Donald Weed's Blog

Sick About FISA

Don — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:17:32 EDT

Physically sick.

I just don't see a way to be happy, or even philosophical, about this. I feel like I've been punched in the gut, and when I look to see who punched me, I wind up posting a blog on this site.

I don't feel like writing much. Just thought I'd share a little of my reaction to today's events, and how they've made me feel much less hopeful about our country's future. If there's a candidate out there who would like to rekindle my passion for positive direction in this country, they're more than welcome to try.

No Telecomm Immunity, Senator!!!

Don — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:49:42 EDT

Please, Senator Obama, do not allow immunity for telecommunications companies to pass in the upcoming FISA vote. This is not just any issue. This is at the core of the corrective processes that will have to be addressed if we are to regain our footing as a society in America. We cannot allow what's happened to pass silently into the darkness. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to be allowed to examine ourselves and our behavior.

The abuses that have occurred are, let's face it, the embodiment of the Big Brother Is Watching You mentality that we've been warned about for so long. We have to be vigilant against this mindset, because it strikes at the heart of freedom and dynamism in our culture. This isn't about being vindictive to misbehaving corporations, but about understanding who we are and why. This, Senator, is everything your campaign is about and more. You CANNOT yield in any way to these influences. If I could say it any more strongly, I would do so.

I am your strong supporter, and I believe in you and what you're doing. I don't think any of us is perfect, so I am trying to tell you what I believe with all of my heart would be a terrible mistake! You can stop this, sir. You can maintain our lifeline to the truths we will have to face. To give away our rights here under the law would be to pay what I believe is too dear a price.

Please, please sir, don't do it!

Congratulations, Barack Obama!

Don — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:54:53 EDT

I just wanted to add my congratulations to Senator Obama, the next President of the United States. It has been so thrilling and inspiring to follow this campaign, and I think it's started something that is going to sweep through America this November. I'm excited about seeing all of us working together to build the best America we can make, and I believe everyone is going to want to pitch in. I could not ask for a better candidate than Senator Obama, and I hereby pledge to do everything in my power to help him win the Presidency, and to help America any way I can going forward. If we're really committed to doing the right thing, I don't think anything can stand in our way, and I really do think the sky is the limit.

I'm excited, but I don't mean to sound as if I'm carried away by expectations. Change takes time. But if we can turn this big Ship of State around and get it turned to the wind, I think we'll see some fruits of our labors, and take heart in our ability to face our struggle together.

This is incredible! Thanks to everyone who has worked so hard. Thanks to the Obama family. And thank you, America, for believing in what we can be!

Let's go change the world!!!

Rove's Playbook (continued)

Don — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:02:40 EDT

I've compiled a brief outline of the tactics discussed in the document on Rovian strategies I linked to in my blog post earlier today. I don't think this covers the whole playbook (where is the Politics of Fear, for instance), but it's still a handy overview, particularly of the rhetorical techniques employed in this vein. Enough introduction, here's the outline:

1. Take the offensive
2. Attack your opponent's strengths
3. Accuse your opponent of what he/she is going to accuse you of
4. Go negative, then cry foul
5. The "big lie"
6. Appeal to moral values
7. Sell the Bush persona
     a. Bush, the man of the people
     b. Bush the macho man
     c. Never apologize
     d. Stay the course
     e. Bush the dimwit
8. Sell an adolescent worldview
     a. An uncomplicated world
     b. A world of immediate gratification
     c. A self-absorbed world
9. Exploit the media
     a. Exploit its capabilities
     b. Denounce the media
     c. Control the mainstream media through intimidation
     d. Impose limits on "unscripted encounters" with the media
     e. Cultivate a network of influential media commentators and media outlets
10. Create straw issues
11. Employ surrogates
12. Use emotional appeals
13. Rely on expert testimonials
14. Rhetorical devices
     a. Misrepesenting a person's position and presenting it in a form that people will reject
     b. Take your opponent's words out of context
     c. Three-card Monte (make a false statement, admit its falsehood, repeat false statement)
     d. Shift the burden of proof
     e. Shift the argument
     f. Personal testimonials
     g. Ignore/downplay the evidence
     h. Substitute fact for truth
     i. Evasive rhetoric
     j. Jokes
     k. Truistic ("truthy") answers
     l. Diversion
     m. Vague generalities
     n. Ignore the main point
15. Use of language
     a. Newspeak
     b. Connotative words with meanings beyond the dictionary definitions
     c. Labels that define the opposition or a particular position in a negative way
     d. Euphemisms that minimize reaction to something negative
     e. Obfuscation that confuses or disguises meaning
     f. Code words

