Achieve the Dream

Middle Tennessee Healthcare Reform Roll Call

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:25:53 EST

Are you committed to supporting the President's plan for healthcare reform?

President Obama has called for Congress to deliver on comprehensive healthcare reform that provides security and stability for the insured, help for the uninsured, and reins in the costs of healthcare for families, businesses, and government.

This requires a mutual commitment - all of us must pull together in order to accomplish this goal.

The status quo is unsustainable and morally unacceptable. We spend 16% of our gross domestic product on healthcare in this country - $2.4 trillion per year - and insurance premiums have more than doubled since 1998. Wages have remained flat while healthcare costs have increased, leaving families with less money in their paychecks. 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't have access to insurance, and a million more American families go bankrupt each year because of medical bills.

These issues don't discriminate. Rich and poor, labor and management, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, male, female, straight, gay - all of us are impacted by the drag of healthcare costs on our economy.

Will you join the President in supporting reform? Please tell your Senators and Representatives to pass reform this fall. We can't wait another day.

Post a comment to show your support, and share your ideas.

Signs of hope in Tennessee

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:22:47 EDT

It's only been about six weeks since President Obama addressed Congress, but much has happened in Tennessee since that time. Unlike other states (such as Virginia or Missouri), Tennessee never had much of a staff presence in the state in the 2008 campaign. Consequently, we're used to doing more with less.

That "can do" attitude has shown itself recently as thousands of Tennesseans called their members of Congress on October 20th. Perhaps the most important contacts were to our Senators, Republicans Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. As Alexander and Corker continue to hit the President with multiple daily attacks in press releases, TV appearances, and op ed columns, OFA volunteers are standing up to the distortions and delays and calling for significant reform to be passed this fall.

Last night, a dozen team members from the Nashville area gathered to make plans for the next two weeks. We have made November 4th a target day for action and celebration, as we mark one year since President Obama was elected.

In order to help President Obama keep his promises, we need to keep our promises. We need to do our part to bring change to Washington by staying actively engaged, even on an "off year" without an election. And as we head into the gubernatorial campaigns for 2010, Tennesseans are looking for candidates with real solutions on our budget crisis, education, green energy technology, and healthcare reform.

Tennessee's governor, Phil Bredesen, has warned about creating "unfunded mandates" for states by passing healthcare reform that pushes the economic burden onto the states. As a member of the Democratic Governors Association's healthcare task force, Bredesen has repeatedly warned that the federal government should not mandate an expansion of Medicaid without including some kind of support for states already facing budget crises.

We have a lot of work to do in Tennessee, but together we can find solutions that create more jobs, lower the cost curve of our healthcare system, and help families to get relief on rising healthcare costs.

"My neighbor pointed a gun at my dog yesterday"

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:56:55 EDT

I was out canvassing yesterday, and heard a story from one of my fellow canvassers - a new OFA volunteer who's just moved to a new community about an hour south of Nashville.

He shared this story:

"My neighbor pointed a gun at my dog yesterday. So that shook me up quite a bit. I mean, I understand the 2nd amendment and everything, but ... the dog is 8 months old.

"So I go outside and my dog had gotten out into the neighbor's yard and then I see the neighbor pointing a shotgun at my dog. I asked my neighbor what he was doing and he said, 'Well, I scared him, didn't I?' I couldn't believe it."

We've still got some work to do here in Tennessee. It's a basic lesson we need to learn - you don't point guns at your neighbor or your neighbor's kids or your neighbor's dog.

Fairness, Facts, and Fiction in the News

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:25:47 EST

A friend of mine is frustrated with the lack of accuracy in media. 24-hour cable news/talk is interested more in sensationalism and entertainment than in providing "need to know" information. And it's hard to define what people really "need to know" in order to make decisions!

Here's what she said:

"The real problem with this discussion is that we are not distinguishing between information and entertainment. I believe that one of our corporate sins as Americans is that we have lost this distinction. As Christians we have a moral obligation to inform ourselves but we have no obligation to entertain ourselves. As a nation we have a moral obligation to demand that information be made available widely, consistently, and fairly. We ought not confuse t he F irst Amendment with some supposed “right” to be entertained by opinionated pundits who mimic our particular brand of hubris."

The right to free speech is protected by the Constitution. But at what point does free speech pollute our political process? And how can we work to get past the noise?

Healthcare Reform, Public Health, and the Surgeon General

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:29:53 EST

After US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) publicly announced his opposition to Dr. Sanjay Gupta for consideration as Surgeon General, I have seen a small flurry of emails and buzz about the position of Surgeon General.

Over the past 25-30 years, the office of Surgeon General has been largely unnoticed, although a notable exception is the work of C. Everett Koop to combat false advertising about smoking and promote smoking cessation programs. The role of surgeon general is largely seen as ceremonial, but in reality, the office is extremely important for advocacy, prevention education, and the use of scientific research to inform policy on healthcare issues.

The official Surgeon General's website says the following about the duties of the office:

The duties of the Surgeon General are to:

Protect and advance the health of the Nation through educating the public, advocating for effective disease prevention and health promotion programs and activities, and, providing a highly recognized symbol of national commitment to protecting and improving the public's health,
Articulate scientifically based health policy analysis and advice to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the full range of critical public health, medical, and health system issues facing the Nation,
Provide leadership in promoting special Departmental health initiatives, e.g., tobacco and HIV prevention efforts, with other governmental and non-governmental entities, both domestically and internationally,
Administer the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps, which is a uniquely expert, diverse, flexible, and committed career force of public health professionals who can respond to both current and long-term health needs of the Nation,
Provide leadership and management oversight for PHS Commissioned Corps involvement in Departmental emergency preparedness and response activities,
Elevate the quality of public health practice in the professional disciplines through the advancement of appropriate standards and research priorities, and
Fulfill statutory and customary Departmental representational functions on a wide variety of Federal boards and governing bodies of non-Federal health organizations, including the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the National Library of Medicine, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, and the American Medical Association.

Source - http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/about/duties/index.html

According to TheHill.com writer Molly Hill, Rep. Conyers distributed a letter regarding opposition to Gupta's selection. Conyers argued: "It is not in the best interests of the nation to have someone like this who lacks the requisite experience needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial healthcare assistance to some of the poorest and most underserved communities in America."

The argument doesn't hold water. There is no question that Gupta has effectively guided healthcare policy discussions on CNN. His leadership skills are not in question, nor is his ability to effectively use research-based information to clarify facts and advocate to the public.

Where some of the opponents are really concerned is in Gupta's attempted refutation of Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko".

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said, <blockquote>I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore 'fudged his facts', when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong.</blockquote>

According to an article in USA Today, Moore told CNN, "I'm about to become your worst nightmare." (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-07-16-sicko-CNN_N.htm) Moore took it personally. And while I appreciate Moore's courageous effort to educate the public about our broken healthcare" I'm also concerned about the style and tone of Moore. I think we need to face facts: Michael Moore has alienated as many people as he's inspired. And while there are many people like me who have gradually warmed and converted to the concept of single-payer plans, I also recognize that there is tremendous political, social, and corporate opposition to any kind of government-funded healthcare.

Michael Moore did a very good job of factchecking the factchecker. I hope he'll continue to do this if Gupta becomes our surgeon general! But we all need to realize that there is a substantial chunk of the American public who have been hoodwinked by the right-wing media, the drug and insurance companies, and even their own family physician. We also need to realize that statistics lie, and there is perhaps no better example of confusion over statistics than the Gupta-Moore flap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR2U_SAWHdQ

There is something very symbolic about the appointment of Gupta. Because while Gupta has befriended the big pharma, insurance companies, and the medical business community, he has also had the courage to commit acts of journalism - to ask questions, get the data right, and present it to the public effectively. Even more importantly, Gupta has been willing to admit when he's wrong, and when the data and facts disprove the conventional wisdom in the medical community.

That's what the Surgeon General does.

The S.G.'s work on prevention is also an important component of the office. In this area, Gupta is a very effective communicator. He's learned how to identify experts in the medical community and give them a platform to speak. Where Gupta has room to grow is in his ability to speak with the public and engage "Joe Sixpack" as part of the national debate.

There are probably any number of highly qualified candidates for the job. But Sanjay Gupta is the most visible representative and is definitely a "highly recognizable symbol" of the nation's commitment to "get it right" on healthcare.

How does Prop 8 demonstrate Christian values?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:08:45 EST

I just have one question:

How does a vote in favor of Proposition 8 in California demonstrate the agape love of Jesus Christ?

It's a question. I don't have an answer. I welcome your feedback.

Bible verses about lying

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:44:02 EDT

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

So I tell you this, and insist upon it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.

- Ephesians 4:14-25

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is not truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

- John 8:44

But what if someone leads one of these little ones who believe in me to sin? If he does, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and be drowned at the bottom of the sea. How terrible it will be for the world because of the things that lead people to sin! Things like that must come. But how terrible for those who cause them!

- Matthew 18:6-7

Then you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

- John 8:32

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of a raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

- Hebrews 10:26-27

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

- I John 1:4-8

My endorsement

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:20:27 EDT

I'm from Nashville.

I'm an Evangelical Christian.

I'm white.

I'm a man.

I like women. (Although I am happily married and I think one wife is enough for a lifetime.)

I ought to be going GAGA over Sarah Palin and John McCain, right?

Except for one thing...

I believe in supporting politicians who tell the truth.

I believe in supporting politicians who care for the poor, the disenfranchised, and the oppressed.

I believe in supporting religious LIBERTY, not enforcing some Christian version of Sharia law.

I believe in God. I don't trust my government or my military to win victories in the "war on terror". I trust in God.

I believe in peace - a peace that can't be created by military might or threats of nuclear attack. Fighting wars for peace is like raping for virginity.

I believe in protecting God's creation - and I pay attention to science, not just biblical teaching.

I believe in promoting healthy families - not just with prohibitions of sex education and abortion and homosexual marriage. I believe in promoting healthy families with family-friendly policies that protect workers, provide an honest wage for an honest day's work, and support parents in raising their kids.

I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I actually think that we SHOULD protect the rights of habeus corpus for those who are imprisoned, because I know that governments lie, fail, and change.

I believe that we should pay our bills and balance our budget, instead of leaving trillions of dollars in debt for my children and grandchildren.

I am an Evangelical Christian. I love the Lord. I worship an awesome God.

I endorse Barack Obama for president.

Why should Karl Rove go to the Convention?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:00:15 EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/14/0944/37269/861/567660

I saw this blog and really appreciated the idea:

"Sean Hannity and Karl Rove have made it clear that they intend to go to the Democratic Convention and harass delegates. They do not intend to go there in a journalistic capacity but plan to start fights on the convention floor, bring a so called security entourage with them to intimidate others, harass delegates, and basically cause trouble. Therefore, the DNC should take their press passes and not let them onto the site. The same might be suggested for Bill O'Reilly. These people are not journalists, they are right wing smear merchants without an ounce of integrity in them."

I hadn't thought of it before. It's obvious to me that Hannity and Rove are not serious journalists. They are editorialists who are committed to promoting the Republican agenda. Not only that, but they have been engaging in lies, distortions, and smear attacks for decades.

One basic principle of journalism is a commitment to reporting the news, not creating the news. So, why should these so-called journalists be allowed to receive press credentials to attend the Democratic National Convention?

The Democratic Convention Committee ought to invest more in supporting serious journalists - especially citizen journalists - rather than these highly-paid talking heads from Fox News Channel.

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below. I'd really appreciate your feedback about this idea.

Thanks!

Faith, Politics, Reconciliation and Unity in 2008

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:30:57 EDT

I work for Family Dynamics Insitute.

Family Dynamics Institute is a nonprofit organization working nationally to strengthen healthy marriages and prevent divorce. We do this by equipping church leaders to lead an effective marriage enrichment program in their community. We are unabashedly Christian, but we accept people of all faiths into our programs. We also encourage couples to pray together regularly, and teach a method of Christian prayer that is highly effective in improving intimacy and communication between couples. Since we do reference Scripture (without mentioning any other faith's holy writings), we have found that none of our programs are eligible for state or federal funding. This leaves us in a difficult position. California, for example, has invested several million dollars in developing programs to provide marriage education to couples through the state budget. They specifically exclude Christian and other religious programs because they want to avoid any appearance that they are using these programs to proselytize. The state of Texas has also approved a similar measure and is currently in the process of implementing a multi-million dollar marriage initiative. Like California, they are creating marriage resource centers across their state to train premarital educators and marriage enrichment program leaders. But they will not allow our Dynamic Marriage course to be considered for state funding because the class encourages couples to pray together and uses Scripture quotes in the class.

As an organization, we have seen again and again that getting couples to pray together helps them to improve their intimacy and communication. Most couples tell us something like this: "Praying together as a couple was one of the most important parts of the class. We had never done that before, but it really helped us to feel more connected to each other." And because we help couples to look at both Judeo-Christian "traditional Western" values regarding marriage, as well as contemporary cultural views and expectations about marriage, we help couples to look more deeply at their own culture-bound expectations of marriage in order to make the implicit explicit. This is tremendously valuable for couples, regardless of their faith background. It helps them to talk honestly with each other about how they think marriage should work, as well as helping them to learn about what makes the difference between the "masters" of marriage and the "disasters" of marriage (to quote John Gottman, a Jewish-American marriage researcher whose research is also referenced in our classes).

We have heard a range of opinions about our programs from church leaders and social service agencies. Some people are put off by the fact that we quote Scripture. Others are upset by the fact that we read a secular text in the class which is not "Christ-centered" or "biblically-based". Some churches are very pleased about the fact that we provide a bridge between church and culture. Some churches see the class as a way to evangelize to the community.

What we do know is that an astonishing 94% of couples who go through the class have a measurable improvement in their marital satisfaction. We know the class is highly effective and life-changing. And we know that divorce and family fragmentation costs our government $112 billion a year by a conservative estimate in research by Ben Scafidi. (http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/pressrelease.pdf) So we can also make the argument that marriage is a social good worthy of investment by our governments - divorce and unwed pregnancy leave more children in poverty, and create psychological vulnerabilities for parents, children, and families. There is little question in the social science research that the the best family constellation for children includes a family where children are being raised by their two, happily-married biological parents.

This is not simply a matter of faith or political hegemony. It is pretty clear research, and even a Unitiarian Universalist like Bill Doherty or an agnostic like Kay Hymowitz can outline the argument with little or no reference to "Christian family values". But the fact that happily married parents are most likely to raise healthy children does not answer the public policy question - should we as a government invest in rewarding or encouraging parents to secure their commitment to each other through a legal or religious marriage ceremony? Or, on the other hand, should we take extra steps to invest in supporting fragile families such as adopting parents, gay couples, remarried couples with stepfamilies, etc.? Or should we make no investment at all, simply allowing the "free market" to work it all out? And given the cost of welfare, child support enforcement, divorce courts, etc., what should we say or do about the costs of divorce?

These are not purely religious questions - people of similar faith can have strong disagreements about the role of faith in society, as outlined 50 years ago by Richard Neibuhr's book, Christ and Culture. These are sociological and political questions. And that's where our debate stands today.

My personal contribution to this debate comes from my theological perspectives. I believe that it's extraordinarily important for Christians to have an "Incarnational Ecclesiology" - to believe (following Paul) that we as church are the "body of Christ," and that each of us is a part of it. As Christians, we are too often divided into factions and denominations. We are a dismembered body, and that is not only tragic, but it's also traumatic. Because, just as a physically dismembered human body is horrifying, the dismembered body of Christ is revolting and unattractive. And so, following Christ in John 17, my constant prayer is that we may all be one - united in faith, hope, and love. And so, it is time for Christians to put an end to competitive and divisive arguments that disrupt and even destroy our witness. It is time for heresies and scandals to come to an end. It is time for each of us to live confessionally, admitting our personal and corporate sin and seeking Christ's redemption through the power of the Holy Spirit. And it is time for us to let go of the petty arguments and old grudges that keep us divided. Never before has there been more at stake. And never before has there been a greater opportunity for us to let go of our divisions and reconcile in our relationships with God and each other.

Wiki for New Yorker flap

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:52:40 EDT

This blog post is meant to serve as "ground zero" for the recent New Yorker cover cartoon, which pokes fun at the whisper campaign against Barack Obama by the Republican party.

Please post info about the media coverage of the smear here, and check back for updates.

A response to Senator Obama - Get FISA Right!

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:34:04 EDT

The following letter was written by members of Get Fisa Right, a group of Obama supporters committed to protecting Americans from unwarranted surveillance:

Dear Senator Obama,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to us with your post "My Position On FISA" dated July 3rd, 2008. In your response, you pledged to "listen to [our] concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn [our] ongoing support," and in that spirit, we would like to continue this conversation. We ask that you help transfer our passion and political activism into getting the FISA bill right -- now.

Senator, as a legal scholar who has done extensive study of our country's constitution you know that the FISA re-authorization bill currently before the Senate (HR 6304) threatens the rights guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment.

One of the most troubling parts of this bill is its provision to provide retroactive immunity from civil lawsuits for telecommunications companies that may have assisted the Bush administration in violating the civil rights of Americans. You wrote in your statement that you "support striking Title II," which provides this immunity, "from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate."

We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a 'More Perfect Union.' The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to those who "may have violated the law" and allowing spying on law-abiding citizens as we did to relearn of segregation and Jim Crow. The arm of government oppression reaches far and wide, Senator, and we must beat it back on whatever front we find it.

