, pivotal moment when it is, in fact, conceivable that the electorate of the U.S could put somebody into the Oval Office not already a part of the Old White Boys Insider network. If it was clear that Senator Clinton wasn't the next-best thing she'd probably have a virtual lock on the nomination and the office - but instead what's clear is that not all those willing to vote for "a" woman are ready to vote for this one, and by luck of the draw she's come up against a person, in Senator Barack Obama, who is clearly not an insider.

So, we've got a bona fide contest on the part of the Democrats, who have clearly realized that a new order is afoot as they select their nominee for the general election. Senator Clinton's challenge is how to look like she can surf atop the wave of change despite having staked part of her appeal on her connections to the past.

Questions about her jewelry don't help. Accusations about mudslinging don't map well onto the message of being tough enough to debate Republicans or face down dictators if elected. She's in a tough spot.

Senator Obama's challenge is, in some ways, simpler: he simply needs to get his messages heard. People who hear him speak are electrified, because one senses that he is that rarest of all politicians, the one who will actually tell the truth.

In a cycle when the voters are actually startlingly engaged and looking for nuances, the so-called debates have increasingly become indictments of the debate "moderators." The Republicans may anoint a divorced, obviously tainted candidate, and the Democrats are poised to select either a man of color or a woman, and realistically the voters only have until February 5th to work it out in their respective party processes.

Yet the important things to cover are evidently, "Does the Senator from New York have ambition?" and "Did people actually hear the Senator from Illinois say, as a child, he wanted to be President?" while CNN coaches a questioner to draw the Democratic front-runner out about her jewelry? This is the supposedly pro-Democratic mainstream liberal media trivializing one of the most influential women of our time, and I'm frankly insulted.

I'm not surprised that anybody campaigning for such a powerful office has staff trying to spin virtually every issue to their own advantage. I am, however, chagrined that putative journalists appear reduced to taking such pronouncements at face value and letting anecdotal comments - such as this one - be held up as being somehow significant while blurring the genuine use of statistics by ignoring what's behind their aggregated data so blithely reported as important. They pander for ratings with thinly veiled agendas.

It's no wonder we haven't managed electoral reform, or campaign reform, in this country when the Woodward and Bernstein era has given way to the likes of CNN's sham and online polls that make no pretense of being based on representative sampling methodology, simply cited "as is." It's buyer beware with the news and information now. We owe it to ourselves to put somebody who cares into the White House.

My support is for Barack Obama, despite the spin, and the media. Join me. Let's change the world.

Talk about a stupid war

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:22:03 EST

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion - roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

It was "experience" that got us in to this; I'm glad we have Obama's vision to get us out again.

Funeral for a friend

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:35:49 EST

Yesterday I went to the memorial service for an old friend at Carleton College's Skinner Chapel in Northfield, MN. Warren Ringlien was a renaissance man, born in the 1930s. He had built everything from ski-jumps to pitching machines to telescope mounts. Warren put solar cells on his home, built an electric car, and still had time to string tennis rackets and bowl with the guys, play with his grandchildren, and go dancing with his wife. There was nothing he couldn't fix, or improve; he was the go-to guy for everybody who knew him, never passing up an opportunity to teach and empower those he helped. Warren might sound gruff when you brought him your problem, but his mind was already taking a shot at the challenge. You always sensed that both you and he had gained information - and competency - although in the way of such exchanges one knew clearly who had been less than adequate to frame the examination properly. The outcomes were more valuable and elegant than the needy could initially imagine.

Warren's creative 'streak' knew no limits. His vision, the vision that led to his glorious solutions, wasn't constrained by the thinking of the people asking for his help. His desire wasn't just to solve the problem, but to enable others to do so, too - to see beyond the immediate challenge, and to spur others to look at the bigger picture with him.

This morning, as the sundry eulogies I'd heard yesterday intersected with my reading about matters more political than physical, I had an epiphany. Senator Barack Obama brings his own fearless, boundless creativity to the political and social challenges which define our global culture, and so dominate our national dialog.

We all know the stereotypes of established politicians, from being part of some mysterious culture filled with back-room deals to making carefully scripted, risk-aversive non-answers when asked a direct question while implying informed expertise as they espouse expedient fixes that patch whatever problem the media wants to report on this week: offend nobody, look smart, preserve your power.

Yet Senator Obama defies that conventional wisdom; Obama's not scripted, not a slave to managing an oracular appearance. He's willing to take responsibility for his actions and positions today while taking a long view and seeking more information all the while. Not confirmation, not validation, this is a person who constantly owns his decisions while at the same time clearly yearning to do more than hand off solutions: Barack wants to teach and empower you, and me, and the world to seek and create something better than we have yet imagined.

That determination is what I'll miss about Warren Ringlien.

That same approach informs my abiding faith in Barack Obama's fitness to be our next President.

Momentum builds: An Iowa Republican's story of becoming an Obama supporter

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:18:42 EST

Diamond Ebs brought this to the attention of the Obama Rapid Responders email list. Read it, then send it to every Republican or fence-sitting Democrat you know. An Iowa Republican's description of her conversion, not just to being an Obama supporter, but being enthused about politics for the first time.