Here's the link again to the original document:

http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy/journal/FINALKARLROVE.pdf

Rove's Playbook

Don — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:39:07 EDT

I haven't been as active here lately, but I've spent considerable time (too much, really) on Huffington Post supporting Obama in the intense political battles of their messaging boards. I don't have to tell you there's a lot of opposition out there. A lot of garbage gets tossed out on those boards, and it can be tough to deal with sometimes.

But Democratic leaders like Joe Andrew just want this election to start to make sense. We want to get serious about the problems we're facing in this country, and we're tired of all the games. To that end, I did a little Googling for the Karl Rove Playbook, to gather some insight into the minds of these people and better understand how they operate. What I found was this very interesting academic paper in the Media Literacy section of the web site for Webster University. The paper was written by Dr. Art Silverblatt, a professor of Communications and Journalism at Webster, along with Jane Squier Bruns, a long-time Washington media consultant, and Gina Jensen, a professor of Oral Communications, also at Webster.

The paper is titled "Deciphering Karl Rove's Playbook: Campaign Tactics and Response Strategies". I'm reading it now, and I'll write another blog posting when I'm finished, but I've scanned enough of it to see this is pretty useful information. We don't want to stoop to using the Rovian playbook, but I think knowledge of these tactics is very powerful, and will help us to quickly negate many of the underhanded verbal or tactical maneuvers that we've been seeing.

I hope you'll take a look at this, and let me know what you've found on this topic. I'm excited about the prospect of being able to quickly turn the tables on their sophomoric mind games, and I hope many of you add to this repository of counterweights to the legacy of Bush's Brain.

The Task At Hand

Don — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:05:15 EDT

Half a lifetime ago, way back at the beginning of the campaign, I recall a brief segment at that time on Hardball, before I pretty much swore off watching it. My memory is pretty hazy about that segment. I don't recall who the participants were who were paired off to debate the issue, but the Obama surrogate was a reverend, if I recall, while the other side was taken by some now-anonymous pundit. The issue was something about sex education in school. Obama's position was being ridiculously distorted, and the pundit was terribly exercised about the whole thing. She ranted and raved, while the reverend sat silent and calm. Occasionally, he would be called upon, and all he ever really did was restate Obama's very sensible position, in calm and non-defensive terms. The pundit raved on, and eventually the winner of the debate became self-evident, and the quiet confidence of the reverend was all that was needed. The pundit had been allowed to simply dig herself in a hole. I started to smile as I realized that the Obama campaign would be something that Chris Mathews might not be able to understand, but I did, and I felt strangely moved. I didn't have any thrills up my leg, but nonetheless it made an impression.

Barack Obama has a lot to talk about with the people of Pennsylvania, and to those of North Carolina and Indiana, and a few more. He's got some time now to put forward a serious message, and he can say it in his own way while the other side just keeps on digging that hole. If we've decided that we can believe in the American people, now's the time to really put that faith into practice. Let's help Obama just get the message out, stay "on point", and not be distracted by lowbrow stunts and political ploys. We've come so far, and we've made such progress, and it's been the kind of campaign Obama has wanted to run. It ain't broke at all, so don't fix it. They've got a long time to rant on the other side, and, trust me, they're digging deeper into that hole every time they open their mouths.

If you haven't heard Keith Olbermann's Special Comment tonight, use this link to watch it now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329

The integrity of this campaign is shining through, and good Americans, even those who have been friends with the Clintons as long as Keith Olbermann has, can't help but see it. We will have the defenders we need. Just play it straight.

I would have much preferred to just win this campaign on the issues. The trouble is, that's exactly what we were doing, and that's why we're ducking the kitchen sink now. We can't let it succeed, and we can't allow ourselves to become the very thing we're trying to put an end to in Washington. Senator Obama hasn't faltered, and I hope that none of you do either. We need hope, but hope is part of a three-point plan: faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these, as they say, is charity.