We ask you to reconsider your current position on the bill as a whole and strongly oppose a bill about which you said, "I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power." In your statement you also wrote, "In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited." We agree. Our nation just spent the holiday weekend in celebration of our independence from unlimited government authority. America in 1776 wished to be strong and free. Much has changed in 232 years but Americans will never consciously abandon freedom.

Senator, while you wrote that not passing this bill would result in the government "losing important surveillance tools," these important surveillance tools are in fact blanket surveillance programs already underway solely due to the passage of the Protect America Act, which you rightly opposed and voted against. This is only one example of how, even without the provisions for retroactive immunity, this bill is still dangerous to the civil liberties of American citizens.

As we understand it Senator, your oath to uphold the Constitution requires you and others in the Congress to vote against HR 6304.

We appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion. We represent a large and vocal part of the movement you have nurtured and that has nurtured you during this campaign season, and include many of your most active and ardent supporters. As you have said time and again Senator, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and we are here, working to bring about real change in Washington. We have grown to over 20,000 strong in the space of just a few days. We are lobbying our representatives, and working to get our friends, relatives and neighbors to do the same. We are organizing support for removing the immunity provisions for telecommunications companies and building opposition to this dangerous bill in its entirety.

Working together, we have a better chance to assist Senators Dodd and Bingaman, and can achieve what your commitment to us, your supporters, has been before your recent change in position. Together, we can protect our civil rights and continue to keep America safe. Please join us and let's work together to Get FISA Right.

-------

If you would like to join us, please call your Senator, join the group on myBO and Facebook, and help get the word out!

Obama's position on abortion - update

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:18:26 EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/04/obama-on-late-abortion-me_n_110884.html

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

The health care exception is crucial to abortion rights advocates and is considered a legal loophole by abortion opponents. By limiting the health exception to a "serious physical issue," Obama set himself apart from other abortion rights proponents.

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."

The 1973 landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, established a right to an abortion, and a concurrent case, Doe v. Bolton, established that medical judgments about the need for an abortion could include physical, emotional and psychological health factors.

"Senator Obama has consistently maintained that laws restricting abortions must contain exceptions for the health and life of the mother," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday. "Obviously, as he stated in the interview, he has consistently believed those exceptions should be clear and limited enough to ensure that they don't undermine the prohibition on late-term abortions."

Obama's position is similar to that taken by a bipartisan group of senators in 1998 who tried to counter efforts to ban certain late-term abortions with their own legislation. That proposal, which failed, would have banned all late-term abortions except for those that are necessary to protect the physical health of the mother.

In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama's magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade.

"Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman's health," the organization's statement said.

A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.

David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."

"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.

In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions.

"There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster."

Question: How do we protect national security AND civil liberties?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:24:43 EDT

How can we effectively prevent terrorists from organizing and planning attacks on US interests at home and abroad, but still protect the civil liberties that were trampled on by the Patriot Act, Protect America Act, and the recent FISA revision HR 6304 passed by the US House?

Please post your comments, along with any articles, information, or links, in the comment section below.

FISA - Is Obama a typical politician?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:22:58 EDT

The pundits and the Republicans want to use Obama's so-called "flip-flop" on FISA to claim that he's just a typical politician. While he previously claimed that he would support a filibuster of any revision to FISA that provided retroactive immunity for telecoms, Obama recently said that he would vote for FISA if it contained the immunity and came to a vote.

Now, for the sake of argument, I will grant the dubious claim that Obama has changed positions. Let's assume that he has. Let's assume that Obama has "moved toward the center" as folks at Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, Talk Left, Talking Points Memo, and other have recently claimed. And let's assume that Obama has opened the door for a flip-flop.

What does that say about the current state of affairs?

In my opinion, this is not Barack Obama's failure. If this FISA thing comes to a vote, and the telecoms get retroactive immunity, it won't be a result of Barack Obama's failure. It will be our failure.

It's our failure, because Barack Obama is just one man, just one vote. He's a junior senator from Illinois. And in the Senate, he's at the lower end of the totem pole.

Barack Obama is a political leader in American democracy. He's not a dictator. He's not a revolutionary. He's not a superhero. Barack Obama is a man who's running for president, and currently, he's the junior senator from Illinois.

How does democracy work? It works when we join together, speak with one voice, and demand the changes we seek. Democracy works when we build consensus. Democracy works when we bring new people into the process.

Democracy doesn't work when we filibuster. A filibuster can stop democracy in its tracks, but a filibuster can't make democracy work. One voice in the Senate can stop the wheels from turning for a little while, but it takes 41 Senators to stop a bill. And it takes 51 Senators to pass a bill. And it takes 60 Senators to overcome a presidential veto.

So, before you accuse Barack Obama of failing you, ask yourself this simple question: What have you done today to reach out to others? Barack Obama is just one man. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

There are no superheroes in American government. There are statesmen, but no superheroes.

Why don't we just get honest about this

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:41:24 EDT

http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/06/23/barr-rips-fisa-deal/

Libertarians like Bob Barr's position on this better than they like Obama's.

Libertarians are trying to get people angry about Obama so that they can win votes for Barr.

This is the revenge of the right. It's conservatism to the nth degree.

What concerns me is this:

1. Why do we claim that our "privacy" is being violated when in fact we are communicating with another person? There is no right to privacy that extends to communication between two individuals, unless that communication is protected by law. There is no invasion of privacy if two or more people are communicating. In other words, if you want privacy, then don't use your phone or email!!! DUH!

2. This idea that we should somehow sue cell phone carriers for responding to an executive order is ludicrous, in my opinion. When you signed on as a cell phone user, did you get a written guarantee from the cell phone carrier that your communications would not be monitored by third parties? Probably not. Did you get a written guarantee that your cell phone records would not be shared with the government? I doubt it. Again, if you want privacy, don't use a phone or email!

3. In all of this yelling and shouting, what we've missed is the fact that the agreement in the House (which is going over to the Senate) is a marked improvement over the existing situation, where the president is basically authorized under the Protect America Act to be able to conduct surveillance for any reason he sees fit. We forget that Sen. Obama opposed the Protect America Act, and we forget that the present revisions to FISA are in fact a compromise between the national security concerns of a post 9/11 world and the basic privacy concerns of our citizens. There is no one who has a right to come into your home, or to listen to conversations in your home, without a warrant. You still have a right to privacy.

In conclusion, it's great that you're all concerned about privacy. I am too. But as imperfect as this compromise is, let's not focus our attack on someone who is a compassionate friend of civil rights and liberties. Instead, let's focus our attention on the real enemies of civil rights - folks like Mitch McConnell, John McCain, etc.

Thinking deeply about James Dobson

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:27:33 EDT

It's probably easy for you.

You can just write off James Dobson as a doddering old fool who is stuck in a conservative mindset.

But it's not as easy for me. You see, I work for an organization that is working with churches across the country to prevent divorce and strengthen families, I am familiar with Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family. I'm familiar with his organization on a different level from most Americans, because I see the impact of his work on behalf of the family and on behalf of protecting families and children. In fact, my personal values are mostly aligned with the values of Focus on the Family. I'm an Evangelical Christian. I take the Bible seriously on its prohibitions of homosexual acts and I believe life begins at conception.

Like Barack Obama, Dr. Dobson does what he does because he believes strongly in protecting the welfare of children. Dobson, like Tim Russert and Barack Obama, speaks frequently of the importance of fathers in raising strong children. Dr. Dobson, like Barack Obama, speaks out about the importance of helping single mothers and developing policies that protect families.

You might think that these similarities would lead Dr. Dobson to support Barack Obama's candidacy and the thoughtful and passionate approach that Obama has taken, for example, in his Father's Day address to Apostolic Bible Church. You might think that, in the wake of Tim Russert's death, Dr. Dobson would fill the void and speak out against the vicious attacks and the smear campaign by members of the Christian church against Barack Obama.

You might think that. But you'd be wrong.

In his June 24 radio program, Dr. Dobson says that Obama's speech might merit at least 2 days of coverage. I think that would be a good idea. Because it's obvious that just one day of discussion led Dr. Dobson to focus too much on the negative, and not enough on the positive attributes of Obama's 2006 Call to Renewal Speech. His decision to pull excerpts of the speech made it appear that Obama is out in left field, far from the mainstream of most Evangelicals. (Odd, when you consider that the Call to Renewal group was made up of Evangelicals!)

Dr. Dobson began his June 24 program by noting that he spoke out in 1998 about the alienation of the Republican Party from the interests of Evangelicals. Dobson pointed to several examples, including some of his favorite issues like prohibiting abortion. But Dobson failed to note that the more recent shift in this country is related to the hubris, arrogance, and false accusations of the Bush Administration.

Dobson could have spent much more time talking about the absolutism in our nation and the impact that absolutists on both sides of the aisle have had in the deterioration of our families and our politics. But instead, Dobson spoke about the personal offense he took in being compared to Al Sharpton. Dobson referred to Obama's objection to pastors who deliver "more screed than sermon," but then linked Obama to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Dobson didn't discuss the fact that Obama had spoken out consistently against Wright's inflammatory rhetoric. Instead, Dobson threw Obama under the bus. Dobson didn't commend Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech. Instead, he referred to Al Sharpton as a "black racist" and determined that Obama was guilty for "sitting for 20 years" under Wright's "tutelage".

Dobson said that Obama's speech in 2006 was "very telling," but he didn't tell us the truth about what it said. Tim Minnery attempted to claim that Barack Obama was trying to "disparage". Minnery then went on to claim that the only people who identify with an organized religion are Christians. Minnery backtracked on his claim moments later, saying that most religious Americans are "Judeo-Christian". But Minnery made the claim that Obama "is not even acknowledging the strong Judeo-Christian tradition."

Dobson could have discussed the fact that Barack Obama supports eliminating the marriage penalty, something that Dobson took the Republicans to task for not passing (4:55 into the program). Dobson talked in positive terms about his "friend, Laura Ingraham" who called for Republicans to speak out more about their conservative values. He distorted Obama's statements about the role of the Bible, claiming that Obama was distorting the Bible to fit "his own worldview." Dobson also made a gross mischaracterization of Obama by claiming that Obama believes that people of faith cannot bring their faith into discussions of public life. Obama said nothing of the sort, and what Obama did say was that you can't make laws based on your religious viewpoints, but rather on the basis of universal arguments.

It saddens me, as a believer and as a supporter of Barack Obama, that Dobson would decide to distort and discredit Barack Obama. If Dobson honestly cannot understand why millions of Americans (including many Evangelical Christians) would be offended by his statements, I would point him to the argument made during his June 24 program about John McCain and the marriage amendment under consideration in the Arizona State legislature. Dobson claimed that the Arizona State Legislature's Republican party lacked "backbone" because they did not put the marriage amendment on the ballot for voters. Now, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not you should put a marriage amendment on the ballot. But to attack people as lacking backbone simply because they disagree with your approach is both misguided and dangerous.

Millions of dollars have been wasted trying to define marriage, when we could be investing in the protection of marriages and the healing of families. Worst of all, the unrelenting and contemptuous attitude exemplified by Dr. Dobson is setting a bad example for men across this country. Divorce is caused by contempt. Divorces are filed by men and women who feel that their partner simply will not change his or her mind, or submit to a higher authority. And Dr. Dobson seems unwilling to submit to the higher authority of the American people or his fellow Evangelical Christians. He fails to see that reasonable people can disagree on the issues that he sees as absolute.

A true leader, in the eyes of Christ, is the one who picks up the basin and the towel to serve others. The real leader is the one who is the servant. Jesus told us that the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven must be a servant, not the one who lords power over others.

It is in this way that Barack Obama's Christian faith supersedes the Pharisaical self-certainty of Dobson, Ingraham, and other conservatives. Just as George W. Bush failed to acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong about weapons of mass destruction, we continue to see conservatives engaging in character assassination of Barack Obama. I am not surprised or disappointed to see this kind of behavior from godless men like Rush Limbaugh. But to see it from James Dobson - a man whose work I admire and whose mission is aligned with my own - is disappointing beyond words.

I continue to pray for God's peace to reign in the hearts of James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Phil Valentine, Hugh Hewitt, Chuck Colson, Oliver North, and John McCain. I stand on the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when I speak out today in opposition to their destructive and antagonistic approach to political discourse. I call them to return to charity, civility, and honesty.

If you don't like Obama's position on abortion rights, then just say so. But don't claim that Obama says things that he doesn't say, or that he believes things that he doesn't believe. Let's stop the ad hominem attacks on Obama. Let's talk about the issues that matter, instead of making straw man arguments.

What is the American dream?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:52:31 EDT

Stability.

According to research from the Barna Group, most Americans just want stability.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=301

There were six specific conditions that at least three-quarters of all adults identified as being very important elements in their ideal life. Those included having good physical health (listed by 85%), living with a high degree of integrity (also 85%), having one marriage partner for life (80%), having a clear purpose for living (77%), having a close relationship with God (75%), and having close, personal friendships (74%).

There were another half-dozen items listed by at least half of the adults interviewed. Those conditions included having a comfortable lifestyle (mentioned by 70%), having a satisfying sex life with their marriage partner (66%), having children (66%), living close to family and relatives(63%), being deeply committed to the Christian faith (59%), and making a difference in the world (56%).

The survey uncovered seven conditions that only a minority of Americans deemed worthy of including in their vision of their desired future life. Those conditions included having a college degree (named by 46%), being personally active in a church (45%), traveling throughout the world for pleasure (28%), working in a high-paying job (28%), owning a large home (18%), owning the latest household technology/electronics (11%) and achieving fame or public recognition (7%).

Campaign Finance - the flip flop that wasn't

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:40:56 EDT

One of the big concerns for the Obama campaign, since around February, is that 527 groups, PACs, and other outside groups are buying ad time to attack Obama. For instance, Hillary Clinton's supporters created an anti-Obama 527 and claimed that they were promoting "issues important to the middle class". But really, they were just attacking Obama (ironically, Obama supports the same middle-class issues that Clinton does, so it became clear that they weren't promoting issues, just trying to attack Obama).

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/proclinton_527_prepares_fo r_oh.php

In the general, there is concern about "swift-boating" Obama like they did w/ John Kerry. Republicans are already sharpening their knives, saying that Obama is a liberal closet-Muslim naive inexperienced terrorist-appeasing high-tax-loving black supremacist. There would be two strategies available - one would be an agreement between McCain and Obama that they would both accept Public funding and that there would be some sort of FEC agreement prohibiting 527s from doing attack ads. The other would be to raise as much money as possible.

Obama and his election law experts (like Bob Bauer) determined that, since there was no way to prohibit or prevent 527s from engaging in misleading attacks, the best way to handle it was to use the Obama brand and raise money into the campaign directly. Since Obama has been trusted to address corruption and encourage fairness, the decision was made to just go ahead and refuse public financing. Obama needs to control the funds in order to control the message. (By the way, this is one reason why I don't donate to moveon.org.)

The GOP (and the Clinton campaign, before they stopped operations) have been piling on Obama for "flip-flopping" when in reality, the Obama campaign has been consistent. At the beginning, Obama's campaign said they'd be willing to explore an agreement with the GOP candidate that both candidates would only accept public financing. However, there was always the concern about 527s, and Obama said from the beginning that he felt 527s engaged in unfair attacks that ran contrary to the spirit of FEC policy.

Since the FEC is a paper-tiger right now, and they don't really have the leadership to prevent abuses of election financing, the Obama campaign decided to just drop the public financing idea. Again, this is not new.

McCain follows Bush plan to solve our energy crisis

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:56:28 EDT

Live blogging Obama's town hall

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:41:12 EDT

9:33 AM CDT

Question about Arts and Education investment - we used to have art and music classes but they're being cut back because there is limited amount of time and resources and it's too hard to get the assessments. We need assessments that take a look at a broader range of things than just one standardized test. You still need a standardized test but don't let it influence how curriculum is being shaped. Get principal and teacher input in how to develop these tests. Kids are starting further behind, we need to invest more in early childhood programs. Also, recruit, retain, and train excellent teachers. Provide continuing professional development. When you start working with teachers and tapping into their creativity, you also tap into the children's creativity! You need to work with a curriculum that engages kids where they are, and gets them excited about learning in their communities.

9:42 AM - Joe Sestak just came in and Obama recognizes him and says, "We will re-elect him." He provided outstanding military service. Notable since Sestak campaigned in PA for Clinton and against Obama.

9:43 AM - Obama makes a point about the GI Bill. Need to cover college costs. He pokes holes in the McCain argument that says "People will leave the military if we give them good benefits. Retention rates will go down." "It diminishes the reason people go into the military" to say that the only reason people stay in the military is for the benefits.

9:44 - A man says that he opposed Iraq war from beginning like Obama. Asks how we'll get out. Obama repeats his statement that we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. Says that he believes that based on conversations w/ military (!) that we can get out 1-2 brigades per month. Says the only leverage we have in Iraq is to tell them we're leaving and telling them to stand up. Also adds that must talk to Syria and Iran. Engage in a tough diplomatic approach with carrots and sticks. Direct talks will "recruit more allies to our position." This is a "fundamental difference" between John McCain and myself. Pokes holes in McCain'st statement that it is "unimportant how long we are there". Notes that the cost ($1 Trillion in the end) could have been used to invest in clean energy, could have been used to develop transportation, could have been used to decrease fossil fuel dependence. We could have sliced our energy consumption by 1/3! "But we didn't do that, and that is a fundamental strategic error, in terms of keeping us safe." "We went into Iraq and strengthened Iran!"