Many of Obama's rivals take similar positions on Iraq, health care, and bringing the country together, and other things. Why is he the one that grabbed your interest?

"I think other candidates polarize on issues. I don't think he does that. I have a lot of friends and family who are Republicans. Some of them are saying, ‘well I still have to vote Republican, but if we have a Democratic president, I sure hope it's Obama.' And I went, ‘ok, keep going with that thought...'"

So, this has appeared in several blogs already, but it's too good not to pass around a bit more. This is one encouraging interview, to say the least.

All fired up?

Quick, easy, visible support

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:03:03 EST

Head to http://www.capitalnews.org/ and vote. Their daily polls aren't based on scientific samples, obviously, but it's a quick way to bounce up the evidence that Obama has supporters who care.

You can do it. One click to get there, one more to vote...

"...that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama."

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:28:09 EDT

A fascinating read from Andrew Sullivan on the current election cycle, and Obama's candidacy in particular, can be found online at The Atlantic.

A few excerpts:

...we are not talking about routine rancor. And we are not talking about normal times. We are talking about a world in which Islamist terror, combined with increasingly available destructive technology, has already murdered thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Muslims, and could pose an existential danger to the West. The terrible failures of the Iraq occupation, the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, the progress of Iran toward nuclear capability, and the collapse of America’s prestige and moral reputation, especially among those millions of Muslims too young to have known any American president but Bush, heighten the stakes dramatically.

...Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

...picking the next president will be in some ways a statement of America’s view of Iraq. Clinton is running as a centrist Democrat—voting for war, accepting the need for an occupation at least through her first term, while attempting to do triage as practically as possible. Obama is running as the clearer antiwar candidate. At the same time, Obama’s candidacy cannot fairly be cast as a McGovernite revival in tone or substance. He is not opposed to war as such. He is not opposed to the use of unilateral force, either—as demonstrated by his willingness to target al-Qaeda in Pakistan over the objections of the Pakistani government. He does not oppose the idea of democratization in the Muslim world as a general principle or the concept of nation building as such. He is not an isolationist, as his support for the campaign in Afghanistan proves.

To be black and white, to have belonged to a nonreligious home and a Christian church, to have attended a majority-Muslim school in Indonesia and a black church in urban Chicago, to be more than one thing and sometimes not fully anything—this is an increasingly common experience for Americans, including many racial minorities. Obama expresses such a conflicted but resilient identity before he even utters a word. And this complexity, with its internal tensions, contradictions, and moods, may increasingly be the main thing all Americans have in common.

Let's elect him to the Presidency.

Not so fast, Earl.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:33:13 EDT

In his column at the Huffington Post dated October 25, Earl O. Hutchinson dramatically asserts that:

"While Obama will publicly say and do the right thing in condemning homophobia through the front door, the temptation to cash in on it through the back door is evidently just too irresistible. It's crass, cynical, but it's politics baby pure and simple. And that's all the more reason to keep the heat on Obama to dump McClurkin."

Yet he goes on to say:

"When this writer called Obama out on his scheduled October 28 South Carolina gospel tour appearance with the Grammy winning, anti-gay morals crusader, Obama snapped back with a public statement hotly insisting that he's a staunch opponent of homophobia and that he vehemently disagreed with McClurkin's views."

It would be crass, calculating, even cunning politics if Barack Obama set the plan in motion with his solution already in mind. Ironically, the point made by Mr. Hutchinson better supports the contrary view that instead Barack Obama saw a rhetoric-laden situation with well-entrenched, passionate people casting aspersions across a sharp divide, then swiftly, creatively applied his diplomacy to craft a solution consistent with his vision of a United States of America.

Next time somebody asks if this Senator has enough experience (to insinuate to the contrary,) recall this thoughtful, timely solution to what many were calling a crisis. The scale is admittedly different, and so, too, in some ways are the stakes, from much of what our President deals with, yet the solution flows logically from the most able candidate for this office we have in the race. The outcome is wonderful, compelling evidence of the awareness, sensitivity, talent, and vision this man brings to his endeavors.

Barack H. Obama is going to make changes despite the naysayers; the only remaining question is which elected office he will be doing it from in 2008. The evidence continues to mount that the Senator deserves and would put to excellent use the platform of the White House.

Yes, you can see a strikingly similar response this morning at the Huffington Post. ;)

Can you get all fired up about a name?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:30:47 EDT

Just a quick pointer to help you understand the meanings behind the name Barack Hussein Obama. Senator Obama handles questions about his name with the style and grace we all expect, but how do you react to the innuendos tied to "Hussein" when you hear them? It's a quick, informative read, and the author deserves kudos for his research. Familiarity and understanding work in our favor.

As long as I've got your attention: have you seen the latest additions to the Obama store? Check out the new offerings, show your support! The seasons are changing and it's time to update your wardrobe.

Let's make some noise

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:20:35 EDT

You may or may not care about the grumbling and ruffled feelings surrounding the Don McClurken decision.

You may think Obama can get us out of Iraq with greater alacrity than another democratic candidate.