I'm writing this to myself as much as to you. I've become as angry as Olbermann in some of his classic Special Comments, although in the one above it seems not so much anger as pain. I need to do a little thinking about the three-point plan, and I hope you do as well.

Remember that terrible time a few months ago when a gunman wreaked havoc in an Amish village? Do you remember the lessons we learned about real Christian charity from those Amish? I'm trying to find a little of that in myself right now, even though I'd rather find a Hillary supporter and start punching it out. I think we need to find that charity right now even more than we need to win this election, because when it starts to matter more than the three-point plan, well, you see what sort of thing can happen.

The Magic Number -- 197

Don — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:56:53 EDT

There are 549 pledged delegates yet to be won in the remaining primaries, if you don't count Michigan and Florida. Currently, Obama has 1392 delegates and Clinton has 1236. If that's correct, then Obama needs only 197 more pledged delegates (35.8%) to Hillary's 352 (64.1%) to be permanently in the lead, and there's nothing Hillary can do to overtake him. Even in the worst-case scenario, that would occur in Kentucky on May 20, and it will probably happen much sooner. A permanent pledged delegate lead wouldn't be the whole story, of course, considering superdelegates, Florida/Michigan, and not to mention the whole atmosphere of corruption surrounding the process, but that will certainly be a milestone to look forward to.

If we include Florida and Michigan -- and, folks, I wish you'd been more worried about all this back in January -- then the total delegates would be 913, and the magic number climbs to 354 (38.7%) to Hillary's 559 (61.2%).

Any way you slice it, the numbers for Hillary are pretty overwhelming. You might even say it's pointless for her to continue under these conditions. Even if Michigan and Florida re-vote, and she maintains her superdelegate lead, she would have to average 60% wins the rest of the way, and that's not reasonable to expect. Barring the unexpected, we're going to have to put up with this for another couple of months, though, I'm afraid. But once the lead is permanent, and assuming Obama has been doing no worse than expected, that's going to be a pretty tough argument to counter. If Obama just holds his own in Pennsylvania, and does as well as I think he will in Mississippi, North Carolina and Indiana, at that point I just don't think Hillary has any argument to make given these numbers, even if you complicate things by holding do-overs. That's only about 8 weeks away, and that will make any marginal victory Hillary pulls off in Pennsylvania essentially meaningless within two weeks of that primary.

Whew! I'm tired. But I'm ready to make a prediction. Eight weeks from Tuesday, May 6, 2008, is officially the first day of the 2008 Presidential Campaign!

Yes we can!

Please Don't Accept Samantha Power's Resignation!

Don — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:25:27 EST

Samantha Power has resigned due to the leak of her off-the-record comments to The Scotsman on Monday. I think that's a real shame, and I would be proud if the Obama campaign organization would refuse to accept it, and convince her to stay on. Ms. Power is a valuable asset, and I don't think we need to kowtow in any way to the demands of the Clinton camp.

Ms. Power's remarks were not, of course, the most "politically correct" things to say, by any means, but here's something else she said, to the graduating class of Santa Clara in 2006:

... if the shapers of US foreign policy looked out for the human consequences of their decisions, the world and the United States would be far better off. ... the trick is never to confuse means and ends. Cold-blooded reason is a tool that you can employ on behalf of what you believe in. But if you employ reason too soon, it can pre-empt feeling, and you can end up believing nothing at all. Lesson Number Two, then, is "Let reason be your tool, but let justice be your cause."

I can't condemn Ms. Power because she expressed her feeling. The truth is, I feel exactly the same way. She has apologized for the remarks, and the demands from the Clinton camp are, as usual, petty and self-serving. Why should we listen to them?

I will have my differences with Ms. Power, and Senator Obama for that matter, in the future. But I know a valuable asset when I see one, and I urge Senator Obama and Ms. Power to reconcile and continue working together in this campaign.

Don't let them win, folks! Don't let them win anywhere! The apology is sufficient, and Ms. Power is the same positive influence she was before. Would I be so passionate if she were less beautiful? Don't confuse me! Yes, I believe I would be, because you and I can make decisions based on principle, and I strongly believe that Senator Obama and Ms. Power are better when they work together.