9:51 - a "disgusted and former Republican" woman asks about spending and fiscal discipline and PAYGO rules. "In every year, you should end up in the same spot where you started the year in terms of your finances." "Every one of my policies is paid for - and if you don't believe me, ask the Wall Street Journal." Notes that cap and trade system will reduce greenhouse gases and charge polluters for their pollution. John MCCain, in contrast ... I want to talk about taxes here for a minute because the tactics of the Republicans were to say that "he's a tax and spend liberal". Notes my statement that Carly Fiorina said, "He will not cut taxes for anybody." And now, here's the facts, take a look at every objective analysis that's out ther.e. MY tax plan gives every American family a $1000 tax cut. Tax cut. If 95% of Americans will see their tax burdens reduced under my plan. You get $1000 per family. You're gonna get a mortgage deduction credit for everyone. Wealthy families deduct on their mortgages, but if you take standard deduction you don't get to deduct interest. His plan creates that. "So, right off the bat, most middle class families will see a savings of about $2000 a year" before you factor in healthcare savings. McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy AND add $300 Billion in NEW TAX CUTS! "Now, this was the calculation that was made by the Tax Policy Institute - that showed that 1/4 of John McCain's new tax cut will go to people making $2.8 milion or more!" Asks the group to raise hands if they make $2.8 million or more!!! The group laughs. One man raises his hand. Obama says, "I need to talk to you about a contribution to my campaign!" "So when I hear Carly get on television and say that 'he's raising taxes' despite the fact that I'm giving tax cuts to 90% of taxpayers... that's kinda frustrating when folks just don't tell the truth!"

9:58 AM - Pokes at McCain on "pork" and "earmarks". Says that he agrees that we need to do government out in the open, stop putting hidden earmarks in. (Gov't transparency) "But the total amount of earmarks, broadly defined, comes to about $18 billion." "I'm not a math whiz, but if you're giving $300 billion in tax breaks ..." Notes that McCain wants to keep earmarks for the Everglades and earmarks for military aid to Israel. "What's likely is that McCain is going to take out a credit card to China in the name of our kids..."

10:01 - Question about building new refineries. Construction foreman and union rep asks about this. Obama says, "This is a good question." People don't want oil refineries in their communities. Oil companies haven't been hurt by low capacity because it keeps prices higher. Obama wants to investigate whether adding a refinery or two might be good. Might be good to have more refinery capacity in the event of what happened in Katrina where all the refineries got shut down - even though there was ample supply in the world oil market, you couldn't get it to the U.S. Refineries are not a long-term solutions. Neither is drilling in Alaska - GOP is using this. "Heer's the problem. We account for about 3% of the world's oil reserves and use 25% of the world's oil. We can't drill our way out of the problem." Might give you 3-4 cents a gallon less cost - but is it worth it to damage the environment permanently when we could obtain much bigger reductions just be increasing fuel efficiency standards on our cars? "The low hanging fruit" is changing how we use energy. That's where the American ingenuity and innovation should be focused. "If we do that, then we'll solve that problem."

10:05 AM - last question ... can't read young college grad's t-shirt and says "Sorry.. I'm getting old." Woman asks "I just graduated from college, and I'm looking for a job and realize that I don't have any health insurance." Obama gets question about how health insurance will work. 1) Tell insurance cos that they need to keep kids on policy until age 25, which will help a lot. Young professionals don't always get insurance with their early jobs. 2) Universal health insurance access. LEt you keep a plan if you like it, work with employer to lower premiums by $2500 per family per year through catastrophic insurance coverage provided by govt' safety net. 3) Offer US-wide insurance pool. Institute prevention reimbursement to get "healthcare system instead of a disease care system". Note that people don't go to doctor b/c of asthma, allergies, basic preventative care b/c the cost of copays is too much against deductible. "IF you can't afford it, we'll give you a tax credit so you CAN afford it." Key is to make insurance affordable. "And by the way, you'd still have choice of doctors the same way that folks under Medicare have choice." "Don't let people scare you - this is not socialized medicine."

10:09 - "Let's assume I'm elected" (applause). "I've still got to work with Congress to get this done and the Insurance and Drug companies invested $? dollars (a billion? a trillion?) over the past decade to prevent change. "They'll get a seat at the table they just won't be able to buy every chair." "We are gonna televise these negotiations on CSpan so that people can see what's going on." "The spotlight is going to be on Congress and they're going to do what's best in the national interest rather than serving the special interests."

Tim Russert, Rest in Peace

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:53:08 EDT

Obama on Russert's death:

I’ve known Tim Russert since I first spoke at the convention in 2004. He’s somebody who, over time, I came to consider not only a journalist but a friend. There wasn’t a better interviewer in TV, not a more thoughtful analyst of our politics, and he was also one of the finest men I knew. Somebody who cared about America, cared about the issues, cared about family. I am grief-stricken with the loss and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. And I hope that, even though Tim is irreplaceable, that the standard that he set in his professional life and his family life are standards that we all carry with us in our own lives.

How I judge Obama's faith

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:49:06 EDT

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender." - Proverbs 22:7

I hear a lot of Christians talking about Barack Obama's faith these days. They want to pretend that he's not really a Christian. Some people claiming to be Christians have tried to paint him as a Muslim or an anti-Semite, like Bill Hobbs and Robin Smith from the Tennessee Republican Party. I don't know how those folks measure people's faith to find out whether it's real. But I measure faith like Jesus did in John 13:35: "This is how all will know you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

So, when I look at the political landscape today, I have to look at who is encouraging a culture that is respectful and loving - not only to believers, but to unbelievers as well.

Is it loving for us to neglect genocide in Darfur?

Is it loving for us to support the taking of innocent lives in Iraq and call it "collateral damage"?

Is it loving for us to live in a culture where we want to overturn Roe v. Wade but we don't want to ensure that children grow up safe with the love and care they need?

Is it loving to live in a culture that offers tax cuts for the wealthy while millions of Americans are suffering because of an economy built on greed and corporate corruption?

Which brings me back to my original thought from Proverbs 22:7. In our culture, the wealthiest one percent have been the beneficiaries of half of the economic growth we've experienced in the last 7 years. Tax cuts for the wealthy have left our nation spiraling rapidly into debt. The national debt has grown under the Bush Administration, even when you measure debt against the Gross Domestic Product (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html). We are living beyond our means as a nation, and we're taking out loans to non-Christian nations like China and the United Arab Emirates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Barack Obama's economic plan will put money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans, and he will restore honesty and fiscal discipline to our government.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal

Of course, there are people out there who want to spread lies and vicious rumors about him. But if you look at his life, look at the facts, and look at how he's spent his time and energy, you'll see that it's all about love. Of course, there are modern-day Pharisees out there who want to attack him because he doesn't wear a flag pin, or because his pastor said something controversial. But I listen to what his wife said: "Barack Obama will always take the high road. Over and over and over again."

I watch the way that Barack has worked to protect the rights of oppressed people. And I believe that he will do more to prevent abortion in our country because he will focus on the economic and cultural forces that drive women to choose abortions over life. He will protect the rights of women, but encourage fathers to get involved in their children's lives instead of abandoning their kids.

So, that's how I make my decisions. How about you?

Carly Fiorina Distorts Obama Tax Policy

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:31:55 EDT

"Senator Obama promises to raise almost every conceivable tax." - Carly "Just Words" Fiorina, today on Morning Joe

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25060004#25060004

Lest we forget, this is the same Carly Fiorina who shredded 10% of the workforce at HP before resigning under fire from executives and board members in 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4250597.stm

And maybe this is why the Republican party loves her...The former Hewlett Packard CEO, an economics adviser and fund-raiser for Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, has never run for public office before. But in an interview Tuesday, former McCain campaign official and current Republican National Committee Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli refused to rule her out. “I am so impressed with her,” Donatelli said. “We could do a lot worse than Carly.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/22/carly-fiorina-gets-endorsement-of-sorts-for-vp-job/

And by the way, Carly was wrong about Obama's tax policies.

He would actually REDUCE taxes for Americans who aren't in Carly Fiorina's tax bracket.

Irresponsible Tax Cuts: President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

John McCain versus Mike Huckabee

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:09:30 EDT

I would have loved to see Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee. He's a decent guy, even though his remarks about Obama at the NRA convention were a little off-color.

One of the things I like about Huckabee is the fact that he stayed with his wife through her bout with cancer, early in their relationship. His "do the right thing" decency is attractive to me.

On the other hand, John McCain dumped his wife when she was injured in a car accident (if only she had John Edwards as her lawyer!).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

Where are we REALLY spending money?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:24:12 EDT

http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/tables.php?tabtype=t2&subtype=t&year=2007

So ... do you think that we're really serious about cutting spending? Look at where we're spending the most money on programs:

http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/tables.php?tabtype=t1&subtype=at&rowtype=f

That's right. Our government spent $312 billion dollars in Dept. of Defense contracts last year.

So, you hear John McCain talking about saving money - will he start by cutting the defense budget?

I doubt it.

Meanwhile, our debt keeps growing.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

While Medicare and Social Security are a big part of our spending, it turns out that we spend over 22% of our national budget on defense industry spending.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461536304/u_s_government_spending.html

How Bad Did McCain's Speech Suck?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:02:32 EDT

I found a link to McCain's speech tonight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8

Oh, wait, no, here's the real link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/198530.php

What is up with this guy? The nation is caving in around him, and he doesn't look like he has a clue.

I'm not just pro-Obama now. I'm seriously concerned - what is up with people voting for John McCain? Please help me understand!

Change we can believe in

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:33:46 EDT

I just saw this comment. What a great feeling.

By Susan, Bloomington, IN posted at 4:32 PM

t just occurred to me--for the first time in my life; I am really going to be able to vote FOR a candidate I believe in rather than choosing the lesser of two evils or voting against someone...I mean I've known for awhile that it could happen...but now it WILL happen. This vote will be the most exciting, important one in my life; because, I believe in Barack Obama!

Great blog post

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:01:34 EDT

Janaiha posted a great blog about what we need to recognize as we're seeking to bring national unity and reconciliation. We need to work together - not in competition - to solve America's pressing problems.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/janaihanelson/gGByvY

Family Therapy?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:51:32 EDT

I work for a national nonprofit organization that is working to prevent marital disintegration through education and community development.

In our 3-day intensive workshop for couples in marital crisis, we talk about research by Dr. John Gottman, one of the foremost researchers on marriage in the world today. Gottman uses a helpful model that can predict within a 5-minute conversation - with 90% accuracy - whether couples are going to divorce. He helps couples recognize the patterns of negativity that destroy relationships, and I thought I'd share those with you as a way of promoting positive dialogue.

Here are what Gottman calls "The 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse" (the following information is available in Gottman's popular book, 7 Principles for Making Marriage Work):

1. Criticism

2. Defensiveness

3. Contempt

4. Stonewalling

Gottman says that couples tend to get into a blame-defend cycle that is unproductive and increases marital discord. The two parts of this cycle are criticism and defensiveness. Criticism is a global complaint about a character defect of the other person. This is different from a complaint, which focuses on the specific issue at hand. (Some therapists talk about the "kitchen sink" problem, when couples start piling on the current problem by talking about past history and other problems that aren't related.)

For instance, a complaint might be, "I feel upset that you didn't take out the garbage when you said you would." A criticism would be, "You are so irresponsible. How many times do I have to tell you to take out the trash!?"

The problem with criticism is that it almost always leads to another of the 4 Horsemen - defensiveness. Defensiveness keeps problems from getting solved. The person is unwilling to admit blame or accept responsibility. Defensiveness can include counteraccusations, denials, excuses, etc. One of the things that can stop defensiveness is allowing your partner to influence you. Accepting even a part of what the other person says as valid can be a great way to sidetrack the blame-defend cycle. For instance, you could say, "I know it's frustrating that I haven't followed through on the garbage. I wasn't being responsible."

(By the way, in the heat of the moment, that's a really tough skill to learn!)

The problem that really destroys relationships, however, is the presence of CONTEMPT. Contempt is an attitude that says, "You're a defective person. You're hopeless." Usually, contempt is not expressed verbally. It's expressed with an eye-roll, or a nonverbal. (You might be doing it right now if you are sick of reading this!) The problem with contempt is that it is a conversation stopper. If you believe that a person is hopelessly defective, then you won't have any positive dialogue or constructive communication. Learning to see the person with value is essential to restoring the relationship. (see my previous post about forgiveness.)

What happens with relationships toward the end is that the conversations get shorter and shorter. Contempt leads to stonewalling - a blank expression and total lack of responsiveness. Stonewalling can also take the form of the silent treatment, or a decision to leave the relationship. Once stonewalling takes over, it is very difficult to repair the relationship unless you have some way to make a point of contact - humor, common concerns, etc.

I hope this information helps as we're trying to reconcile with Clinton supporters (and undecideds) and heal this country.

Healing the Divisions

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 25 May 2008 16:50:35 EDT

One of my personal heroes is Everett Worthington, a professor of marital and family therapy at Virginia Commonwealth University. He served as the director of the Templeton Foundation's Campaign for Forgiveness Research, a group that worked to understand forgiveness and its impact on our society.

Dr. Worthington has developed a helpful, 5-step model for understanding forgiveness that might help all of us (I know it helps me!) as we work together toward reconciliation. The 5-steps can be remembered with the word "REACH":

R - Recall the hurt

E - Empathize with the offender

A - Altruistic gift of forgiveness

C - Commit publicly to forgive

H - Hold onto forgiveness

Empathy with the person who has harmed us does not mean that we excuse, condone, or deny the reality of the hurt that's been caused. But forgiveness is something we do for the sake of the other person who's harmed us. It's not a wimp's response - it's the response of a morally strong and courageous person.

I hope this helps you as much as it has helped me. I forgive those in our country who have lied about Barack Obama. I forgive those who have tried to smear his good name. I forgive Hillary Clinton's campaign for its decision to "go negative" on Obama. I forgive Howard Wolfson for pursuing a strategy that is more about the politics of fear than the politics of hope. I forgive Terry McAuliffe for his awful comments at the Palm restaurant earlier this week, where he compared Barack Obama to a "rented mule".

By the way ... forgiveness doesn't eliminate the negative consequences for other people. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton should be president or VP, although I do forgive her for her destructive statements. Forgiveness does not mean glossing over the wrongs. It just means that I stop trying to be personally responsible for taking revenge on the people who have harmed me (or others I care about).

Who do you need to forgive today?

Obama, the Constitution and Abortion Rights

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:13:49 EDT

I don't know if anyone else has read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, in which he discusses the fact that abortion will always be a difficult constitutional issue and that legalizing or prohibiting abortion won't change the fact that abortions happen and that Democrats frequently gloss over the important moral issues related to abortion.

Obama's debate with Alan Keyes during the US Senate campaign in 2004 is discussed at length in Chapter 6 of The Audacity of Hope, which is titled, "Faith".

Obama's position on abortion rights is a Constitutional issue, not a religious issue (for me, it's religious - life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder).

Obama talks about the example of Abraham Lincoln, a realist whose practicality "would distress us today". His willingness to "test different bargains with the South in order to maintain the Union without war" would strike us as disturbing - almost as if Lincoln was willing to tolerate treating blacks as second-class citizens.

"I'm reminded that deliberation and the constitutional order may sometimes be the luxury of the powerful, and that it has sometimes been the cranks, the zealots, the prophets, the agitators, and the unreasonable - in other words, the absolutists - that have fought for a new order. Knowing this, I can't summarily dismiss those possessed of a similar certainty today - the antiabortion activist who pickets my town hall meeting, or the animal rights activist who raids a laboratory - no matter how deeply I disagree with their views." - p. 97 (paperback version)

Obama's concerns are about the Constitution, not about whether he personally believes life begins at conception. It's a separation of church and state issue.

Hillary's senior thesis - on community organizing

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:19:14 EDT

To understand Hillary Clinton's vision for change, you need to read her senior thesis, written while she was at the all-women's school of Wellesley College. She wrote about community organizing, particularly the methods of Saul Alinsky, a Chicago-area boss who worked as a union agitator, organizer, and radical.

http://www.gopublius.com/HCT/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf

Here are some key quotes:

The organizer plays a significant role in precipitating and directing a community's conflict pattern. As Alinsky views this role, the organizer is

"...dedicated to changing the character of life of a particular community [and] has an initial function of serving as an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions...to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. When those who represent the status quo label you [i.e. the community organizer] as an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function--to agitate to the point of conflict."

Later, she quotes Alinsky again:

"There are two roads to everything--a low road and a high one. The high road is the easiest. You just talk principles and be angelic regarding things you don't practice. The low road is the harder. It is the task of making one's self-interest behavior moral behavior. We have behaved morally in the world in the past few years because we want the people of the world on our side. When you get a good moral position, look behind it to see what is self-interest."

Hillary Rodham summarized it this way:

The Alinsky method of community organizing has two distinct elements. One, the 'Alinsky-type protest' is 'an explosive mixture of rigid discipline, brilliant showmanship, and a street fighter's instinct for ruthlessly exploiting his enemy's weakness.' The second, modeled after trade union organization methods, involves the hard work of recognizing interests, seeking out indigenous leaders, and building an organization whose power is viewed as legitimate by the larger community. It is difficult to discuss these two components separately because they are woven into the organizational pattern according to situational necessity. Some organizational situations need the polarizing effect of "rubbing raw the sores of discontent" while others with well-defined resentments need leaders. Another distinctive feature of the Alinsky method as mentioned in the previous chapter is the use of military language.