Promoting a healthy environment may not be your thing.

Issues about homeland security or veteran's rights may not seem urgent to you personally.

But something energizes you; that's why you're here. You may or may not feel your budget allows a financial contribution, but sitting right where you are now you can participate by following this link and writing about what matters to you.

Three paragraphs, two or three sentences apiece, that's all it takes: The first paragraph ends in a sentence defining your point, while the final paragraph starts with a re-statement of that same idea and goes on to endorse Barack Obama as the person who can best accomplish your goal. 15 seconds with your spell-checker and it's done. He has the integrity, the vision, the drive we need, but meanwhile he needs us to be keeping the eyes of the media on what he stands for.

The second paragraph? Oh come on, you'll think of something. Keeping lines of communication open has been a touchstone of Obama's political vision. Understanding is a critical step toward change. Take a line from a speech, such as, "There is not a 'liberal America' and a 'conservative America,' there is The United States of America." Spread the message of unity and change that Obama has articulated time and time again.

Want to verify your understanding of Barack's position on a particular issue? It's all here online.

So, what gets you all fired up? Education? Poverty? Electoral reform? People who don't know the name of the leader of Al-Qaeda but think they can be trusted to run this country? Special interest money dominating our political landscape?

Do it now.

We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:03:46 EDT

A few excerpts from Queen Rania of Jordan's speech to be delivered at The Women's Conference 2007, hosted by California First Lady Maria Shriver and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The source I've used is online at the Huffington Post.

...I am here today to share a message of cross-cultural understanding. And I am confident I have much to learn from you as well. Californians are proven champions of bridging cross-cultural divides. With no ethnic majority... more than 200 languages... and the daughter of such an iconic Democratic family married to a superstar Republican Governor... this state is clearly a fertile environment for cultivating common ground. In our time together, I would like to share a few stories from my life so far.
And I hope that somewhere within my stories, you will hear something that sounds familiar.
Because I am convinced that we are all much more alike than we are different...
* * *
My first story takes place when I was five, in nursery school in Kuwait. It involves a quintessential product of American popular culture. And while I cannot say I learned everything that I really need to know in kindergarten, I did -- thanks to this cross-cultural exposure -- have what Oprah would have called an "Aha" moment.
My mother used to send me to school every day with my lunch in a lunchbox. Maybe your mother did that too -- or maybe you are the mom getting up a little earlier than everyone else to pack up the fruit, cut off the crusts, and draw a smiley face on a note. I still remember how good it felt to open up my lunchbox each day. I always knew I would find a hummus sandwich inside... and the familiar, dependable texture and taste that made me feel secure and loved.
One day, I sat next to one of my friends and watched her open her lunchbox. But what was inside? Not a hummus sandwich, but... peanut butter and jelly. And I thought -- how revolting! Or, in my five-year old lingo, "Ewww gross!" I had never seen food so strange. In fact, I felt a real sense of pity for my friend, that she was stuck with some weird peanut paste, instead of my mom's hummus.
And then one day, my friend suggested I might like to try her sandwich. I didn't want to hurt her feelings, so I braced myself and took a small bite. Do you remember Scooby-Doo, how Scooby would literally float off the ground at the thought of a Scooby-snack? Well that was my reaction to peanut butter and jelly. I thought it was heavenly.
And maybe you have had an experience like that too, where something you thought was foreign and strange revealed itself to be wonderful. Or when a judgment you had made on the basis of looks turned out to be totally wrong.
Even a five-year old can start to grasp the importance of an open mind.
Now, I do not want to over-dramatize the impact of peanut butter on my life. But so often today, in a world grown smaller, we are forced to confront new things - new people, new cultures, new ways of behavior -- that are different from what we are used to. And change can be scary. People often seek refuge by circling the wagons -- clinging tightly to what they know and trying to wall out what they do not.
Yet, when we do that, we diminish ourselves. We deprive ourselves of life's richness. And at worst, we perpetuate ignorance that breeds prejudice and fear.
I am afraid we are seeing that trend today in the tensions between East and West, with each side encumbered by stereotypes of what the other must be like. To hear some in the West, all Arab women are backward and oppressed... while some Arabs assume all American women are desperate housewives seeking sex in the city.
And some caricatures are not nearly as easy to laugh off... Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, for example, ... and Americans as people whose ultimate aim is to suppress Islam. If we are to get beyond stereotypes like these, we will have to really get to know one another. To taste the proverbial peanut butter -- and hummus -- instead of limiting ourselves to preconceptions.
* * *
...whatever title or office we may be privileged to hold, it is what we do that defines who we are. It is how we treat others. What values we embrace. What example we set for our children. Each of us must decide what kind of person we want to be, what kind of legacy we want to pass on. It is not the rank or the role that matters. And it is not what we have. It is what we give...
* * *
We are the ones we have been waiting for.
Let us not wait any longer. It is time that both hummus and peanut butter sandwiches find their way into the lunchboxes of all our children, and generations to come.