One In A Million

Don — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:12:27 EST

A million donors! A million participants in this campaign!

Pfft!

That's nothing. I want to see one hundred million. What's a million, after all? Probably less than one percent of the total eligible voters in this election. What's the matter with the rest of you? You don't have twenty bucks to invest in your future? You want to spend the entire 21st century propping up our puppet government in Iraq? I want some real democracy, how about you?

The future isn't going to happen by itself, and it won't be what either you or I expect. We're on the brink of restoring our government to one that works for all of us, not just for Bush and his pals. We want and need your input. It can't be just what I want, because that won't work. It's got to be all of us, in this together. Join up. Give us your perspective. We're about to put someone in office who doesn't think it's all about him, or even all about his party. Before we were Democrats or Republicans, we were Americans, with American ideals, and that's what I want to be again.

I want to see twenty million more of you by April. Let's get going, people!

Donate! (It's The Money, Stupid!)

Don — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:20:29 EST

I hate all this money in politics! So why did I just pony up another 100 bucks to Obama's campaign? Because, for once in my life, money is speaking my language!

Senator Clinton is falling behind in the money race. Until we get the publicly funded elections we really deserve, we're looking at a moment in time when our little dribs and drabs are making the difference. I don't care how much Bill got out of Kazakhstan, most of their other contributors are maxed out, and we can make the difference with our little nest eggs!

The Clinton campaign is on the ropes financially. I've spent most of my life there, so welcome, Hillary! How d'ya like it down here? I'm putting my money to work with Senator Obama!

We can drown out special-interest politics now before they ever know what hit them. Donate, folks! Give a little extra, even if it hurts! This is our campaign, and Barack Obama will be our President, not Wall Street's, and not Lockheed Martin's! This is our time!

It hasn't happened overnight, and we've still got a long way to go, even long after our President is elected. But we can do something right now that really makes a difference. We can join together and show America and the world the power and unity of the average person, the middle class, the worker that lost his retirement, the family struggling without health care, the soldier who just got called for another tour in Iraq! We are one people!

Together, we are rich! And we are winning!

Obama/Edwards '08!!!

Hey, She Doesn't Suck As Bad As The Republicans!

Don — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:12:17 EST

I know, I know, I'm terrible. Before you switch off yet another Hillary hater, you should know that I've written a lot of blog posts, both here and at http://zenhodgepodge.blogspot.com, and I haven't gone in for a bunch of Hillary bashing.

But I had a nightmare, and I need to talk about it.

I dreamed that Hillary won the nomination, and a lot of liberals like me, people of good conscience, knew that we had to support her. We know that a Democrat has to win in November because that will probably make it a much less violent world. Compared to 100 more years in Iraq, and "more wars, my friends", I can suck up a lot of pride and vote for near anyone.

The trouble is, I'm honest. I don't lie well. If I were better at it, maybe I'd be a different person, but I'm not. I don't think I'll ever be quite cut out to be a full-fledged Hillary cheerleader, because I don't think she really "gets" what I'm really about.

I'm about upgrading the way we think about talking to and working with the world. I'm about, as Aristotle once put it, "a community of equals, aiming at the best life possible." And I'm just not sure she really gets all that.

So hey, I'd have to work up the enthusiasm, not "let the perfect be the enemy of the good", as they like to say. I just like the feeling I have now. I don't want to think it will go away. America is charged right now with the possible, and it's not a false hope.

You undecideds out there, you need to figure out what you want. I have to tell you, though, there is a difference. I don't want to be negative, and I'll try to be positive no matter what. I just think I do a better job when I have more to work with.

I just think sometimes I need to be inspired.

Here We Go!

Don — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:57:35 EST

It's time for the big Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses all over America. I can feel the momentum is with Obama, but this contest is still wide open. Everyone, you have to stay with this: vote if it's your time to vote, speak to your friends in the voting states, keep getting the word out. There's only a few more hours!