Are you ready?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 20 May 2008 23:43:37 EDT

Are we ready to turn off the TV and start talking to our kids and friends and neighbors?

Are we ready to let go of our prejudices and take the time to get to know people who are different from ourselves?

Are we ready to let go of our cynicism and give our democratically elected leaders a chance to lead?

Are we ready to believe again that in this nation, anything is possible?

Are we ready to wage peace instead of fighting an endless, unwinnable, war against an undefined enemy?

Are we ready to judge people, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?

Are we ready to work like everything depends on us and pray like everything depends on God?

This election is not about Barack Obama. This election is about us.

Are we ready?

Obama needs lessons on Oregon Beer

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:04:11 EDT

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Beer_track_in_Beaverton.html

Obama is going to try some of the IPA - I recommend a Rogue. But that is some "beer snob" beer - like the kind of beer that wine drinkers drink when they're not drinking wine.

http://www.rogue.com/Beer%20Brochures/RogueXS.pdf

Maybe he's not an elitist after all

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:18:20 EDT

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gGCnWD

After listening to Michelle Obama, I'm starting to think that maybe they're not elitists after all.

She's talking to beer drinkers like me. I think she gets it.

Frank Schaeffer: More Truth, Fewer Euphemisms

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:53:18 EDT

This editorial from Frank Schaeffer was so good, I thought I'd reprint the whole thing...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-fight-for-obama-requi_b_98892.html

Now we come to it: the real fight for Obama in the harsh light of day. What Obama is up against is essentially the jeering section of the national lunatic asylum. What America is up against is the very real possibility that this jeering section will out shout the rest of us. Beware lest we let them sneer us into oblivion.

The battle lines of the contest for the Democratic Party nomination and the White House are clear. Strip away the euphemisms and we see that the choice before us is not a choice between various candidates and various positions but a choice of historic magnitude about the character of America.

Before saying more let me say that I am an optimist. I believe that Obama will be our next president because his support comes from a widely diverse group of people, from some like me -- a white middle class 55-year-old lifelong Republican, now reregistered as an independent -- to traditional Democrats, blacks, young people, women and men of all races and beliefs. We are united in our hope for a better future. I believe that our disparate group of individuals outnumber those firmly stuck in the past. We will win if we hang tough together and tell the truth.

At the core of the Obama candidacy is the belief that freethinking openhearted people in America outnumber cretins, racists, the willfully ignorant, the gleefully hate-filled, the small minded, the backward looking, jingoistic morons, the frightened, the addicts of brain-wrecking soundbites, and above all those stuck in a pattern of thinking that leads inevitably to shrunken horizons.

What are the spoken "arguments" against Obama? He doesn't wear a flag pin... His minister said harsh things... The blue collar vote don't all like him... In the words of the inimitable George Stephanopoulos; Obama can't say for sure if his minister is as patriotic as he is...

Since these banalities can't possibly explain why there is even a discussion about the choice between Obama and the Clinton hack machine what's really going on?

Here are the real reasons that the Democratic Party has not yet embraced Obama overwhelmingly:

1) This country has a racist streak running through it that is well entrenched in both parties.

2) We include amongst us an undereducated geographically ignorant nation-within-a-nation who are afraid of the world outside of our borders, terrified by the eternal "other," that perpetual "threat" that takes new forms but never changes -- from the late Saddam Hussein to the last Mexican to crawl over the border.

Clinton and McCain cater to those with a bad case of paranoia. Obama does not.

Combine the latent racism that the Clintons so handily embrace when they euphemistically describe the "blue collar" vote as unwinnable for Obama, with the willful ignorance of too many Americans about the world, and the idea of voting for a well-educated, worldly wise, kind, openhearted, unafraid, urbane, hard-to-ruffle, charismatic black man is a scary proposition. He just isn't scared enough! He just isn't keeping his place! He is just too decent! He's just to sane to be "one of us!"

In Obama we have a choice that will set the stage for the foreseeable American future. On the one hand Obama faces McCain; the aging war making enthusiast, the next "prophet" of American exceptionalism, a true believer in military sacrifice as the highest value, even sacrifice for "victory" in unwinnable wars. On the other hand Obama is trying to overcome the perpetually ambitious Clinton machine, fastened to his ankle like a rabid dog, unable to bring him down but very able to distract and draw blood.

Here are the actual choices:

Obama or war without end.

Obama or ambition without moral boundaries without end.

The Clinton/McCain partisans will never say it but they are counting on the worst in the American character in order to "win." Without the support of the racists, the stupid, the undereducated and the perpetually paranoid neither McCain nor Clinton stands a chance. They count on the worst in our national character in the same way that oncologists count on new cases of cancer -- pay lip service is to the cure, but thank God for the sickness! (And by the way the Clinton canard that the blue collar vote is un-winnable for Obama is an insult to most working people.)

This election is a moral test of our national character. If we fail this test, if we allow the mainstream media to derail the process with their insanely tawdry, lowest common denominator soundbites, if we allow the Clintons thinly veiled "I'm more electable" (e.g., more white!) racism to triumph, or worse yet, if we vote for the perpetuation of four (and perhaps eight) more years of the Bush regime reincarnated as McCain, we will have not only turned the clock back but slammed the door on the best chance our country has been given in generations.

It is no accident that the rest of the world is so incredibly interested in this year's American election. Obama is liked (actually loved) all over the world. What an incredible opportunity for us to elect someone who brings such a favorable worldwide standing with him to day one of his presidency. How do we really make America safer? For a start, put a president in charge who is liked and respected and who changes the way others see us for the better.

It is up to those of us who support Obama to fight like hell and make sure that we do not become infected by the insidious despair inherent in the arguments made by the Clintons about who is "electable," or by the Republicans, whose bellicose rhetoric presupposes that America will be hated forever.

Which line would you rather be standing in; a line leading to a future where America is liked and respected again, where our president represents the best about us, or the line back to a world where we are disrespected hated and, moreover, hate ourselves?

Let's state our case openly. Let's trust most of our fellow Americans to rise to the occasion. The choice is clear. The time for euphemisms is past. Let's confront our worst national faults head on. This year's contest for the presidency is between all that is worst about America and all that is greatest.

I believe in America. I believe in Obama. If we hang in there we will win.

Obama on Fox News Sunday

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:43:26 EDT

Chris Wallace is asking questions about whether race is a factor or not in the election.

Obama says, all the pundits saw what happened in Pennsylvania and Ohio, but they forgot about Wisconsin, Virginia, etc.

8:09 AM Now talking about Clyburn - how angry blacks are about Clinton and his approach to race baiting. Obama denies that Bill Clinton has tried to make race an issue. "I don't think he means it in a racial way. He's just supporting his wife."

"I'm confident that once this primary is over, Democrats will come together."

8:10 AM - Chris Wallace talking about Bill Moyers' interview with Jeremiah Wright. Obama says, "I think some people were genuinely offended by his remarks. It is also true that to run a snippet of 30-second soundbites out of a 30-year career ... was done in a deliberate way. And that is unfortunate. I have strongly denounced those comments... but ... he built that ministry, and I think that people need to take a look at the whole church and the whole man in making these assessments."

8:13 AM - "Only cataloguing the bad about America and not talking about the good." Obama says this is the biggest concern he has with Wright's comments about America. Obama trying to make the point in Philadelphia that Wright had to go through the era of Civil Rights protests. Part of it is generational. If you grew up under Jim Crow, you saw a lot of violence, etc., Obama has a much more hopeful vision than people like that. Obama notes that some of the most controversial language Wright has used was to talk about the responsibility of black fathers to parent their children - says that Wright has used "street vernacular from the pulpit" which could be seen as controversial.

8:15 AM - How do voters draw conclusions about my values? Look at work as community organizer? That's a reflection of values. Do they look at how I raised my children? That's a reflection of my values. Jeremiah Wright's soundbite comments are not a reflection of my values nor of the church nor of Wright himself. Flag pin issue is "a distraction" and "not reflective of me or the love I have for this country".

8:16 AM - William Ayers brought up. "Do you really see a moral equivalency between what Ayers said and what Coburn said?" Obama says no. Working with someone does not mean that you agree with everything they believe. OBama notes that there was only a tangential relationship with Ayers, while Obama works much more closely with Tom Coburn and considers him a close friend. Obama notes, "I don't understand why people are focusing on this one relationship" and points out the fact that he gets along with people on the religious right. Obama also points to the fact that Obama deplores the acts of Ayers 30-40 years ago, but that was a long time ago. Notes that Mayor Daley prosecuted Bernadette Dohrn (Ayers' wife and co-conspirator with Weather Underground) but now has worked alongside Ayers to help with education reform.

8:22 AM - Uniter? Or liberal paint-by-numbers? Wallace asks, "Can you point to an issue where you'd be willing to break with the Democrats?" Obama points to regulation of industry ... Republicans do better than Democrats on that issue since the 1980s. Let business figure out how they're going to reduce pollution, etc. Give targets, enforce the big picture, not the small details. Obama also points to use of charter schools, different ways of compensating teachers, etc., and says that the Republicans might have a better idea. Obama gets down to this - I want to find what works for people of America. Gives example of working with Dick Lugar, getting healthcare in Illinois, etc.

Designing issue to polarize ... partial birth abortion bans, for example. Obama said that partial-birth abortion ban didn't include provisions in case of mother's health. He voted against partial-birth abortion ban.

8:28 AM - Taxes and spending ... attacks from Republicans on taxes and spending issues. John McCain is going to go after you as a "tax and spend liberal". Obama says, "I'll go right back after John McCain." "I don't remember the rich people complaining about being oppressed" back in the 1990s and he'd move taxes back to that level for the wealthiest Americans. Capital gains would not be higher than they were under Reagan. Promising tax cuts for corporations is objectionable unless you have some way to pay for things. Obama notes that Bush tax cuts "offended the conscience" of McCain in 2001 but now McCain has changed his tune.

8:35 AM - Obama will approve Petraeus as chief of CENTCOM. Obama thinks it unfortunate that Bush Admin didn't listen more to Fallon about CENTCOM - singular focus on Iraq was a problem. Petraeus led troop surge. Obama says, It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say. But it will be my job as Commander in Chief to set the agenda. Military has no strategic reserve right now. We don't have the troops right now to deal with problems that might come up. Obama making strategic assessment that we must set a timetable for Iraq withdrawal. He'll listen to tactical considerations. But he will not let Iraqi gov't off the hook on making decisions about how they'll cooperate with each other.

8:38 AM - Obama's not ducking debate w/ Hillary. He proposed it earlier and Clinton refused. No debates between now and Indiana.

8:38 AM - Not going to answer question on Clinton as running mate until after he's the nominee.

8:39 AM - Democrats need to unite to defeat John McCain and lead the country.

8:40 AM - Obama will run first privately financed campaign since Watergate. Obama proud of running campaign w/ grassroots. Mobilizing people to finance campaign. Obama wants to limit 3rd party privately financed expenditures from McCain. Obama will pursue public financing if McCain agrees to limit outside 3rd party groups like Swift Boat Vets for Truth.

8:41 AM - I have the right temperament for presidency. I don't get too high or too low. Obama is learning from mistakes all the time ... usually has to do with me talking too much instead of listening. He also misses his family, his wife and kids. Biggest hardship of campaign has been missing the kids and wife.

Where everybody knows your name

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:04:26 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4IS0Yy15kk

Desert Dove Dan posted this video for all of us in the campaign. Who wants to go grab a beer with me this weekend?

Karl Rove is a "beer drinker"

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:39:07 EDT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/22/usa.julianborger

It just came to my attention that Karl Rove does not have a college degree.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1343.html

But apparently, he taught at the University of Texas for about 15-20 years - without a degree - in the school of journalism and public policy.

So, Karl Rove knows something about the "beer drinkers" group.

There are an awful lot of people out there who never bothered finishing college. They realized that a degree doesn't guarantee you anything other than a lot of debt. It doesn't insure a good job, or high wages. On average, college educated folks make more money. But there are a lot of powerful (and rich) people out there who never finished school.

But the college degree will do something important for you - something that can make the difference between success and failure in our society. A college degree can teach you how to think critically, instead of basing your decisions on gut feelings and prejudices.

People with college degrees NEED to make more money. Because, like Michelle and Barack Obama, they have to find a way to pay off their student loans. When you've got a $100,000 student loan, you need to make a lot more money than someone who never bothered going to school.

Maybe this is what Karl Rove and the Republicans mean by calling Obama "elitist" - that he had to pay a lot of money to get his degree. But Rove knows from the inside-out how colleges and universities work. He got to teach in a university by working the good ol' boys club. He hitched his wagon to George HW Bush around 1976 (remember, Bush was the head of the CIA under Gerald Ford) and joined the college Republicans.

Rove somehow worked his connections and got a faculty instructor position at UT-Austin. (You don't think George HW Bush had anything to do with that, do you?)

So, Rove has hung out in the institutions of higher learning. But he doesn't really have much respect for the authority of professors or the academic process. Rove believes that truth is whatever you can get away with saying.

The question every Republican must answer

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:03:06 EDT

Barack has (rightly, I think) called Republicans a party of "absolutism" rather than "conservatism".

He points to three examples: Absolutism about the role of government (there shouldn't be any except for national defense and protecting personal property), our national religion (we are an Evangelical Christian nation, and all others are wrong), and our treatment of minorities (if you don't like the majority rule, then move to Canada or France or wherever).

So, here is the question that EVERY Republican has to answer:

What if you're wrong?

We were wrong about WMD in Iraq.

Wrong about the impact of tax cuts on the economy.

Wrong about the credit crisis.

Wrong about torture.

Wrong about Muslims.

Maybe even wrong about the Florida vote in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. We'll never know.

False accusations, faulty intelligence, and a total belief in Republican ideals have left our nation in a shambles.

Every Democrat has to answer the question too.

Obama is inviting every American to think twice and listen carefully before we make snap judgments. That's why he has my support.

Worth thinking about

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:13:36 EDT

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/the-generationa.html#more

This is a pretty interesting blog post.

"Baby boomers lived on as the definitive political and economic force in American politics. In the late 60s and early 70s they expressed their social power through a burgeoning cultural and political revolution. As the 70s became the 80s they began to grow into their prime earning potential, demanding tax cuts and beginning a spending spree that would fuel almost all of the economic growth of the 1990s. They were narcissistic and short-sighted; all too willing to view an ascendant, powerful America as their personal reward for being born at the right time and place. Perhaps the greatest metaphor for this generation's attitude is the prevailing belief that the American consumer (and government) spent their way to a victory in the Cold War.

Now that it appears we've reached the limit of unrestrained consumption, they appear more than willing to take their social security checks and medicaid benefits and ride into the sunset, leaving in their wake a bankrupt, increasingly desparate younger generation. They even have the gall to claim that we're the generation of narcissists! In my mind, the struggle between Clinton and Obama lays bare this generational conflict. Unfortunately, we do not have the demographics on our side, and I'm afraid that our struggle will ultimately be unsuccessful. I'm afraid that by the time a pragmatic, problem-solving leader like Obama reaches the White House, we'll be beating ourselves over the heads with our guns (bullets having become an expensive luxury) in a vain attempt to protect our local community's water supply. I'm not saying it will be as bad as a Mel Gibson movie, but I think it will be pretty bad.

What Beer Drinkers Want

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:40:05 EDT

You're lucky I'm writing this.

Beer drinkers like me don't like talking about their feelings much. Most of us are not big talkers. We don't usually like the internet. We don't pay much attention to the news. And we don't want to be bothered.

Here's what I do know. Things were pretty good when Bill Clinton was president. Yeah, he screwed around a little bit, but when Clinton lied no one died.

I thought Bush was a pretty good president after 9/11. But then I found out about all of his lying. Now, I can't really stand to look at him. He's sending our kids to die in Iraq, and gas prices are still too high. Some of my friends still think he's great. But I don't see it.

Here's what beer drinkers like me want.

1. I don't want another terrorist attack. The next one could be worse.

2. I don't want my hard-earned money going to some other family who don't work or came here illegally.

3. If government is going to take my money, they better give me something good in return. Like healthcare or good schools for my kids.

4. I want my kids to have opportunities. The national debt is too big.

5. I don't want to get too involved in government. That's why I vote for you - to make things work for me.

6. I don't want to have to compete with illegal immigrants taking my jobs. They take the same jobs for less money, and beer drinkers like me get screwed.

7. I want government to leave me alone. I don't want someone telling me how to live my life, or criticizing my religion or my beliefs.

Why I won't support Obama

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:13:43 EDT

I'm a beer drinker. I'm a working class white man, and I make less than $50,000 a year.

I like Obama. I support him. I'm not dumb, but I'm not rich and I'm not a liberal latte-drinking Democrat.

I'm tired of politicians lying to me.

I'm tired of politicians talking to me like I'm stupid.

Everybody else gets treated like they're a special group. Well, what about the white men? We didn't do anything to cause slavery 150 years ago. We came into this country legally. We work hard. So who's going to take care of us?

I don't need someone telling me how to be an American.

If I find out that Obama is lying, or that he's not keeping his promises, that will tell me everything
I need to know. He's just like every other guy running for president.