Queen Rania offers a message of unity, and hope for the future. The rest of her speech is a worthwhile read. Barack Obama is the right man, at the right time, with the patience, integrity, and vision to lead us and our children into that hopeful tomorrow. "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is The United States of America."

Tolerance begins at home. Are you All fired up?

Bully pulpit

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:36:55 EDT

There are two fundamentally distinct reasons a person might aspire to be President of the U.S.A., subjecting themselves and their families to the scrutiny and rigor of campaigning for this most visible office.

Some are clearly driven to the power inherent in the position. They choose to pursue this arduous task, and the immensely challenging job, because of all they will be able to do - they will have influence at the very highest level, they will affect the course of nations, they will get to DO.

Barack Obama obviously recognizes that power, that influence, and will affect the course of this nation and others profoundly. Yet he seeks the office not because there are things he will be able to do, but because there are things that need doing.

I care about the policies and actions at the national level for many reasons, but chief among those is my hope that our children - the future generations - live in a better world, with increasing prosperity and security for all. We need a long-term vision to get there, not poll-driven and/or profit-driven tactics constructed chiefly to retain power in the hands of those who currently hold it while protecting their creature comforts.

For Obama, the Presidency is not his goal; it is a means to enhance his efficacy and progress on his goals. I support his vision, I admire his goals, and I trust that Barack Obama will consistently use his power and influence for the common good. This man is already a great leader, and I heartily endorse his acquisition of a greater pulpit from which to spread his message.

Another way to help

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:12:02 EDT

You may already have noticed elsewhere that Democracy for America (DFA) is holding a Presidential Primary Pulse Poll to decide which candidate deserves their support. This influential group grew from Howard Dean's campaign in 2004 and can provide assistance to the Obama campaign even though he obviously won't accept financial support from them.

Take a moment to support Barack Obama via this link.

DFA is a PAC that "finds, trains, and supports fiscally responsible and socially progressive candidates at all levels of office" in the U.S. They "harness the power of our enormous grassroots network to get these candidates elected and to work towards positive change from the bottom up."

Northfield, 20 October

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:08:48 EDT

Another opportunity to get out in Northfield. meet people, show your support for Obama, and raise visibility in the community is coming this Saturday, October 20th. You can view the details and/or sign up via this link, but the short story is meet at Buntrock Commons on the campus of St. Olaf at 10 a.m. wearing comfortable shoes and a big smile.

We work from lists the campaign provides to target likely Obama supporters, so you're not walking up to the door without knowing who you'll be talking to. IWe're NOT out begginb for contributions, we're talking and leaving literature. It's fun, it's simple, and in 2-4 hours you make a huge difference identifying other folks who want to volunteer or participate.

If you'd like a chance to learn more, there's also an information session on Thursday night at 7 in Sayles-Hill on the Carleton campus that will talk about caucuses and canvassing, providing you a chance to ask questions and get a feel for what's up. See you there!

Hope without boundaries

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:23:53 EDT

In reading another blog, I was struck by the simple observation:

When Barack Obama speaks to a crowd he lifts them with his voice. He gives measure to the worries of a nation divided and provides us all with optimism and hope.
He is the embodiment of the american dream. For too long we have had to choose between mediocure [sic] candidates who cared more about political gain than the people they were supposed to be working for. Obama is different. He is diverse, his roots extend to the heart of America and they provide a tool for mending the fabric of our great nation.

I agree that Barack Obama's background provides him the means to mend the fabric. I like the metaphor; in reply I chose to extend it.

Senator Obama has experience with mending. He has been drawn, by his work within his community, to embrace Christianity despite what one might call a secular background. Barack Obama values the role of Christian teachings, and ethics, but has the wisdom to see it as a part of unifying people of diverse faiths and understandings rather than accepting the way the debate about religion in the context of U.S. governmental policy can be (and has been) used to rend apart our society. He recognizes that "reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion."

From the "Call to Renewal" Keynote address on June 28, 2006:

"Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics."

Beyond merely the means, I believe Barack Obama brings the talent, humility, experience, and dedication to the country that we have all been waiting and hoping for. The undertaking is nothing less than the preservation and enhancement of the fabric of our future - in this country and on this planet. The wise first-term Senator from Illinois is ready and able to unify all the willing into a strong, durable force for good, a community of hope without boundaries.

Walk for Change: Northfield

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:18:00 EDT

In addition to a blitz that included every dorm on the Carleton College campus, we canvassed Northfield today dropping literature and meeting neighbors while recruiting new volunteers and generally making noise and being visible. While nearly half the homes we visited were empty at the time, the feedback from those we met was overwhelmingly encouraging. Slightly under 1% indicated a strong preference for another candidate, with another 4% leaning away from supporting Obama's candidacy. While nearly 3 times as many identified themselves as "undecided" compared to already being comfortable being in the "Pro-Obama" camp, we came away upbeat and optimistic based on the people we talked to.

It was a perfect day for getting out and about, mild and sunny. The most frequently identified issue was our involvement in Iraq (no surprise.) The only "negative" was echoed several times, that being that it seemed too early - which I attribute to people thinking the election is over a year off without focusing on how soon the caucuses are looming even when we mentioned it.