The Audacity of Hope is that it's infectious. Once we allow ourselves to feel it, there's no telling what could happen. I know that great hope can end in great disappointment, but it's better to have loved and lost, as they say. I'm going to keep hoping no matter what happens, and right now I've got plenty extra to go around.

Hope is bigger than Barack Obama. Hope is even bigger than Oprah. Hope is bigger than our selfish, private dreams, because what we're hoping for is to join together.

We're hoping finally to give real peace a chance, like we've been singing for so long.

We're hoping to lift each other up instead of waiting for what trickles down.

We're hoping for a chance to keep raising our voices, long after the votes, and finally be listened to and heard.

We're hoping to be a part of, not just an election, but a world.

We're hoping to be the people we've all been waiting for.

I hope we all win!

Draft John Edwards!!!

Don — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:12:36 EST

I just wrote an eloquent tribute to John Edwards, followed by a call to aggressively recruit him to be immediately announced as Obama's running mate, but the whole web site blew up when I tried to publish it. Drat!!! I think you need more servers, Senator Obama. I'm one of the good folks who brought you Windows Vista, so I can help, if you need me to.

Anyway, I'm not going to type the whole thing over again, especially since this could all disappear again when I click Publish, so I'll just say it straight out.

John Edwards' struggles are our struggles. Let's recruit him to join with us, and convince him to be Senator Obama's running mate. Together, they could definitely be the knockout punch both on Super Tuesday and in November.

Obama/Edwards '08!!!

No Rest For The Weary

Don — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:20:57 EST

I have some nerve, asking for more. Unfortunately, that's the problem with the times we live in.

I'm thrilled by reports that Senator Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama tomorrow, and I hate to ask, but there's something important going on in the Senate tomorrow afternoon, and if Senator Obama and Senator Kennedy stand tomorrow with Senator Dodd and others to oppose the FISA bill, what a real-world example of change in America that would be!

I know everything is happening in a whirlwind, but in the meantime the Bush Administration is still trying to do as much damage as possible. I urge Senator Obama and Senator Kennedy to take a strong stand tomorrow against the many destructive aspects of the upcoming FISA legislation that includes immunity for telecommunication companies that have invaded the privacy of Americans. This is a tremendous opportunity to serve notice that change begins right here and now!

There is so much to do, and so little time. I'm so proud to support this campaign that has brought new inspiration to so many Americans. I hate to ask for more, but do we really have a choice?

Two Questions, One For Obama

Don — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:07:10 EST

I have two questions: the first, I would like to see asked of Senator Clinton, and the second, I would like to have answered by Senator Obama.

My question for Senator Clinton pertains to her comments in the Nevada debate regarding redeployment of troops out of Iraq. She noted that some troops would be required to protect the Embassy, a sentiment shared by the other candidates that evening, but she also said that troops would be required to protect our "strategic interests." Strategic interests, what does that mean? If George Bush had said that, how might we have responded? The phrase is incredibly general, and begs further explanation. So, Senator Obama, in the upcoming South Carolina debate on Monday, please ask Senator Clinton to describe exactly how many troops and what missions might be required to protect our "strategic interests."

My question for Senator Obama is very brief: Senator, you don't honestly think I voted for Ronald Reagan, do you?

Congratulations, Barack Obama!

Don — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:57:50 EST

Over this past year, I've become rather cynical and hard to please when it comes to politics, not because I'm contrary, but because people die and people suffer, and we haven't done enough to help them. Tonight, some of my cynicism is in at least a temporary retreat.

I'm proud to be a supporter of Barack Obama. I think we have a long way to go, and I think the fierce urgency of now still means we need to think about those people who suffer needlessly right now, not just in 2009 and after. But we're all growing and changing, and that includes Barack Obama. I believe I saw him grow still more in his caucus acceptance speech tonight in Iowa.

America means so much to us, and it means so much to the world. It's too much to take in, and I wonder that Senator Obama must feel a sense of things that could even overwhelm him if he doesn't remain focused. So far, his focus seems pretty good.