So, you've still got to prove it to me. I don't want to watch any more commercials. I don't want to hear speeches.

One too many

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:27:01 EDT

I ran across this news story today.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1933322220080421

Here are some excerpts:

Local people called the Illinois senator arrogant, unpatriotic and un-Christian after his remarks that residents of small towns in Pennsylvania and elsewhere are bitter because of job losses, and so have turned to traditions like guns, religion and anti-immigrant sentiment.

"He is saying people are weak, dumb and naive, and they are seeking religion as a way of getting through," said Darwin Whitmoyer, 54, a white truck driver, at the gas station in this town of about 100 people 150 miles northwest of Philadelphia. "He didn't help himself."

... Whitmoyer, who said he will probably vote for Clinton, also said he opposes Obama's support for gay rights, and is suspicious of his endorsement by black TV host Oprah Winfrey.

"Anyone who walks with the true Christ is going to be against Obama," said Whitmoyer, whose license plate has the message 'I'm saved, Jesus is Lord!' He added: "Religion is going to hurt him."

Who is this Whitmoyer guy? The Pope?

I'd love to give Mr. Whitmoyer a few pointers about his religion. Jesus told us to look at the planks in our own eyes before we start trying to point out the specks in the eyes of others.

I look forward to hearing more from religious truck drivers like Mr. Whitmoyer. I'm sure there are many things we could learn from each other.

Ben in Nashville

It's not about Obama, it's about all of us

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:31:46 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LTHpk2JyGw

For me, one of the turning points in this campaign took place during an otherwise dreadfully-boring debate in Iowa, hosted by Iowa Public Radio on December 13. Hillary Clinton, going first, made a resolution to restore optimism and confidence to the American people. John Edwards talked about a constant reminder about the poor in our country. Bill Richardson talked about working together to debate the major issues.

Barack Obama said something that has stuck with me: "To be a better father, and I always want to remind myself that it's not about me, what I'm doing today. It's an enormous strain on the family ... and the only reason that is worth that sacrifice is if somehow my participation in public life is having a braoder impact on their lives and the lives of children all across the country, and so I constantly have to remind myself not to be timid not to be distorted by the fears of losing, in order to make a real difference in the lives of the American people."

And Barack is right. This movement for change is not about one person or one candidate or one political party. The Obama for America campaign is for America, not for Obama.

This campaign is about people like Laura Hubka (http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGGSZN), an ultrasound tech from Iowa whose son was injured in the war in Iraq. Laura has never been involved in politics before. She's never wanted to be involved. But the urgency of this moment, and the quality of Barack Obama compelled her to organize, to call hundreds of her neighbors and mobilize them for the Iowa caucuses, and to actively encourage all of us through the Obama HQ blogs, where she provided daily updates. She continually asked us for encouragement, and continually encouraged us to get involved.

For me, this campaign is about people like Tony (http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGxHJm), a friend of mine in Nashville who works full-time in Christian ministry. Tony went to high school with "Barry" Obama in Hawaii, and he knows that Obama has been encouraging social action and talking about these issues of change in American politics since the 1970s, when they were teenagers.

This campaign is about people like Ilya (http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGL5gR) and "J Lowe" (http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGxRlS) and "Birdalone" (http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGh5VP) who have never met me but continue to work with me from across the country, as we try to tell the truth, encourage people to learn about Obama's positions on the issues, and encourage people to talk about the change they want to see in America.

It's about Leila (http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gmjpH) and Lace (http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGjvkK) and Aaron (http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGG2lG), who actively post messages on the Obama HQ blog to tell us about the latest news, media, and information from the front lines where thousands of people are volunteering time with me to make phone calls to strangers and answer their questions about the Obama campaign.

It's about Sam Graham-Felsen, who works for the campaign in Chicago and dutifully posts blogs with incredible videos and graphics that we can share with others.

And Barack Obama is just one person. He can't change American politics. He won't do anything to change our country.

Unless ... unless he is able to bring over 1.3 million donors to own a part of this campaign.

Unless he is able to create a social networking site that allows us to meet and share ideas and find others who have similar concerns and interests.

Unless he is able to register hundreds of thousands of new voters to support him in the Democratic primary.

Unless he is able to overcome one of the strongest and most-established political machines in the world and defeat the wife of a popular, talented, and charismatic former president.

They said it couldn't be done.

They said it would be over before February.

But Barack Obama, with the help of each of us, has created the change that our American democracy desperately needs.

Yes. We. Can.

Hillary to Southern Working White Men: "Screw 'Em"

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:18:38 EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

As a Southern white working man making less than $50K a year, I'm a little pissed off by this statement.

Where's the apology?

No, apparently, all we're gonna get is more lies and denials:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clinton_aide_offers_witnesses_on_screw_em.html

Obama: We like beer

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:15:24 EDT

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_we_like_beer.html

Obama and Casey emerged from the factory to find a crowd of about 30 people gathered across the street at the Erie Beer Co.

"The steel was interesting, but beer!" Obama exclaimed before crossing the street, according to a pool report of the event.

"What's selling best right now?" Obama asked the group.

"Bud Light!" most responded.

"We like beer," Obama declared, gathering everyone around him for a photo with his buddy "Casey."

Obama Goes to Erie Beer Company

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:11:39 EDT

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/caitlinharvey/gGCxYC

Thanks to Caitlin Harvey for remembering all of us Beer Drinkers for Obama!

Tilove Writes About Me in MyBarackObama.com story

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:53:09 EDT

http://www.newhouse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48772&Itemid=94

Newhouse News Service journalist Jonathan Tilove mentioned me in an article about the MyBarackObama.com social networking feature.

It's an interesting article about the open social networking of the Obama campaign, as well as some of the potential pitfalls of the campaign's willingness to let just about anyone (including me) post a blog.

One note that Mr. Tilove didn't mention in his discussion of Israpundit. Bill Levinson, the Wilkes-Barre Republican mentioned in the article, believes that Western culture is superior to Muslim culture. He makes this point on his website, http://www.omdurman.org/. Levinson is trying to make it appear that Obama has anti-Israeli sympathies. But this effort underlies his own bias against Muslims and Muslim culture.

http://www.omdurman.org/burden.html

Tough questions about Bill Ayers

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:25:39 EDT

Personally, I think the William Ayers story is an important story. Because the situation in our nation in 2008 is not totally unlike the situation in 1968.

While John McCain was a POW in Vietnam, Ayers was protesting violently against the violence in Vietnam and the "domino theory" that drove Cold War foreign policy. Ayers was trying to speak out for soldiers like McCain, for American people frustrated with a war that wasn't working, and for a world community that was being devastated by the Cold War.

The government was failing people at that time. We were sending men to the moon, but we weren't solving people's problems on earth.

The nation was divided. MLK and JFK and RFK had all been assassinated. Malcolm X too. The nation was in turmoil. And the government was unresponsive.

The methods used by the Weathermen were WRONG, no question in my opinion. And I totally disagree with the Communist sympathies of the Weathermen.

But as Jefferson said in 1776: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." That makes it seem to me that Ayers was acting in the highest patriotic traditions of our nation.

Comments? Disagree? Agree?

Responding to Dan Schnur

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:42:34 EDT

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/right-fight-wrong-word/index.html

So, Dan Schnur is the next in line to take a stab at Barack Obama by twisting his words to mean something they don't. We shouldn't be particularly surprised by this. Schnur helped run John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. So we know where he stands.

Schnur's "new" addition to the debate is a response to the book, "What's the matter with Kansas?" Schnur notes the following about voters who go against their own best interests by supporting candidates on the basis of 'single issues':

"For many people, that’s certainly true. But there are plenty of other voters who don’t necessarily base their votes solely on jobs and taxes, and many of them are quite financially successful. They have determined their political affiliations largely as a result of the same continuing battles over abortion, guns and same-sex marriage that have drawn so many working-class voters to Republican candidates over the years. The only difference is the side of the fight they’ve chosen. It’s hard to argue that a wealthy pro-choice Democrat is any less of a values voter than a pro-life construction worker who votes Republican."

To which, I respond, "DUH!"

If the shoe doesn't even belong to you, then don't complain about how it doesn't fit you.

Schnur seems intent to stir up outrage at Obama's comments, which were directed at a very small minority of swing voters who are cynical about politics as usual, and frustrated about the fact that government doesn't seem responsive to their most important issues. Obama wasn't saying anything like, "All values-based voters are naive," or, "Republicans are closed-minded." Let's look again at what Obama actually said:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Now ... notice what Obama didn't say. He wasn't talking about "working class voters" or "uneducated voters" or "Republican voters" or "Democratic voters" or "values voters". Unlike Karl Rove, Obama didn't try to divide people into "beer drinkers" or "wine sippers" or "latte drinkers" or "pro-life" or "pro-choice". He's looking at another dynamic - cynicism because government has made empty promises they didn't keep. And the biggest issue for our democracy today is cynicism - people just aren't involved in the political process like they should be. When 40% of people don't even bother to vote, you've got a problem. When only 48% of the 60% of people who vote are supporting the winning candidate, that means you've got about 30% of American voters supporting a particular candidate.

And that, my friends, is the issue. That's Obama's heart - Project Vote, getting 150,000 new voters registered in Chicago back in the early 90s, community organizing, helping people to get involved in the process again, going directly to the people instead of engaging in "top-down" political gamesmanship. And regardless of who wins and who loses, what matters most is that people are getting involved in the political process again.

And that's the sub-text of all this "outrage" about Obama's comments. The Republican National Committee, the McCain campaign, the Clinton campaign ... their entire message is designed to tell people, "Obama's just another ordinary politician."

There's just one problem. The facts don't fit.

Schnur tries to paint Obama as naive and closed-minded. "A more experienced and open-minded candidate would recognize and respect the foundations on which these values are based."

And this is the height of hypocrisy. Because Obama truly understands the "foundations on which these values are based". He knows that there is, like Ed Rendell said, "a small minority of voters" who will not vote for a candidate simply because he's black. Obama realizes that the core issue for many voters is not "the issues" but rather a disbelief in the power of government to help people. And that belief hasn't been there since Bobby Kennedy's death in 1968.

Obama has plenty of experience - being raised in Indonesia to learn that many Muslims are not extremists, growing up as a biracial child who is neither black nor white, but both at the same time, having a single mom on food stamps, going to high school in Hawaii, having a little trouble with his own cynicism, not being accepted by the majority white culture or the minority black culture, attending Columbia University and studying international relations at a top-notch school, doing community organizing for churches in Chicago's south side, serving as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, working for Project Vote, serving a minority district in the Illinois State Senate, teaching constitutional law at one of the top conservative law schools in the country ... how much experience do you need?

Time will tell whether the "elitist" meme will stick. But this white Evangelical pro-life Tennessean male is not convinced. I think that the entire GOP strategy is disingenuous, cynical, dishonest, insincere, and wrong.

All that Dan Schnur did is make me more certain that the Republican party will say anything to dupe voters into voting against Obama.

McCain versus Himself

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:27:47 EDT

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign16apr16,1,3265497.story

"We need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties," he said. "For Republicans, it starts with reclaiming our good name as the party of spending restraint. Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose."

---

If McCain is serious about stopping wasteful spending, maybe he can start by ending the war in Iraq and cutting our defense budget. The military is not making us any safer.

$112 Billion a year

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:38:55 EDT

http://www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htmAccording to a study published today by a consortium of pro-family organizations, $112 billion or more is spent each year by our government as a result of family fragmentation. I began my clinical work with children in poverty. The majority of the boys I worked with were diagnosed with ADHD and had school performance problems or delinquency issues, but they were all being raised by single mothers. I have seen these issues emerge in the therapy office. I have seen them in my work with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Middle Tennessee. We can make a difference, but we need to work together. If we can teach healthy relationship skills to parents, foster the development of stable families, and prevent domestic violence, divorce, and addiction, we can turn the tide and help these kids.It is worth the investment. The study published today (the first of its kind) makes a conservative estimate that over $750,000,000 (yes, $750 million) is spent by the government each year in Tennessee, due to the costs of family fragmentation.

An open letter to George Will

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:29:39 EDT

George:

Since I was in high school, I've always admired your thoughtful observations on American culture. But you have also embodied elitism for me since I was in high school. You are elite in the sense that Jon Stewart reminded us about last night on "The Daily Show" - you have an air of superiority and you seem to believe that you are superior and take a proper pride in your virtues. (Why would you write all these articles and wear a bow tie on national TV if you didn't believe you had something important to say?)

But when I read your article published today, "Candidate on a High Horse," I was gravely disappointed with your tone and attitude. First, you created a straw man of Barack Obama. Second, you implied a condescension on his part that is so inaccurate and devoid of factual evidence that it's almost laughable. Third, you connected Obama with what you called the "fulfillment of modern liberalism."

Now, I agree with you in some senses that Obama fulfills a transformation of liberalism. But to place Obama within the traditions of liberalism totally misses the point - that he served as a Constitutional law professor in a bastion of conservative legal scholarship, that he worked to mobilize and encourage self-determination among groups of disenfranchised people in Chicago, that he ran for public office on a truly Republican model of government (representative government that actually represents people), and that he supports economic policies that are far more conservative than his Republican rival (who would bankrupt the nation in a war without goals, without success, and without any apparent end).

Obama is a humanist, to be sure. But to brand Obama as a "liberal" totally misses the point. Obama is a post-liberal, post-conservative, and post-modern thinker and candidate. Related to Obama, your use of the word "liberal" is clumsy and your attribution of liberalism to Obama is ludicrous.

Obama, like millions of Americans born after the baby boom, has grown up watching older Americans debate about Reaganomics, the Cold War, the stock market tech bubble, and now the credit crisis. George HW Bush's branding of Michael Dukakis as a "liberal" might have worked in 1988, but at that time we were not at war, we were not in a recession, and the Cold War was on the brink of victory.

This is a different world. And while John McCain is still recalling the glory days of the late 1980s, the rest of America is incensed about the irresponsibility of our national government. To put it bluntly, most Americans truly are "mad as hell," and Michelle Obama has touched a nerve which alienates the 30% of conservatives who still support GW Bush while resonating with the 70% of Americans who are sick and tired of the direction this country is going.

Obama supports tax policies that would create "bigger government," to be sure. But his economic plans create programs that will pay for themselves in savings to the American people - a healthier, more educated, and motivated populace. Obama is not looking for free handouts like we saw during the Great Society - Obama realizes that government cannot solve every problem. But in the YouTube era, Obama recognizes the opportunity to mobilize voters in ways that couldn't have been imagined in 1984. And as a result, he is inviting voters into political action who would never have believed that government could actually work for them and with them.

To summarize: you missed the mark in trying to pin Obama down as a liberal. Like Ronald Reagan before him, Obama is tapping into deep dissatisfaction with Washington politics-as-usual - a scandalized politics that has broken the faith of the American people. And like Reagan, who followed Nixon with straight talk and populist Republicanism, Barack Obama is following the moral bankruptcy of the Clinton era by advocating for a populist progressive politics that is successfully changing the field in American politics.

Cordially,

Ben Vos

Nashville, TN

Thank you Jack Cafferty

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:30:56 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G8dRMofHNs

John McCain trying to spin Obama as an elitist?

What a stinkin joke.

Hillary Clinton trying to spin Pennsylvania as optimistic about the economy?

Girl, you need to stop taking your prozac and wake up.

Jack Cafferty nailed it.

"Really, and this is from John McCain? They call it the Rust Belt for a reason ... people are frustrated ... there's nothing new here ... the jerks in Washington DC as represented by the Bushes and the Clintons and the McCains ... are to blame for the deteroriating conditions ... I'm a college dropout and I can figure the damn thing out."

John McCain - political and moral failure

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:36:46 EDT

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/McCain_We_have_come_a_long_way.html

"To [succeed in Iraq], we must continue to help the Iraqis protect themselves against the terrorists and the insurgents. We must press ahead against al Qaeda, the radical Shia militias and the Iranian-backed Special Groups. We must continue to support the Sunni volunteers of the Iraqi Awakening as they stand up to al Qaeda in Iraq. And we must continue to build the capacity of the Iraqi security forces so they can play an ever stronger and more neutral role in suppressing violence.

This means rejecting, as we did in 2007, the calls for a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces at the moment when they are succeeding. I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal – my goal – is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I also believe that to promise a withdrawal of our forces, regardless of the consequences, would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership." - John McCain, April 8, 2008, Senate Armed Services Committee hearings with Gen. David Petraeus

A reckless and irresponsible withdrawal would certainly be a mistake, especially if they are succeeding. But the Republican leadership has moved the goalposts so many times, I'm not sure what the terms of success are anymore. The real failure of political and moral leadership is the failure to define victory, the failure to avoid collateral damage to civilians and prevent civil war in Iraq, the failure to understand the intelligence reports and the failure of those reports. We have also made the war in Iraq a lightning rod for Muslim extremists to paint America as an empire of evil. The failure of leadership is continuing to spend $100 billion a year on a war with no exit strategy, no clear terms of victory, and no plan to pay for the war (we're just putting it on a credit card to Arab nations and China), and no timetables to measure success.

That, my friends, is a failure of political and moral leadership.

Polling Trends: Obama Support Grows

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:07:29 EDT

I just saw the latest polls from Gallup and Rasmussen, which show Obama opening up a statistically significant lead again v. Clinton after the most recent PR flap regarding Jeremiah Wright.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

The "RCP Average" - a poll of polls that looks at trends in polling - shows a clear trend over the past 3 months. While you can see that some of the ups and downs in the polls suggest minor changes in the numbers, there is one trend that becomes clear when you look at the 3-month averages.