I think that's great - people assumed we're out campaigning not for the nomination, but for the presidential election! Let's prove them right!

From what I've heard the other walk events sound even more successful. All fired up?

in loco parentis: Lititz, PA

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:14:24 EDT

Granted, the scope of the incidents in Lititz last week at the High School doesn't seem very widespread based on information the news media has published thus far, yet why administrators who are/were aware of "Redneck Row" and the use of confederate flags as a badge of distinction on an obvious group of vehicles didn't act more proactively is an important question. This was not Jena, LA, but if nothing else can't such situations be seen as bullying, or even a gang issue, and dealt with accordingly?

The superintendent cited the first amendment in defense of the inaction of the school administration, since displaying the confederate flag is not, in and of itself, actionable. Yet who among us fails to grasp the tacit approval that the school's tolerance conveyed? Who fails to intuit that the display of a divisive symbol associated not merely with geography but with a lifestyle inevitably associated with an odious, outlawed, historically oppressive color-based value system by a group of young white people was about intimidation and power, not just cultural identity? Constitutional rights in this country were conceived of to unify and protect us from persecution, not to foment bigotry and intolerance.

Teachers and school administrators work long hours, often under trying circumstances. They shape our future as they guide the development and awareness of generation after generation of this country's future leaders, workers, and citizens. The people who have the drive and ambition to work in schools are not the only factors in how our children grow, and learn - but seeing students and events from perspectives that parents are not privy to comes with a power often called "in loco parentis." With that power, conveyed openly and unambiguously, comes the legal and moral obligation to exercise it.

Can hair, eye, or clothing color be acceptable as a basis for systematic bullying? The malfeasance of responsibility evidenced when school officials turn a blind eye to events within their jurisdiction undermines our educational system while it casts unfair aspersions on the rest of their profession. Even those young people who try on identities and lifestyles we may find distasteful, and most especially those who experiment with intimidation and other anti-social behaviors, cannot be "left behind."

We can't wait for Senator Obama to be elected to the Presidency; we have to address the problems when and as we encounter them.

Armchair amateur speaking out against the use of divisive campaign tactics.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:32:33 EDT

This is largely a re-posting based on my comments on the Obama HQ blog earlier today under the heading of the outreaches being conducted on various social networking sites.

I am weary of attack politics. I believe Barack Obama's vision, character, and eloquence make it possible for him to run with dignity and "presidential bearing" largely on his own positive attributes without spending inordinate amounts of time reminding the voters of his opponents. I'm all for differentiating the front-runners, but I assert we have two major re-unifications to accomplish en route to a successful Presidency. We must keep two turning points in mind:

First, after the nominating convention it must be reasonable for supporters of other candidates to get behind the Obama candidacy. Second, after the election we need open-minded Republicans who didn't vote for Obama to find a path to support a President from the "other" party. In both cases, individuals need a way to re-align their commitment while preserving their values, sense of honor, and personal integrity.

I'm inclined, accordingly, to favor approaches which leave fewer wounds to heal down the road; I think these positive outreach efforts on social websites are excellent, for instance, despite the somewhat skewed demographic slice(s) they likely reach.

I trust that strategists are considering many approaches. I know I'm not a campaign expert, but I am representative of some segment of the population. I don't want to see Senator Obama or his partisans descend (even on the advice of advisers) to muck-raking and name-calling. Simply put: if Clinton or Edwards supporters lose face by changing their allegiance after the convention we risk disenfranchising them during the rest of the campaign.

Hardened, divisive, adversarial positions do not serve the campaign any better than they do the country - or, for that matter, the world.

Thank you, General Colin Powell.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:51:08 EDT

Thank you, President George W. Bush, for elevating General Powell to such prominence in your administration. I neither know, nor care, what process and/or which advisers suggested his suitability for the role you entrusted to him. Perhaps the first thanks should even go back to Ronald Reagan, who tapped Powell for a stint as National Security Advisor.

Regardless, as speculation swirled in the run-up to the nominating conventions four years ago, the mere presence of Powell's name on the lists of possible contenders confirmed that this country's voters were, in fact, ready to seriously consider electing a President without reference to his skin color. I don't know that Powell would have been elected, let alone how his presidency would have played out. I respect the reasons he's cited for not venturing into the political arena.

To state the obvious, there will always be those who discount another's relevance, value, or suitability based on gender or skin pigmentation. For the foreseeable future we will have to remain vigilant, as Francis Holland does eloquently, and call out those who appeal to the electorate based on such deliberately divisive distinctions.

Should Senator Clinton get votes because she is female? Of course not.

Should Senator Obama get votes because he has darker skin than some, or lighter than others? Surely not.

Yet we have an election before us where we can see that the electorate is ready to accept and embrace one of these two Senators, either of which would represent the unprecedented shifting of the expressed will of the voters in this country away from "business as usual." And while it is the Democratic party which has advanced these two serious contenders for its nomination, I think the credibility of Senator Obama's run for the nomination stems in part from the serious consideration the country as a whole gave four years ago to a potential Powell presidency.