I cannot give myself unreservedly to the political process while laws are still allowed to be broken, and people are still allowed to be tortured, no matter who they are. I am not ready to say we've broken our ties to the corrupt values that have threatened to diminish our sense of honor and country, but we've made a start. I believe Senator Obama has a great chance to be the best thing that's happened to our country since George Washington himself, and I'm not exaggerating. There's a chance that we can make this a momentous time, and it will be even better if we focus on justice and cooperation, and not on power and revenge. I believe Senator Obama can be the man to lead us to a new vision of America. We need to remember that the old vision is still very much with us for those to whom that perspective has given advantage.

I've heard inspiring words, and I've seen an impressive victory. I don't prefer cynicism, but we all have to admit that what we need is action. There are many who wait for America to put its mighty power to best use, and there are some who may not be around to see it. The urgency of now is at its most fierce for them.

Lingering Doubts

Don — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:32:12 EST

I'm back, at least for the moment.

After months of enthusiastic support for the Obama campaign, I dropped out of sight here about three weeks ago, after the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. I knew that Obama had opposed Mukasey, but when I saw that the vote was 53-40, and that all the presidential candidates from the Senate had skipped the vote, I realized that any one of those missing Senators could have been the 41st opposing vote, which might have been sufficient to block the nomination altogether.

For me, Michael Mukasey is a symbol of what's terribly wrong right now in America, and I haven't forgiven any of the presidential candidates for missing a golden opportunity to stand up and fight for real justice. But I've been supporting Obama for a long time, and I'm trying to shake off the shock of a torture-supporting AG long enough to give the Obama campaign a chance to defend itself. So here it is:

Can someone from the Obama campaign offer a legitimate defense for the decision to offer only token resistance to Michael Mukasey? Unacceptable responses: (1) Obama was stuck on the campaign trail; (2) Mukasey is "old news". This is still a very important and very relevant question. I believe that many of the concerns I have are shared by other thoughtful citizens, so I reject the notion that my concerns here represent an isolated, marginal opinion. I submit that this is a very important and as yet completely unadressed concern that needs to be answered.

I've watched the news and press releases in vain for some response on this. America seems anxious to "move on" from the Mukasey nomination, but if you'll notice, Mr. Mukasey is currently in the Attorney General's office, and currently shaping the policy of the Department of Justice. We're still living with the results of this decision, and I still need an answer.

This is very important to me, folks. Be warned that I have a highly functional bs meter, but please, can someone explain to me why Obama did not actively oppose the most morally bereft political appointment of our generation?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Mukasey Sworn In As Attorney General

Don — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:13:31 EST

We've witnessed quite a spectacle in Congress the last few days. Judge Michael Mukasey could not define waterboarding in terms of torture, nor could he define the limits of the law with respect to the President, yet somehow those issues were not deemed to be sufficient to deny him the post of Attorney General. I've been essentially in a state of numbness since Schumer and Feinstein declared their support, but I have some feeling in my fingers again, and they seem to be pounding on the keyboard.

It's too late to prevent Mr. Mukasey from being the law enforcement leader of our nation, however sadly ironic that may be, but it's never too late to say that enough is enough. I'm calling on Barack Obama to be much stronger than he has been in the face of these outrages. A few paragraphs of a press release was obviously insufficient to prevent the institutionalization of torture within our justice system, and that's not something I'm going to forget. There needs to be a change.

I want to nag at Senator Obama's -- and everyone's -- conscience for what we've allowed to occur here. This is no small matter, and I vow to get this message to Senator Obama himself. I have believed strongly in this campaign, but the confirmation of Judge Mukasey was a fundamental event that the term "national disgrace" doesn't even begin to describe. We, and Senator Obama, have allowed something to occur that we should not have done. It's a signal to all of us that we're just not doing enough.

Senator Obama, I call on you to recognize the abject failure of a system that has allowed this to occur. I call on you to stand very firm now, and say "this far and no farther." It's very clear that if we focus entirely on the nomination, we lose it, because we forgot to be mindful of our problems in the here and now.

There's much more I want to say. I want to think of the most effective way to say it. I'll be back.

Democratic Race Tightens In New Polls

Don — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:22:52 EST

In the latest polls as reported by CNN today, polling for the Democratic nominee shows Hillary Clinton's steadily climbing lead has finally slowed, and is actually decreasing. What had been a lead of 30 percentage points has fallen to just 19. Another month like that, and Obama might be the next "inevitable" winner!