Hillary Clinton's support hasn't moved. Barack Obama's support has dramatically increased.

What does that tell us? Well, for one thing, that the amazing campaign organization of Obama has mobilized an army of supporters which we have never seen before. The most striking thing about Obama's supporters is that so many of them are politically active - and he seems to encourage it! Meanwhile, Clinton's message hasn't changed, and it's basically been more of the same thing - "I have the experience, and I am ready to lead on day one." Hillary Clinton has not encouraged people to think seriously about Barack Obama as a candidate. Instead, her attacks have focused on his "inexperience," and the "unanswered questions" about him. Hillary says, "I've been tested, I've been vetted." It's not true. But among her supporters, there is nothing left to decide. She doesn't want them to think, pay attention, or ask tough questions. She wants them to doubt, stop thinking, and just "shut up and vote".

Hillary Clinton's supporters haven't changed their minds. And she's not really attracting new groups of voters in the numbers that Obama is. Her support has remained the same - it has "flatlined". Meanwhile, a dramatic spike in support for Obama came after the win in Iowa - some of that support snapped back to Clinton after New Hampshire, but since that time Clinton's support has hovered around 42% while Obama's support has grown from 22% to 31%, then to 41%, and now to 48%.

Most interesting in the recent polling is the fact that, for the first time, Obama is consistently holding above 50% overall support from the Democrats. This trend is likely to hold through June and build into August.

So, while chief pollster Mark Penn can try to find small trends here and there (Obama has a tough time with Latinos in some states, less support from women, less support among industrial-class men who didn't complete high school, etc.), the overall trend is this: The more people see Obama staying in the race and beating Clinton, the more they believe in his ability to lead.

Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for challenging and testing the faith of the Democratic base and the new Obama supporters. I look forward to the day when you'll stop attacking Barack Obama and join me in endorsing him as the future president of the United States.

Women, families, marriage, and poverty

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:09:18 EDT

Even for married women, the decision between career and family life is extremely difficult. Pregnancy and childbearing is costly - physically, emotionally, and financially. But women have to decide if it's worth the investment. They also have to decide how a man will be involved in that process.

For all, if you haven't already read it - there is a great new book on this subject called "Marriage and Caste in America" written by Kay Hymowitz. In the book, she describes the connection between the increase in out-of-wedlock pregnancy and issues of poverty. It has really helped me to sharpen my understanding of the issue.

Kay Hymowitz is an agnostic and I'm not sure if she's pro-life or pro-choice. But she discusses the fact that, for many children in poverty (and for children whose parents do not have a college education), they see themselves as "grown up" when they are teenagers. It is this attitude, and not "a lack of sex education," that seems to be the biggest reason why teen pregnancy rates increased until 1990. Childbearing was disconnected from "traditional marriage" back in the 1960s (Hymowitz makes some very interesting points about Supreme Court decisions and how they impacted our understanding of family law), and this attitude led lower-income Americans to have a dramatic increase in pregnancy out of wedlock. It's not about a "choice" for these women, it's frequently the fact that they don't see a need to get married and earn a living before they have a baby. And that - not access to abortion - is the real reason why we have so much teen pregnancy.

This runs totally contrary to the ideas of the Guttmacher Institute, for instance, which claims that there is a lack of "sex education". It's not the fact that kids don't know that sex can get you pregnant. It's not the fact that kids feel pressured to have sex. It's not that kids don't know about birth control. It's the fact that kids - teenagers - see themselves as young adults and believe that they are "ready" to have kids. Kids get pregnant for the same reason they smoke or drink - it's "aspirational" marketing and they feel that a child will make them "grown up" or "mature".

For more on this topic, please visit:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/marriage_and_caste/

It's a fascinating read, even if you don't agree with all of the things she says. (And I don't, by the way... but that's another story.)

One more thought - Paul Amato of Penn State University wrote a very interesting study on economics and marriage.

The book is titled "A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval". In the book, he looks at research that suggests that kids are best off in a situation where dad works full-time and mom works part-time, and mom and dad are happily married.

Karl Rove wants you.

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:18:52 EDT

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/A_preview_of_things_to_come.html

Karl Rove has another trick up his sleeve. Lots of truthiness, as usual.

Barack Obama "is an elitist" who "looks down his nose at people". Also, "he doesn't do his homework".

Rove thinks a lot of "blue collar" (whatever the hell that is) people will gravitate toward McCain because of this picture of Obama.

I'm not buying what he's selling.

Karl Rove is looking for more beer drinkers. It's official. He wants to bamboozle you.

Obama's been standing for the little guy since the time McCain dumped his wife for a rich heiress who was addicted to pain pills. Now, I am not putting down McCain or his wife. HOWEVER ... Karl needs to stop playing games.

Not. This. Time. Karl Rove, you lose.

Loyalty and the Dysfunctional Family

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:54:33 EDT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040100885.html

In his op-ed posted online today, Bill Richardson responded to the James Carville statement comparing Richardson to the biblical Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus for 30 coins.

Richardson's chosen title, "Loyalty to my Country," makes his key point. Loyalty to America is more important than loyalty to a person or party. And Barack Obama represents that kind of higher calling - he is calling for what's best in America and not just marching in political lockstep.

According to James Carville, who recently decided to move (out of loyalty?) back to his native New Orleans and leave Washington, "loyalty is a cardinal virtue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032802826.html

Carville suggests that standing by the Clintons through tough times is critically important in politics. In other words, he is calling on Democrats to unite behind Hillary Clinton, just as Hillary Clinton stood by her man through a time of crisis in their marriage.

Carville resurrects memories of the release of the Clinton's campaign song, a YouTube video in which Hillary and Bill sit in a diner, mimicking the last episode of the Sopranos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEPcJlz2wE

The loyalty demands of a family are important to the stability of that family. As a therapist, I frequently have spoken with families where the loyalty demands are all that keep them together. I've seen couples who stay married because they feel they HAVE to, even though they don't WANT to. I've seen situations where family pain, shame, and secrets are kept hidden out of loyalty. These loyalty demands are also at the heart of the Catholic church's sexual abuse scandals, which have been revealed over the past several years by adult children who are no longer willing to suffer in silence.

Dysfunctional families follow these rules: "Don't talk. Don't trust. Don't feel." Unspoken family rules keep children stuck in roles that they didn't choose. One child is the hero, another child is the scapegoat. We comfort ourselves with playing these roles - consciously or unconsciously - because we don't want to upset the fragile balance. And so, in dysfunctional families, we tolerate the intolerable and accept the unacceptable.

When families get into recovery, the balance is thrown off. Anyone who breaks the family rules is at risk of being attacked, vilified, or cut-off. And in fact, that is exactly what James Carville is trying to do with Bill Richardson. Richardson is being made an example: don't break the rules, or we'll break you.

In the movie, The Godfather, the common refrain is, "It's not personal. It's business." It should be clear, by now, that the Clinton "family" is modeling itself off of the behavior of organized crime families. Anyone who supports Clinton should think twice before they get involved in this dysfunctional family system.

True patriotism does not prohibit dissent. In fact, dissent is patriotic, if it calls us to become better. Thank you, Gov. Richardson, for breaking out of the dysfunctional system. It took courage.

Learn to bowl with Barack

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:34:55 EDT

http://www.expertvillage.com/video-series/252_beginning-bowling.htm

OK, friends,

Barack has a serious bowling deficiency.

Word from MSNBC this morning is that Barack rolled a 37. Of course, he also said that he hasn't bowled for over 30 years.

I guess you can't be good at anything. Add it to his list of weaknesses.

But Obama is doing something great - and bowling leagues everywhere should be rejoicing.

Barack Obama is bringing people back into political life. For the first time since Watergate, he's making it exciting to be involved in politics, and more importantly, to get along with people who are different.

In his book, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam points to the decrease in bowling league participation as an example of our nation's lack of "social capital". Social capital is a term Putnam used to describe the connections that we have with each other - union membership, church attendance, political involvement, sports league participation. All of these things we used to do together, and then we stopped.

Obama is a community organizer first, and a politician second.

That's the kind of leadership we need - if we want to get America back, we need to get involved again.

Even if we suck at bowling. It's still worth getting out there.

Laissez-Faire Economics, Pre-Emptive War

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:18:05 EDT

I'm looking forward to reading Henry Paulson's thoughtful overview and "blueprint for regulatory reform," which is calling for sweeping revisions and changes to our financial market regulation. Paulson seems to suggest that the Federal Reserve take on a role much more like our Supreme Court - with a group which is not elected to office making major decisions about our financial markets and their regulation.

Using a nonpartisan group to make these regulatory decisions is a good idea. But without the appropriate checks and balances, it will be easy for the rich to make too much of an impact in how our financial markets are regulated.

It's the "Golden Rule" - whoever has the gold makes the rules.

Bloomberg News has a good introductory story from some folks who seem to understand the issues.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=akNKu.fYiiqY&refer=home

Paulson's 218-page ``Blueprint for Regulatory Reform,'' commissioned two months before credit markets seized up in August, said more rules aren't ``the answer'' to the current period of turmoil. The former chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said the structure of regulating banks, securities firms and insurance companies is outmoded, and the Federal Reserve should expand its oversight of financial services beyond banks.

---

What I'm most concerned about in the Bush Administration is the irresponsible decision to cut taxes for the wealthy while our nation is at war. Barack Obama has spoken out consistently against the war - not only on moral grounds, but on the grounds of foreign policy and economics. While the dollar continues to drop against foreign currencies, we are seeing huge increases in federal debt to foreign countries like China, Mexico, and Bahrain.

Laissez-faire economics combined with a military strategy of pre-emptive war are not conducive to our national security. Fiscal conservatives should join me in supporting Barack Obama, whose spending policies would actually save the country money because they are wise investments. Investing in education will pay for itself 7 times over. Investment in health care will keep our workforce productive and help us keep our commitment to senior citizens. But putting our inflated military budget on a credit card is a horrible economic strategy. What's more, it will lead our nation into economic depression if we don't see some increase in wages.

Press Contacts

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:00:04 EDT

ABC News
77 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-456-7777
General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com

Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com
20/20: 2020@abc.com

CBS News
524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-975-4321
Fax: 212-975-1893

Email forms for all CBS news programs

CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com
The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com
60 Minutes II: 60II@cbsnews.com
48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com
Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com

CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1906
Email forms for all CNN news programs

Fox News Channel
1211 Ave. of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Fax: (212) 301-4229
comments@foxnews.com

List of Email addresses for all Fox News Channel programs

Special Report with Brit Hume: Special@foxnews.com
FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com
Hannity & Colmes: Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com
On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com

NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112
Phone: 212-664-4444
Fax: 212-664-4426

List of Email addresses for all NBC news programs

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@msnbc.com
NBC News Today: today@nbc.com
Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com

MSNBC
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Phone: (201) 583-5000
Fax: (201) 583-5453

CNBC
2200 Fletcher Ave.
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Phone: (201) 585-2622
Fax: (201) 583-5453

List of Email addresses for all MSNBC news programs

Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: msnbcreports@msnbc.com

PBS
1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-739-5000
Fax: 703-739-8458

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: newshour@pbs.org

National Radio Programs

National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753
Phone: 202-513-2000
Fax: 202-513-3329
E-mail: Chantal de la Rionda, assistant to the Ombudsman ombudsman@npr.org

All Things Considered: atc@npr.org
Morning Edition: morning@npr.org
Talk Of The Nation: totn@npr.org

List of Email addresses for all NPR news programs

The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas, NY 10020
Phone: 800-282-2882
Fax: 212-563-9166
E-mail: rush@eibnet.com

Sean Hannity Show
E-mail: Phil Boyce, Program Director phil.boyce@abc.com

National Newspapers

The Los Angeles Times
202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000
Fax: 213-237-4712

Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com
Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com

L.A. Times Contact Information by Department

The New York Times
229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-556-1234
Fax: 212-556-3690
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300

Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com
Write to the news editors: nytnews@nytimes.com

New York Times Contact Information by Department
How to Contact New York Times Reporters and Editors
USA Today
7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108
Phone: 800-872-0001 or 703-854-3400
Fax: 703-854-2165

Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com

Give feedback to USA Today

The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-416-2000
Fax: 212-416-2658

Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com

The Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071
Phone: 202-334-6000
Fax: 202-334-5269

Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com

Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors

Magazines

Newsweek
251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-445-4000
Fax: 212-445-5068

Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com

Time
Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-522-1212
Fax: 212-522-0323

Letters to the Editor letters@time.com

U.S. News & World Report
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-955-2000
Fax: 202-955-2049

Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com

News Services / Wires

Associated Press
50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-621-1500
Fax: 212-621-7523

General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org

Partial Contact Information for the Associated Press by Department and Bureau

Reuters
Three Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 646-223-4000

Reuters Editorial Feedback

United Press International
1510 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202.898.8000
FAX: 202.898.8057

The mortgage credit crisis and Clinton's campaign manager

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:57:26 EDT

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_campaign_manager_was_d.html#more

An article published by Newsday's Glenn Thrush indicates that Hillary Clinton's long-time chief of staff (and current campaign manager) Maggie Williams served on the corporate board of a company which went bankrupt in December 2007. Delta Financial Corp. brought Maggie Williams on as a corporate board member from 2000 (when Hillary Clinton went to the NY Senate) until 2007, just before she went to work as Clinton's campaign manager.

Here is some info directly from the article:

Calls to Delta executives, board members and their bankruptcy lawyer weren’t returned. The company’s switchboard and Web site have been deactivated in the last few days.

Williams turned down repeated requests to be interviewed, although her assistant, Amee Patel, provided brief responses to several written questions by e-mail.

Asked if she shared her experiences in the industry with Clinton, Patel responded, “She generally does not discuss her business, board memberships or organizational affiliations with the Senator.”

----

The Clinton campaign has recently criticized Barack Obama for receiving donations from financial services corporations, and for his close relationship with Finance Co-Chair Penny Pritzker, who has been involved with Superior Bank - a lender criticized heavily for failing in 2001 while the bank's executives (including Pritzker) kept profits. Several Clinton supporters have called for Pritzker's immediate resignation from the Obama campaign. Will they make a similar call for Maggie Williams to resign immediately from the Clinton campaign? Will they ask for Clinton to release her tax records immediately, so that America can learn about Bill Clinton's relationship with the Yucaipa Fund?

Obama and my family - must read

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:59:38 EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/25/195813/893/925/484202

An open letter to Thomas Sowell

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:47:06 EDT

Mr. Sowell:

I have always appreciated your thoughtful, nuanced, and often creative reflections on our political landscape. I was very excited to read your article, "The Audacity of Rhetoric," expecting it to include some insight about words, deeds, and intentions. I was disappointed by what I read.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/post_25.html

To begin, you make a relatively benign point - that Barack Obama wasn't just "in the wrong place at the wrong time," but rather that his choice to embrace blackness was something of a "conversion experience." Like many converts, you say, he went "overboard".

I suppose, by the same token, you might embrace an Aristotelian theory of virtue as a "golden mean" between two extreme vices. In many cases, this is true. But when it comes to first principles or core values, following the "golden mean" will only lead to mediocrity.

I'm reminded of something the Apostle Paul said in his letter to the Galatians (a polemical letter, if nothing else). He said, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law." In other words, you can never go "overboard" if you're being guided by the Holy Spirit. There is no limit to the goodness or virtue of love, joy, peace, patience, etc. In railing against the cultural elitism of the Judaizers, who claimed that non-Jews needed to be circumcized in order to be saved, Paul pointed to a spiritual reality that was much more important than ethnic rituals.

Obama is not responsible for Wright's statements. And like most church-going folks, he didn't leave church just because his pastor said something he disagreed with. Obama did make a conscious decision to identify himself with the poor, black, and disenfranchised in the south side of Chicago. But in many ways, this decision was made for him by his biracial identity. As Wright pointed out, Hillary Clinton has never been told that she's "not white enough". Obama has been the object of racist judgments from all ethnic groups, because he's too white for blacks and too black for non-blacks.

Hillary never had to experience the subtle, systemic racism that tells you that you must give up your heritage in order to join the powerful and privileged in the halls of academia. (She did, however, have to deal with gender inequalities during the 1960s and 70s, and claims that she's had to fight against these inequalities for her entire career. Whether this is legitimate or just sour grapes has not been addressed sufficiently by anyone in the media.) As Michelle Robinson Obama pointed out in her senior thesis at Princeton, there is a price to pay when you try to get ahead in our academic culture. You are frequently forced to make decisions between a culture-of-origin which offers familiarity but not opportunity, versus an aspirational culture that promises opportunity but requires you to give up your identity.

Barack Obama exquisitely felt that as a biracial man raised by white family members. Being seen as "different" created a core identity crisis for him. Shelby Steele may have written about that, but did so uncharitably. What Obama decided to do was to side not just with black rage, but with the hope of the Gospel and the identity of Christ who identified with the poor and disenfranchised.

What's missing from the recent news about Jeremiah Wright is the Gospel, which is at the core of everything he does and says. Wright is not alone in pointing to God's preference for the poor, widow, orphan, and alien. The Catholic Church teaches the same. John Howard Yoder, a Mennonite who taught at Notre Dame, wrote "The Politics of Jesus" to outline these same truths. More recently, Stanley Hauerwas has joined the chorus calling for Christians to be "resident aliens" in the midst of a culture hostile to Christian values.