The Democratic electorate has seen the importance of selecting an electable candidate. Ironically at last the country is ready to elect a President without narrowing the choices based on anything but a candidate's intelligence, integrity, and vision. The voters are ready to unite behind a President based on hope, not the subtly divisive messages of fear that have characterized many political campaigns.

I rather doubt Barack Obama and his family and advisers gave much thought to skin color, which has played such an unfortunate role in the history of this melting pot nation. The chance that Powell might be a candidate had shined just enough light on the superstitious nature of skin-color-based marginalization that we now have this diverse field of candidates that most voters now see as viable in the run-up to the 2008 elections.

So thank you, Colin L. Powell, for simply being the person you are, for your decades of public service, for broadening awareness four years ago in such a way that your skin color wasn't relevant, even without your running for office. I think you're one of the pivotal individuals that makes it possible for us to elect Barack Obama as the next President of the United States of America, not because he's one or another color, but because he's a person of integrity and wisdom.

This is about knowing right from wrong, and acting on it.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:22:48 EDT

If the standard we want to hold the world to is to avoid using "cruel," inhuman, and/or degrading treatment of prisoners, then we need a president who will not split hairs by choosing to define torture in such a way that it will not include head slaps, extreme temperatures, and/or waterboarding (intended to induce a real fear of imminent drownings.)

It's that simple. We need to restore integrity in the White House, and credibility to the statements our President makes to us and to the world. We cannot abide the circumstances, the outrageous policies, or the beliefs which have given us a "do as I say, not as I do" posture on the world stage. Business "as usual" cannot go on. We cannot change the past, but we can unite to reclaim the future.

This is not about political party affiliation; this is about right and wrong. We need Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States of America.

Northfield, October 13

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:26:59 EDT

Bring friends to the Canvass for Change event on Saturday the 13th. I'm working with Alexandra Sova to get everything ready, what I need from you is to be there, with your smiles on and your energy high. This is THE most effective way to help people see the Senator as our best candidate.

Even if you're not sure, sign up here.

A few hours on Saturday. If you've already got Obama gear to wear, that's great. If not, don't forget you can get it through the online store, and the USPS 2-3 day shipping should get it here in time.

You know where the parking lot we're meeting is, diagonally across from Maria's. It will be very obvious.

Drop me a message if you have questions or concerns.

The Turning Point

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:17:26 EDT

The October 11 Issue of The New York Review of Books is out, and features excerpts from the journals of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., from 1966-1967. As somebody who was just coming to embryonic political awareness then I found the insider perspective compelling even without the obvious resonance with current events. Perhaps most fascinating was Schlesinger's assessment of RFK, which seems totally consonant with my perspective on Barack Obama.

No matter if you're a boomer who remembers the way the war escalated under LBJ or not, I urge you to get a copy of this issue and read those three pages.

"...determined to be the best senator he can and do what he thinks is right..."

"Refusing to talk with our enemies doesn't make the United States look tough, it makes us look arrogant."

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:42:27 EDT

At the Washington Square rally Senator Obama again asserted the US Government should "talk to our enemies," which many opponents, including Senator Clinton, have criticized.

"Refusing to talk with our enemies doesn't make the United States look tough, it makes us look arrogant."

Diplomacy has not been exhausted, though it may have been underappreciated lately. As I said in a post on September 25th, the cycle of escalation must be reversed. If we elect Barack Obama as the next President of the USA we will have a visionary at the helm who seeks unity, and it is in unity that we find strength, security, and peace.

Who will open doors wide enough to get not just his fellow democrats, but the two major parties in this country moving toward genuinie bipartisan progress? Barack Obama will.

Who can talk straightforwardly about hard choices, not hide behind staged, scripted answers? Who can tell you if he'd root for the Cubs or the Yankees? Barack Obama can.

Barack Obama will.

Get a "doubter" to watch for the Dartmouth debate for integrity, ideals, and initiatives instead of staged talking points.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:02:49 EDT

It's no wonder President Bush suggests Mrs. Clinton will get the nomination - he's projecting his desires. The members of the old guard evidently fear Barack Obama's optimistic integrity almost as much his power to energize progressive-minded voters who have wearied of the divisive messages that lately permeate the national dialog.

The entrenched in any organization always resist change; it is the natural dynamic. Fortunately for us as Barack Obama supporters, staying the course is neither viable nor the desire of the electorate, and our candidate articulates the need for a new vision guiding our strategic decisions eloquently.

Obama's intangible momentum is increasing. His vision represents hope to younger voters who are energized by his hopeful message of unity. His goals for the country resonate with formerly jaded veteran voters who see through the "staged talking point" style that other politicians are coached. Voters are increasingly enthusiastic about the integrity, ideals, and initiatives presented by Senator Obama.

While no proposal in any politician's platform will likely survive the Washington process "as-is," by providing a lofty initial target Barack Obama can and will lead the country to greatness as President.

Private Security Contractors must exemplify our ideals

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:17:18 EDT

Wouldn't it be ironic if the day-to-day actions of private security contractors in Iraq was actually undermining security for our diplomats, troops, and everybody else in the region?