What Wright has pointed out in his rejection of "middleclassness" is the fact that poor, disenfranchised citizens in our country ought not to aspire to capitalistic greed, but rather that we need to pursue economic and social justice.

That is the core message that Obama can consistently identify with, because it's the same message taught by his white mother and his Kenyan father. As a world citizen, Obama realizes that even the poorest American has more material wealth and financial resources than 90% of the world. So his concern isn't merely about American economic inequality, but also world poverty and global economic injustice.

By focusing too much on race, and not enough on class, you've turned Wright and Obama into straw men. Neither Wright nor Obama is concerned about race so much as injustice. And surely you ought to understand that minorities in the U.S. are at tremendous economic and social disadvantage. So ultimately, it's not a black-white issue. It's an issue of socioeconomic justice. And that is the point that is consistently made by Judeo-Christian culture in opposition to the excesses of the Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, Romans, and Euro-centric cultures which have dominated throughout world history.

You've missed the point - whether intentionally or unintentionally. Your next article will tell me whether you are willing to explore the truth or whether you're just engaging in an uncharitable read of Wright and Obama.

Info about the African Church Obama attends

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:39:03 EDT

Being a black church in a predominantly black part of Chicago is not a bad thing, and as Jane Fisler Hoffman said, it's very welcoming to white members as well.

Part of the "African identity" of Trinity UCC is a theological issue. It's very complicated, and since I've taken some graduate courses in theology, I hope I can fill you in. Over the course of history, the "western church" has dominated the spread of Christianity to Europe and the Americas. The church in Africa included the "desert fathers" who went into monastic life as a protest of the excesses of the Roman Empire after Constantine became a Christian and made Christianity a "state religion" of the Roman Empire.

African Christians protested the ways that the Roman church tried to distort the Christian gospel to suit their own political interests. This history is important, because when we think of "the Christian Church" we usually think of the Roman Church. It was the Roman church that led the Crusades. It was the Roman church that led the Spanish Inquisition and supported the enslavement of Africans in the early modern era. The Roman Church was also considered to be part of rampant anti-semitism in Europe that contributed to the Holocaust.

By staying close to African Christian history, Trinity UCC has followed the African thread of Christianity. This doesn't mean that they are racist. It means that they celebrate the identity of African Christians as full participants in history with their own unique perspective and story to tell.

What does this mean? It means that black people don't have to worship a blond haired, blue eyed Jesus. In fact, historians believe that Jesus was most likely a person of color, like many Arabs or Africans you'd see today. The African church celebrates the fact that God said, "out of Egypt I called my son," and that Jesus spent time in Egypt (Matthew 2) when the Roman empire tried to kill every boy under the age of 2, shortly after the time of Jesus' birth.

It is in that context that Wright said, "I'm so glad that I have a God who understands what it means to be a poor black man!"

Hope that helps. It doesn't excuse the inflammatory attacks on Hillary Clinton. It doesn't excuse the fact that Wright tried to win a political victory from the pulpit, of that the remarks offend or exclude people.

Helpful info on Jeremiah Wright

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:19:39 EDT

http://www.festivalofhomiletics.com/2005agenda.html - note that Wright was a presenter at a mainstream festival of homiletics (preaching or commenting on the Bible as a pastor) in 2005.

The 2008 event will be held this May in Minneapolis, MN. Otis Moss III (new pastor of Trinity UCC) will be speaking.By the way, there are plenty of pastors who commented on American sin after 9/11, who have spoken out boldly about racism and economic injustice, and who have addressed the unlawful and unjust invasion of Iraq.

Rather than comparing Jeremiah Wright to Jerry Falwell, why not compare him to Martin Luther King, Jr.? King spent time in prison, spoke out boldly about injustice (even though there were plenty of folks like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace who tried to argue for a segregationist agenda), and was seen as anti-America by many at the time.

Read "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis if you want to know more. Or "A Generous Orthodoxy" by Brian McLaren.

And if you wonder whether racism is still an issue in this country, check this out:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/COLUMNIST0107/803160365/1101

or learn more about racist attitudes in Tennessee at:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880312013

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/02/11/arrests_made_in_tenn_mosque_fire/6919/

So, is Jeremiah Wright wrong about racism in America today? Is he oversensitive? I mean, haven't we moved past the MLK assassination and Jim Crow laws and slavery and all that?

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell doesn't thing so:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/

I don't understand the argument

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:41:22 EDT

I don't understand the argument coming out of some media outlets that suggests Barack Obama has to "deliver the knockout punch". I mean, we're dealing with our own fellow Democrats. Why is it a good thing for us to prove who can make our fellow Democrat look worse?

The Clinton campaign will obviously stop at nothing to win, and they will do or say anything to get an advantage.

But this is just the politics of the past.

We don't need to worry about beating the opponent.

All we need to do is focus on telling the truth and making more friends.

This change will come from the bottom-up, not the top-down.

Questions about Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy Experience

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:26:57 EDT

http://thepage.time.com/obama-foreign-policy-memo/

To: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times.” Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_s_Foreign_Policy_Experience_Just_Words

As promised, an open thread

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:06:55 EDT

Please use this to discuss your choice for strong VP candidates. Who would you choose? Why?

Just to keep organized, I suggest that you use the subject line to name your VP candidate. For instance, write a comment with the title, "Hillary Clinton?" This will make it easier for others to respond.

Obviously, my personal feeling is that this is the wrong time to discuss VP candidates. Obama still needs to win the nomination! But if you just can't resist, here's a place to shout from the rooftops. Who would you like to see as our next VP?

Nixon or Clinton?

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:32:59 EST

OK, who is more damaging to their political party: Richard Nixon or Hillary Clinton?

No fair just smearing or writing against someone for the sake of attack. This is a serious question.

Who is more damaging to the reputation and integrity of their party?

Good Bye, Samantha Power

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:04:22 EST

Samantha Power is an award-winning truth teller who won the Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for her important work on American foreign policy and genocide during the 20th century.

While her comments, calling Hillary Clinton a "monster," were out of line, her message remains. The Clinton campaign was complicit in allowing the genocide in Rwanda during the 1990s. When they had the power to do something, they actually encouraged UN Peacekeepers to move out of the region, helping diplomats escape while their house stewards were raped and murdered.

You might remember this story from the movie, "Hotel Rwanda," which depicted the work of Paul Rusesabagina to prevent the genocide and respond to the crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYwuXvA589A

Samantha Power spoke the truth. Unfortunately, many in the United States are still ignorant to the continuing genocide in the Darfur region, as well as the humanitarian crisis created by the Iraq invasion by US troops in 2003.

Sadly, by speaking out in insulting terms against Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power broke the rules of diplomacy. Her violation is miniscule compared to the atrocities tolerated by the Clintons. As Jesus once said, "You strain a gnat and swallow a camel."

Open Thread: Michigan and Florida Delgates

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:48:46 EST

This is an open discussion thread on the Michigan and Florida delegates. The Democratic National Committee has prohibited Michigan and Florida from seating its delegates at the national convention in Denver, because they moved their dates ahead of schedule and defied the will of the DNC. Recent discussions between Charlie Crist, Jennifer Granholm, and others have suggested that the states of Michigan and Florida might be interested in holding a primary later this spring as a way of allowing delegates to be seated. Howard Dean has taken a hardline approach, and continues to refuse to seat delegates based on the results of premature primaries held in January. He has, however, shown openness to the idea of later primaries or caucuses which could be used to seat delegates.

What are you hearing in the media? Please share stories, etc., in the comments section of this blog.

Open thread: Obama is not a Muslim

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:39:14 EST

Although this story has been thoroughly debunked by the media and the Obama campaign, there continues to be a lot of discussion in the blogosphere about the idea that Barack Obama is a Muslim. He is not. More information is available on this topic at http://factcheck.barackobama.com, but I wanted to open this thread for any media coverage of the issue, as well as discussions about how the Obama campaign can effectively respond to the false accusations against Obama's religion, as well as GOP efforts to use religion as a wedge issue in the campaign.

Open Thread: Obama and the Rezko trial

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:30:24 EST

This is an open thread for information about the developing story on Tony Rezko's trial for corruption in Chicago. Rezko was an early supporter of Obama in the Illinois state senate and Obama has never been accused of any wrongdoing, even after extensive investigation by local newspapers. The Hillary Clinton campaign, led by its communications director Howard Wolfson, has attempted to push this issue into the news. He holds frequent conference calls where he uses the Rezko case as a way of deflecting responsibility for his own candidate's dishonesty and corruption.

Open thread: NAFTA, Canada, and the Obama campaign

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:19:27 EST

This is an open discussion thread for Obama's media problems with NAFTA and the Canadian consulate. Please add any information you have about this developing news story in the comments section.

Tennessee Delegate Selection

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:09:32 EST

15 At-Large Delegates and 4 Alternates will be selected by the State Democratic Executive Committee during their meeting on March 8th, 2008.
Anyone who has submitted a Statement of Candidacy and Presidential Preference form is eligible to be selected as an At-Large Delegate or Alternative. Additional at-large candidates have an alternate deadline of 12 noon (CST) on Friday, March 7th, 2008 to complete and return this form.

The entire Tennessee National Convention Delegation will be selected by March 8th, 2008.

http://www.tndp.org/index.php

a note to Jenny from Providence

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:45:09 EST

Jenny, I just read your note from the Obama blog. I was so sad to hear that someone was not treating you right.

I try to remind people who support Obama that arrogance, pride, ridicule, and distortions are not the Obama way. We don't attract people to the political process by tearing down our opponents. We attract people to the political process the same way we attract people in general. We find common ground. We listen, and listen, and listen some more. We ask questions. We pay attention. We stay positive.

Jenny, I don't know if you'll read this, but I hope you do. I hope that you can realize that, in spite of the imperfections of his supporters, Barack Obama is a decent man who is running a decent campaign and seeking to restore decency and honesty and integrity to the White House. And I'll be totally honest - I have not seen honesty and integrity in the White House during my entire adult life.

So, don't give up. Don't lose hope. We can change the world. It's not a false hope. It's not a fairy tale. It's not impossible. It is happening.

Clinton's sexist remarks today

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:42:30 EST

"I know we're all looking forward to when that moving van comes up to the White House... We're gonna have to clean house. Women are pretty good at that." - Hillary Clinton, March 1, 2008, Fort Worth, TX

And yet, she accuses the media of being sexist???

Beer Drinkers for Obama

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:53:46 EST

http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_8417812

"The working Democrat likes Hillary a lot better," said Ellen Malcolm, head of the EMILY'S List, which works to elect Democratic women, including Clinton. She also believes Clinton has been the subject of sexist reporting and commentary in the media, reinforcing male stereotypes of women leaders.

And campaign supporters make no apology for the laser-focus attention Clinton has given to women voters. In virtually every primary, women voters are the majority who vote in Democratic primaries.

How can people like Ellen Malcolm encourage the storyline that Clinton is the subject of sexist reporting, when Clinton has decided to accept the support of organizations like International Profit Associates, which is currently facing criticism and a lawsuit from 103 female employees who claim they were sexually harrassed?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718538.aspx

It seems a little weird to me. Hillary Clinton can laugh with the best of them, and her easygoing attitude toward sexism shows clearly that she's used to the "boys club". But as Barack Obama has said, do we need a leader who's mastered a broken system? Or do we need someone to change the game?

I don't think that Hillary Clinton will change things. For example, in 1995, Hillary Clinton was silenced by Chinese leaders during a speech on human and women's rights. She didn't change anything. She was cut off. In 1993, Hillary Clinton was on a mission to push universal health care. She alienated herself from people like my US Rep, Jim Cooper. Her healthcare initiative failed.

Hillary Clinton deserves some credit for badgering her husband in 1998, when Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch worked together to create the Children's Health Insurance program. But it wasn't her program. She takes credit for it, but it wasn't her plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program

And moreover, the SCHIP program hasn't helped to reduce the number of uninsured children in middle class families that are 200% or more above the poverty line.

http://www.vimo.com/reports/uninsured.pdf

Barack Obama helped to insure 150,000 more children in Illinois while he was in the state Senate. He pushed through legislation to change the approach to death penalty cases, and to insure that interrogations are videotaped. He worked across the aisle with Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to create more transparency in government. He worked across the aisle to create ethics reform legislation in the US Senate.

Barack Obama knows how to respond in a crisis. He knows how to get things done. And he is changing the tone in politics.

Iraq War Timeline

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:57:09 EST

http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline

This is, quite simply, an outstanding timeline of what happened in Iraq.

TN GOP is out of bounds, out of step with national politics

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:27:59 EST

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/RNC_threatens_Tenn_GOP.html

RNC has sent what amounts to a "cease and desist" letter to the TN GOP regarding its smear email about Barack Obama. But the damage is done - expect to see a big fundraising push in April for McCain in TN, according to today's Tennessean newspaper:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/NEWS0206/802270452/1016

Ted Welch, who was a big Bush supporter in TN in 2000 and 2004, has moved from the Romney camp to begin supporting McCain. (Welch was the Republican National Committee finance chair during the time when Reagan came to power in 1979-80.)

http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/Ted_Welch.html

But Welch apparently sees McCain as his third choice. He would have supported Fred Thompson after Romney.

http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/04/why_the_gops_best_fundraiser_d.html

He will take any Republican over a Democrat, but you have to ask yourself ... if Mike Huckabee won Tennessee, and Fred Thompson was the top fundraiser (Romney was second), then is Tennessee really committed to McCain? Perhaps they need to create an enemy they can rally behind. By casting Barack Obama as a sympathizer with "Islamofascists", they can generate support and energy behind the "war on terror".

The GOP is depending on the politics of division to hide its own disorganization and lack of principled leadership. Like the GOP nationally, the party in TN is divided between social conservatives (who support Huckabee and drove his victory in the Feb 5 primary), fiscal conservatives (exemplified best by freshman Sen. Bob Corker who railed against the recent economic stimulus package as a "political stimulus"), and war-on-terror Republicans (who see Islamofascism as a constant threat and are looking for a war to fight).

Clinton versus Clinton in foreign policy speech

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:40:58 EST

"We need a president who understands there is a time for force, a time for diplomacy, and a time for both, who understands that we enhance our international reputation and strengthen our security if the world sees the human face of American democracy in the good works, the good deeds we do for people seeking freedom from poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, and oppression."

and in the same speech,

"If I am entrusted with the presidency, America will have the courage, once again, to meet with our adversaries."

and two sentences later,

"But we simply cannot legitimize rogue regimes or weaken American prestige by impulsively agreeing to presidential level talks that have no preconditions. It may sound good but it doesn’t meet the real world test of foreign policy. "

and then she criticizes Obama:

"Senator Obama, meanwhile, represents another choice. He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve the world’s most intractable problems, to advocating rash unilateral military action without cooperation from our allies in the most sensitive region of the world."

But wait, Senator Clinton. Did you not say moments earlier that, "there is a time for force, a time for diplomacy, and a time for both"? Perhaps you disagree with his judgment. But don't disagree with yourself.

Finally, waver? While it is clear that you wavered from criticizing Obama for suggesting negotiations with Iran to agreeing with Obama that direct diplomacy is a good idea.

Responding to Harold Ickes

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:45:42 EST

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/25/clinton_camp_plans_continued_b.html

"This is no compelling reason to shut this process down," the senior adviser to Hillary Clinton told a group of reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, "and there's no compelling reason not to allow the remaining states to vote and register their preferences, and there are very compelling reasons to keep the process going longer and have more voices heard."

Well, Mr. Ickes, let me give you a few compelling reasons:

1. 25 of the 37 contests to date have gone to Obama. Obama has won over 2/3 of the states so far, and seems to be on track for even more winning next week.

2. The Democratic Party is being divided by the harsh tone of the Clinton campaign. Democrats are longing for change after 8 years of Bush, and these hopes are being attacked by Hillary Clinton herself. While Barack Obama would like to show respect to the positive legacy of the Clintons, Hillary insists on bringing negativity onto herself and husband Bill. The Clintons' decision to run as "incumbents" has raised the consciousness of past scandals.

3. The more we spend money trying to win the nomination, the less there will be for the general election.

4. It's time to turn the page on history and we're ready to move on.

5. While Hillary fights Obama, the GOP is doing pushups getting ready to fight the Democrats.

6. Divisive political battles decrease the likelihood of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Perhaps you're too naive to understand this, but I doubt it.

Responding to attacks on patriotism and religion

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:20:17 EST

I had a moment of clarity this morning while reading Barack Obama's AWESOME response to questions about his faith, his commitment to Israel, etc.

http://elections.jta.org/2008/02/25/obama-reaches-out-to-jewish-leaders/

Obama has been attacked from all sides on issues related to "faith," "patriotism," etc. To any critic of Obama who is in the religious conservative wing of the Republican party, or anyone else where this fits, I'd point to the 10 Commandments...

Well, you have concerns about Obama's religion. Let me ask you - do you think the 10 Commandments are a good rule for us to follow?

Let's start with the first commandment - "You shall have no other gods before me." So, what do you put first in your life? Do you put your nationality ahead of your God?

Then, the second commandment - "You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or worship them." So, you get upset that Obama forgot to put his hand over his heart in front of the flag? Well, isn't that just worshiping an image? Where did we get this idea that you have to worship the flag?

Skipping ahead to the ninth commandment - "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." When you lie about Barack Obama's beliefs or his life story, aren't you giving a false testimony against your neighbor? Obama DOES put his hand over his heart when he says the pledge of allegiance. And he sang along with the national anthem. Want proof? Here it is:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp

So, if you're serious about the 10 Commandments, then why are you breaking them? And why do you have a problem with a president who puts God first? Why do you want everyone to worship the flag? And why are you lying about Barack Obama?

Bob Tuke is in US Senate race

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:41:50 EST

Bob Tuke, former Tennessee Democratic Party chair who is serving as Barack Obama's campaign chair in TN, plans to announce his candidacy for Senate this week, according to today's edition of the Tennessean:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080224/NEWS0206/802240400

Support Pre-K Now, Reduce Costs Later

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:38:02 EST

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, a strong advocate of education reform and a progressive leader with a centrist agenda, has met resistance from Republicans in the Tennessee state legislature regarding his plan to extend universal Pre-K programs for 3 and 4 year olds in Tennessee.

Tennessee's existing pre-K programs are top-notch, due in part to the fact that a greater emphasis is placed on high-quality teachers. According to a report in today's Tennessean, "the state spends more than $4000 per student - the national average is about $3400."

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080224/NEWS04/802240418

There are clear benefits to pre-K programs. One frequently touted statistic, mentioned on the campaign trail by Barack Obama among others, is that for every $1 spent on early childhood education, there is a savings of $7 generated by healthier, better-trained students later on down the road.

http://www.preknow.org/advocate/factsheets/benefits.cfm

Dissenters, such as the libertarian Tennessee Center for Policy Research, argue that Georgia's Pre-K program did not generate the desired results, as it failed to improve the standardized test scores of participating students.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=623

However, the results of the Georgia Early Childhood Study seem to suggest otherwise.

http://aysps.gsu.edu/publications/2005/EarlyChildhoodReport.pdf

Although "child and family characteristics" impact the outcomes for children, it is clear that when those child and family characteristics are accounted for, pre-K works.

Barack Obama supports more government investment in the education of our children, so that we can truly say that we have "No Child Left Behind". He is willing to have short-term deficit spending on education so that, in the long run, we can reap the benefits of this investment. We will have a better-trained workforce with fewer incarcerated children, fewer teen mothers, fewer children in need of remedial education services, and more children prepared to achieve in the 21st century economy.

Michelle Obama's Senior Thesis

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:32:36 EST

Politico.com obtained a copy of Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton, and posted a copy on its website in a story yesterday. I've spent a little time reading through it this morning, and it's a very good piece of work for a college senior!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

Michelle Obama (born Michelle Robinson) makes some excellent points about her identity as a black woman at Princeton. "Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second." As a result, the dominant cultural system "will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."

"I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my white classmates," she said. Getting educated at Princeton changed Michelle Robinson. It did not change Princeton. In other words, she felt like in order to become part of the community, she needed to give up part of herself.

Some would consider it sad that Michelle Obama and her husband Barack will not be attending the "State of the Black Union" event in New Orleans today. It's a catch-22 for them. On one hand, they don't want to be marginalized as blacks and they have hard work to do in order to connect with voters in other people groups. On the other hand, they want to remain part of the black community. They don't want to abandon their black heritage or leave behind their identities as African-Americans. The same problems Michelle faced as a 21 year old young woman, over 20 years ago, face Michelle and Barack today.

Michelle and Barack have received a lot of criticism from conservatives about the fact that they attend Trinity United Church of Christ, a largely African-American congregation which identifies itself missionally as committed to the African community. People like Lee Wilson have made the claim that Obama's church is "racist", misunderstanding that in the mind of Trinity UCC, "differences are not deficiencies" and serving a particular people group does not imply exclusion of other groups.

http://leewilsonsblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/barack-hussein-obamas-church-beliefs.html

It's ironic that Lee Wilson works for an organization that serves only heterosexual couples, but claims not to be homophobic. In the mission statement of Family Dynamics Institute, it is clear that the organization Lee Wilson works for is committed to serving Christian churches. But just because Family Dynamics Institute serves Christians does not mean that it is opposed to people of other faiths, or that Family Dynamics Institute is racist because it serves primarily white churches. Family Dynamics Institute does not engage in discrimination against gays or non-Christians, but it is also aware of its missional identity which is to serve heterosexual couples, primarly through work in Christian churches.

It's a basic question in sociological research. How do you define yourself? I would say that I identify myself as a Christian first (my spirituality), followed by male (my gender), followed by father/stepfather/husband (my family role) followed by counselor (my profession), followed by evangelical (my theological leanings), followed by educated (my education), followed by white (my race), etc. My ethnicity doesn't matter much to me because I'm part of the dominant culture and it's something I take for granted.

Michelle Robinson Obama makes an extremely important observation in her experience at Princeton, and it's something that was also very important to the plot of one of my favorite movies, "Spanglish". Even though you might want to join the new culture and become attached to the privileges of that culture, the relationships that formed you as a child create stronger ties that outlast your new opportunities. And so, while Barack and Michelle Obama have managed to transcend their ethnicity and religion and nationality as leaders, they have also stayed rooted in the fact that they're black Christian Americans.

Barack Obama has made one of the most important speeches in recent history on this topic. His 2004 address to the Democratic National Convention was fundamentally a speech about sociology and "tribe". Who do you affiliate with? And while the nation tries to divide us, Barack Obama makes the audacious claim that in spite of our differences, we are still the United States of America. Without losing our particular identities and our individual preferences, we are still part of the United States of America.

http://www.barackobama.com/2004/07/27/keynote_address_at_the_2004_de.php

Clinton campaign hopes for a miracle

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:55:12 EST

http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/23/buzzards-circle/

Inside Clinton's inner circle on Friday, the feeling was that the Thursday night debate in Austin was unlikely to slow Obama's momentum from 11 straight primary and caucus victories. Some supporters said they had discussed how to raise with Clinton the subject of withdrawing from the race should she fail to win decisively on March 4. One option was to wait a day or two and then dispatch emissaries to former president Clinton to urge him to make the case.

One adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, said Obama's 17-point Wisconsin victory on Tuesday had started to sink in as a decisive blow, given that the state had been viewed weeks earlier as a level playing field.

"The mathematical reality at that point became impossible to ignore," the adviser said. "There's not a lot of denial left at this point."

Despite Clinton's public pronouncements of optimism, this adviser said: "She knows where things are going. It's pretty clear she has a big decision. But it's daunting. It's still hard to accept."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022203028.html

Great video on the federal defense budget

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:35:14 EST

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

Courtesy of the guys at Ben and Jerry's. Notes that if we cut $50 Billion annually from our defense budget we'd still have a budget of $350 Billion, which is about 10 times greater than our closest competitor, Russia.

Ohio daily news

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:31:58 EST

Hillary Clinton stopped at a GM plant today in Lordstown, OH. http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/feb/14/hillary-addresses-crowd-at-lordstown-gmnw/?newswatch

An online poll suggests that Gov. Ted Strickland's proposed economic stimulus program will not stimulate the economy:

http://www.vindy.com/polls/2008/feb/strickland/results/

Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy will be campaigning this Saturday in Northeast Ohio:

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/15634037.html

Sen. Clinton mistakenly "outed" the endorsement of Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic, but Plusquellic later made his own announcement, saying that Clinton was "best prepared" for the job. But Canton Mayor William Healy, announced by Clinton as a supporter, said that he was not planning to endorse a candidate until after the March 4 primary.

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/15622682.html

Clinton's full court press in Ohio includes visits from surrogates like Chelsea Clinton, who will visit with voters at Cleveland State University.

The big news, however, is the endorsement of Barack Obama by Ohio resident and former Bill Clinton campaign manager, David Wilhelm.

Looking forward, looking back

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:49:42 EST

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jld3VILFDbEY6uciu_lp_YgBnGqwD8UP64O00

We are a part of history.

Hillary Clinton says she's not looking back, she's looking forward. But as Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Barack Obama has learned from history. He knows what it takes to overcome obstacles. He's focused on bringing real change to a country that has lost its former greatness. And the nation is responding.

Hillary Clinton has been competitive so far. She has made it a habit to deny reality. As Beth Fouhy writes in her recent AP story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7305448):

"Clinton has struggled to explain her string of losses to Obama, finding reasons to justify her poor showing in so many contests.

"Caucus states, the former first lady says, are undemocratic and cater only to party activists. Southern states, like Louisiana, have `a very strong and very proud African-American electorate,' naturally predisposed to favor a black candidate.

"And so-called `red' states like North Dakota, Idaho and Kansas - all of which Obama won on Super Tuesday - will never choose a Democrat in the general election anyway.

"By this logic, only certain states really matter, such as New Hampshire and New Jersey, states that Clinton has won. Or Texas and Ohio, states she must capture to stay in the race.

"The list of excuses is long, but the justifications are wearing thin. One by one, all the contests Clinton has suggested don't count are proving in size and scope that they do."

We don't need leaders who pretend that the past doesn't count. We don't need leaders who fail to learn from their past mistakes. We don't need leaders who say they've been "tested" but in reality have never faced a serious election challenge. We don't need leaders who depend on naive followers. We need real leadership.

We need Barack Obama.

Spin in the Clinton camp

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:07:10 EST

From Sarah in Wisconsin...

Just this weekend, in MSNBC's first read, they said that Clinton had stated to the media that she was feeling good about Wisconsin.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/09/651383.aspx

Then a poll comes out that shows Obama ahead in Wisconsin.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/obama_mccain_le.html

And now suddenly she is downplaying it and avoiding mentioning it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Battleground_Wisconsin.html

I'm sure she is trying to lower expectations so if she does well here, it can look like part of a comeback. I know today we are focused on VA, MD and DC and OH and TX are going to big on March 4, but as someone in Wisconsin, I think we need to work hard for a win here next Tuesday on Feb 19. As the politico article points out, although the polls show Obama ahead here it is certainly not a given.

Microtrends: Hispanics, Women, and Catholics

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:22:06 EST

Mark Penn, who is chief political strategist for the Hillary Clinton campaign, outlined his views on marketing and campaigns in his book, "Microtrends". In the book, he looks at trends in American culture and how small groups of people tend to drive big changes.

http://www.microtrending.com/

Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, is a Hispanic woman. She has used her expertise on these groups of people - Hispanics and women - and has a great impact for the Clinton campaign.

For instance, Hillary Clinton has made a lot of noise in her mailings about the fact that "Barack Obama voted present on choice" and that Obama's record on abortion rights isn't very clear.

Why?

1. Attacking Barack Obama's record of being pro-choice will affect Evangelicals and drive them away from supporting Obama. (How many friends have you talked to who won't vote Democratic because they are pro-life? Isn't it ironic, when you consider the fact that the "pro-life" Republicans are supporting a war in Iraq that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, with no end in sight? Isn't it ironic that Republicans oppose healthcare reform that will provide care for more children?)

2. Catholic Democrats (another group that is strongly supportive of Clinton) will hear about Obama's pro-choice record and move away from him. This will neutralize the talk of "unifying the country".

3. Latinos, many of them Catholic, will hear that Obama didn't "take a stand" and think that Obama is not a strong leader.

Of course, all of the loud noise from Clinton's campaign will drown out the wisdom of Obama's position. He's most concerned about protecting the Constitution. As he has said, everyone is "pro-life". No one wants to see abortions happening. But we have to attack the root causes of abortion - sexual immorality, economic inequality, and selfish ambition. Those issues are moral issues, and we need moral leadership to address those issues.

Frank Schaeffer is pro-life, and pro-Obama

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:26:13 EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-im-prolife-and-pro_b_85636.html

Francis Schaeffer's son, Frank, talks about why he's pro-life and pro-Obama.

We are the ones we've been waiting for

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:38:44 EST

I received the following today from the Democratic National Committee:

Dear Ben,

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are done. John McCain will be the Republican nominee -- he's the only one with a reasonable path to the nomination.

So how do we beat him? We stand up -- right now -- start fighting, and show the American people that he's not who they think he is.

We can't wait for Hillary or Barack to win the nomination. Now that the Republicans have a candidate, the dollars are starting to pour in from special interests who will do anything to beat the Democratic nominee. They're just waiting for us to decide so they can start smearing.

Here's what U.S. News and World Report recently reported about how the RNC is getting ready...

[RNC Chairman Mike] Duncan and his aides want to be ready to go on the offensive against the Democratic nominee presumptive in an effort to define the opposition candidate on GOP terms. Opposition research is already well along, and the plan is for surrogates to talk to the media around the country while a TV ad campaign in key states and media markets as soon as the Democratic nominee is determined.

We must be ready to fight back, and fight back hard, today.

Now that we know our opponent, it's time to build a national effort on the programs you and I have worked so hard to create over the last four years - from our cutting-edge technology to our voter protection programs, it's time to shift gears.

I need you to contribute $25, $50, or $100 to help us fight John McCain right now:

http://www.democrats.org/FightMcCain

John McCain is a media darling, but don't trust his carefully-crafted image - he's worked for years to brand himself. From Iraq to health care, Social Security to special interest tax cuts to ethics, he's promising nothing more than a third Bush term.

After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign. In fact, two of the top three sources for John McCain's campaign cash are D.C. lobbying firms, and he looked the other way as Jack Abramoff bought and paid for the Republican Party and the Culture of Corruption.

On immigration reform, he's run as far to the right as he can, aligning himself with the most extreme elements of the Republican Party.

On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"

On a woman's right to choose, McCain has vowed to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

On the economy, one of the issues that the American people care most about, McCain has said: "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

We can't afford four more years with a President who drives the economy into the ground. We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. We can't afford four more years with a President who gives tax cuts to companies who ship jobs overseas; with a President who can't get every American the health care they deserve; with a President we just can't trust.

I don't just want to beat John McCain - I want it to be a landslide. If you're as committed as I am, I need you to make a contribution today:

http://www.democrats.org/FightMcCain

Only the Democratic Party is legally allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to back our nominee and tell the real story about John McCain. We proved that our strategy worked in 2006, and it will work again this fall.

Help us today:

http://www.democrats.org/FightMcCain

Let's get going,

Howard Dean

---

The message is simple and clear: The Republicans are the enemy, and we have to unite our forces in a smear campaign designed to destroy the Republicans before they try to destroy us.

This sort of message is exactly why I called the Democrats "The Minority Party" and "The Opposition Party" from 2000 to 2005. The Democrats were so focused on hating the Republicans that they totally failed to promote a positive agenda for the country or a positive message about their own identity. During the Terry McAuliffe era from 2001-2005, the Democrats became the minority party in the US House and Senate while losing the presidency.

Barack Obama was introduced to the country in 2004, and promoted a positive and inclusive agenda that energized the Democrats and began to draw new leaders into the party. His call to think bigger than "Red and Blue States" and to "redraw the map" in politics has done more than energize the Democratic party. He's succeeding in uniting the country.

In Nashville, Tennessee, I support a Democratic mayor, a Democratic congressman, and a Democratic governor. I'm proud of their leadership. I appreciate the fact that they have been able to win elections by including Republicans and independents, as well as energizing the Democratic base. They are smart, committed to fixing healthcare, passionate about improving our schools, and accountable in their use of our tax money. Like Barack Obama, these leaders stand FOR something.

I want the Democratic National Committee to believe that people will contribute to support a positive agenda, and not just to fight against the opposition in the Republican Party. I want them to show all of us that the Republicans' ideas are bankrupt, without engaging in the politics of personal destruction. I want to see our country united for change, not mired down in partisanship. I want to see the change happening from the ground up, not the top down.

I want Barack Obama.

Economic Stimulus Plan

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:00:58 EST

My senator in TN made a speech yesterday that warned about the economic stimulus package, saying that the plan is "nothing but a political stimulus". LET'S MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD!

http://corker.senate.gov/News/record.cfm?id=291515

Senator Corker,

I support PAYGO rules and I don't support deficit spending. But we have a real economic crisis going on right now, and it is threatening rich and poor alike. Those who are unemployed need jobs. But more immediately, they need help to pay the bills.

I heard that the Whirlpool plant in LaVergne is laying off 500 workers, many of them nearing retirement. Our trade policy is partly to blame. Businesses are encouraged to outsource American jobs overseas, and American workers are suffering as a result.

You spoke out against the stimulus plan as wasteful spending. I agree. Then it is up to you to find a solution that creates jobs for Tennessee workers and for others across this country. It is up to you to figure out how to stop the predatory lending in this country. I personally suggest a plan which would temporarily increase taxes on corporations that send American jobs overseas. That is a solution that makes sense - it solves the immediate income problem and also incentivizes corporations to keep jobs right here in the USA.

I also request that you lead a national fundraising campaign to help those hurt most by the subprime mortgage crisis - families who face foreclosure on their homes or risk losing money on their homes due to the sudden downturn in the US housing market.

Finally, if you are serious about solving the problems in the housing market, let's try to raise demand for housing by opening up the doors to more immigrant families in Tennessee and across the country. Let's create a plan that allows immigrant families to stay together and forces illegal immigrants to pay a fine and go to the back of the line.

A moment of reflection

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:36:37 EST

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080130/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc

It is very hard not to politicize this story. However, I want to just take a moment to pause and have a reality check. While we have been arguing about shaking hands, Ronald Reagan, etc., this news story came across the wires today.

One out of five Iraqi households have experienced a death related to the war in Iraq, according to survey research.

Over $1,000,000,000,000 have been spent on that war.

So that we can feel "safe" and "free" from "terror".