Wouldn't it be tragic if their behaviors inflamed the anger of Iraqis? Based on recent stories it seems Blackwater's operatives and their peers may be inciting anger of those we are trying to woo to the ways of democracy, who see instead a parallel to the days of Saddam's style of rule. The safety and security of our diplomatic corps (and others) in Iraq has been contracted out, yet those contractors may be exacerbating the tensions by their routine actions, which reports suggest are considerably more aggressive than the majority of the encounters involving our disciplined military forces, (who are adhering to well understood rules of engagement crafted to maintain their safety within the context of the overall mission.)

Senator Obama is the author of the Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act, an amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill. Some of his recent thoughts and reactions can be seen in a posting he made yesterday at blog.thehill.com (as was brought to my attention by Sheldon Motley.) Go read, comment, tell a friend - act.

None of us want the reported tragedy of the recent Blackwater incident to be the face of our democracy in the minds of the Iraqis and the world, but anecdotal incidents have a way of becoming magnified on the stage of world opinion. It is crucial that we not only hold these contractors to the same high standards of conduct that we apply to our military forces but also sieze this opportunity to demonstrate what is and/or is not acceptable to us includes the behaviors of such non-government entities and their agents.

Only by knowing one's enemies can they be turned into something else.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:48:07 EDT

Nixon faced Mao, and the world changed. Reagan softened the rhetoric and built a bridge to Gorbachev. LBJ got caught up in proving to the world and Ho Chi Minh who was more powerful, and the quagmire of the conflict in Viet Nam dragged on as our military involvement escalated.

As the graduate of Columbia most in the spotlight presently, Senator Obama has issued the statement below on the heels of Ahmadinejad's visit to his alma mater.

"I would not have extended an invitation to give President Ahmadinejad another platform for his hateful rhetoric. Adolph Hitler was the worst mass murderer in the history of the world, and Ahmadinejad's denial of his crimes is offensive to Jews, to Americans, and to all people of goodwill. But this is America, and we should never be afraid to confront the ranting lies of dictators like Ahmadinejad with the power of truth and the strength of our own values. What Ahmadinejad will learn while he's here is that America is united in rejection of his hateful views, and in opposition to the Iranian government's support of terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons."

We have nothing to fear from letting Ahmadinejad speak in the USA. His philosophies and views are not made somehow stronger by having a platform at one of our institutions, even without the confrontational introduction he was treated to, nor will it draw new supporters to him. No, quite the opposite, his visit to Columbia focuses attention on the need for alternatives, the need to break the cycle of violence in the Middle East.

Barack Obama is willing to meet, and hold meaningful discussions, with those who do not see issues in the same light. The need for strong defense is a given, but the fundamental reason remains that we are all served best by peace - peace, which history suggests is built via diplomacy, which starts by talking.

One candidate is clearly brave enough and committed to leading us toward increased understanding, toward unity rather than increasing isolation and conflict. Bring one new supporter to this campaign (and website) by the end of this week.

The cycle of escalation must be reversed. We need Barack Obama in the White House.

Integrity and a poker face

Tom Hayes, working for change — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:22:50 EDT

A long-time acquaintance inquired in email last night why I'd support Senator Obama's candidacy. I found a timely AP Story that correlates with my perspective as I surveyed the news this morning. What follows is essentially the response I sent. It doesn't tell the whole Obama story, but it packages an illustrative anecdote.

According to a provocatively titled article by Christopher Wills, a writer for the Associated Press:

As a presidential candidate, Obama doesn't accept political contributions from lobbyists or political action committees. But as a legislator, he took thousands of dollars from the groups represented by some of his poker buddies. AT&T in its various incarnations, for example, gave more than $13,000 over the years.
Still, Obama routinely voted against the communications giant's interests. He opposed SBC Communications Inc. — as AT&T was then called — on a major initiative in 2003 that would have increased costs for the company's competitors.
Poker night also included a lobbyist for the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, and the game eventually was moved to the association's office. Obama often voted to raise taxes and fees for businesses.
Players say the poker game affected legislation only by building relationships, and lobbyists might get a more respectful hearing for their arguments.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_po/obama_poker

Between that and the rest of what's written I see confirmation of the union of integrity and well-grounded principles I want in our President - a man who listens, who builds necessary bridges to allow persons representing disparate positions and goals to cross the divide separating them.

Barack Obama's not going say, "I didn't inhale." He's not going to adopt the protective coloration of a regular ol' Texan despite being born in Connecticut, attending Phillips Academy in Massachusetts, a degree from Yale, and so on. Obama's human, and he personifies the best of what that means.

Did I persuade my associate of my wisdom supporting Senator Obama's candidacy? I don't know yet.

Some will claim to be scandalized by 'gambling' revelations even on this petty scale; I'm reassured and encouraged, frankly. I'm glad that the man I want elected as our next President is human, thoughtful, creative, down to earth, and able to meet unfluential, persuasive lobbyists without losing his integrity or losing sight of his goals.

Fiscal responsibility

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:48:30 EDT

Even without the moral basis for wanting to draw a speedy conclusion to the misbegotten war in Iraq, the cost in sheer dollars is a drain on the economy of the United States. Between the expenses of transporting and maintaining the troops half-way around the globe, the countless no-bid contracts rife with accounting irregularities, and the increased security requirements for our diplomats that line the pockets of questionable organizations such as Blackwater, the taxpayers hard-earned cash is profligately squandered at astonishing rates.

Joe Bodell, in a September 23rd article about the political landscape in Minnesota, (published via the Huffington Post,) concludes with this insight:

"Fiscal conservative" and "Fiscally responsible" are two entirely different and, in recent history, contradictory concepts.

Senator Obama has consistently tried to extricate us from the unconscionable expense associated with the ill-conceived, ill-begun, poorly prosecuted War in Iraq. We need to recast "politics as usual" in such a way that the financial and ethical priorities of the U.S. Government resonate transparently with the desires of this great people, not the greed of those few positioned to profit from global conflict.

We need a change, a courageous new visionary to unify us in harmony, not isolate us via wars. The spin for eight years has been "compassionate conservatism," but the reality: divisive fear-mongering and hidden agendas that were anything but compassionate.

Mission Accomplished? The urgent mission now is to resist the spin, to restore the greatness of the United States of America, the pride of our diverse citizenry, and our credibility abroad.

We need to elect Senator Barack Obama as our next President.

Agents of Change: Saturday 6 October 2007

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:45:53 EDT

Obama for America is organizing this special event to prepare Minnesotans for their crucial role in the Democratic primary process.

Join me and hundreds of other supporters from all over Minnesota on Saturday, October 6th for an exciting Minnesota Caucus Convention:

http://my.barackobama.com/MNcaucus

Minnesota Caucus Convention
Saturday, October 6th
9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Caucus training
2 p.m. - 6 p.m. Grassroots strategy training (optional but encouraged)
Reception to follow
St. Paul Central High School
275 Lexington Pkwy N
St. Paul, MN 55104

You probably already know the Minnesota Caucus is scheduled for February 5th, 2008. You may even have been notified of this organizing event already via email from Chris Miller, from Obama for America. Come be an agent of change. RSVP by following the link right now, and forward it to a friend, too.

The national field staff and Minnesota leaders will brief you on the strategy to win Minnesota, teach you how to caucus, and give you opportunities to get involved in your local community. We will work with local grassroots supporters and make a change.

See you there!

http://my.barackobama.com/MNcaucus

"Members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington..."

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:29:37 EDT

According to the LA Times, during his September 20th news conference President Bush said, "Members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington," by increasing the funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by an amount of roughly $35 billion over five years - approximately a seven-fold improvement on the President's own proposed increase. Economics and finance looks different to us here in the midwest, evidently.

Drawing on that same Times article:

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he had spoken during the morning with Bush and told him that the administration's plan was insufficient "to accomplish what he said he wants to do, and that's cover more kids."

"Drawing lines in the sand at this stage isn't constructive," Grassley said of the president's comments, adding in a written statement that Bush was mistaken in saying that the bill would help meet the healthcare coverage costs of children in households with incomes up to $83,000.

The Cost of just the Iraq War itself is set to reach $456 billion September 30, the end of FY 2007. How many days early would we have to leave Iraq to set aside $35 billion? I can think of many better ways to invest my money.

I'm not saying we can walk out of Iraq this week and feel good about what's likely to happen in the ensuing vacuum. We've followed the administration's policies into a position of being very mired down there in every sense. But maybe if we just started to scale back prudently on our war spending we'd have enough to address children's needs in the USA.

If de-escalation of our presence in the Middle East tended to lessen the anger at us, well, so much the better. That's just my midwestern sense of priorities talking, I suppose. Things must look very different in DC, or Kennebunkport.

Let's elect Senator Obama.

"Outrage over an injustice like the Jena 6 isn't a matter of black and white. It's a matter of right and wrong."

Tom Hayes, working for change — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:27 EDT

There's no denying the overtones of race in the situation of the Jena 6, but one's goal to live in a country - and ultimately a world - in which race has ceased to be a defining attribute of a human's existence cannot, must not, depend on how much pigment is in one's own skin, or hair.

The trial and story of the Jena 6 will unfold in due time. The reported gaffe by Jesse Jackson serves not only to draw attention to that tragedy, but to Senator Obama's beliefs regarding how race matters in our current environment in this melting pot and what should and/or can be done to continue diminishing the significance of one's color.

We don't have to be 'color-blind' to move forward, but one must embody color-insensitivity when making value judgements - the alternative is to foster, sustain, and nurture an unacceptable mindset that divides, and therefor diminshes, us. I look forward to the Senator's on-going revelations regarding his vision for guiding the country toward the necessary promotion of 'race-insensitive' unity.

Jackson asserts he doesn't recall making the critical remark in question, which was evidently not recorded, as reported on the 19th of September by The State.

The deputy managing editor of The State, Steve Brook, says they stand by their reporting.

Senator Obama's reaction? "Outrage over an injustice like the Jena 6 isn't a matter of black and white. It's a matter of right and wrong." That is a basic truth, expressed clearly.