I would prefer just to focus on Barack Obama's message of hope for the future, and just have faith in the political system and Americans to pick the best candidate, but we know that isn't the way it always works. I've never been a fan of "situational ethics", either, so if ethics are important to me anywhere, they must be equally important to me as I try to help my candidate win the Democratic nomination. With that in mind, I offer a link to an article published in The Nation magazine a few months ago called Hillary, Inc, not because it stoops to any sort of character assassination or "politics of personal destruction", which I would abhor, but very legitimate concerns about the leading candidate. This article by noted contributor Ari Berman, elicited much discussion when it was published in late May of this year, and stands today as one of the most thoughtful expressions of the concerns we all share regarding the woman who may be passed the torch of the Democratic Party, and the United States of America.

If you're here, you probably already know who the best candidate is. But let's face it, we still don't have a clear majority. We're simply not going to get there without being very clear about why our candidate isn't just good, but better. We can't just describe; we have to compare and contrast.

Let's be nice, and let's be fair. I hope the best person wins. But let's be committed to making sure no one casts an "automatic" vote for the "favorite". There is so much at stake, and Americans are desperate to know if the deck is stacked. We have a responsibility to ask all the questions, and get all the answers we need in times like these.

This One's For Me

Don — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:01:47 EDT

I have written several blog entries on this site when I thought I might have a perspective worth sharing regarding Barack Obama and his pursuit of the Democratic nomination. I have tried to maintain a sense of the tone and spirit of this campaign, because I believe in it, and I want to share with you the hope and promise that is symbolized by this campaign. But this entry is for me. It is offered with the standard disclaimer, that the views of personal bloggers do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Barack Obama Presidential Campaign.

Today I am angry. I don't feel like trying quite so hard to be "politically correct" in this entry. I maintain a much less "correct" blog at blogger.com, and for once, I would like to merge my two blogging personas, and request that you read my posting today at http://zenhodgepodge.blogspot.com. I discuss the confirmation hearings for Attorney General, among other things. And I discuss torture.

I'm not sure yet when I will stop being angry. I suspect we may want to consider whether anger, too, has a part in this campaign. One of my primary reasons for supporting Barack Obama is that he seems to have the will to rise above anger, and I know how important that truly is. But beneath our civility as we attend to the practical, reasonable attitudes we must maintain, we need to touch base once in a while with the raw essentials. I think we need to remind ourselves just how important all this is.

Paul Krugman Blogs About Obama and Social Security

Don — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:47:05 EDT

There are so many "pundits" out there proclaiming that they know exactly what Barack Obama needs to do now to win the nomination. Collectively, it's pretty ridiculous, but like they say in show biz, all publicity is good publicity, so let them pontificate all they want. I tune them out, for the most part, because one of my primary assessments of Barack Obama the candidate is that he is a man of good judgment.

However, when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman finds something questionable about Obama's campaign strategy, I find it hard to ignore. Mr. Krugman's column, his new book The Conscience of a Liberal, and now his blog of the same name, consistently express an honest and independent-minded viewpoint on a chosen topic, whether or not you agree with his perspective. There's no denying that this is crunch time now, so I think it's very important that we listen carefully to any concerns from such a prominent voice, and make sure that we can respond to them.

Mr. Krugman posted a blog entry this morning called Obama and Social Security that I have linked to here. The posting itself is very brief, three short paragraphs that express dismay at a message that seemed to him out of touch, and more like a Democratic Leadership Council issue than something really organic to Obama's campaign. The link I've provided will also display the reader comments, and there were about 13 of them when I last checked. Some of them are unfair or silly, of course, but some others are thoughtful, and I recommend that you read them as well. There are some strong negative reactions to this strategy, and I would hate to see something like this, of all things, become a source of more serious concern.

Please take a quick look at Paul Krugman's blog, and any other data you might find relevant regarding this issue. I think we can afford to allow the airing of these perspectives, and at this point, I'd say we probably can't afford not to. I want to win, and in the past, I've only won when I've been relatively effective at recognizing and correcting mistakes.

I'm sure there are many sides of this issue I haven't yet fully explored. I'm offering this as a potentially useful part of that process.

Issues For Tomorrow's Debate

Don — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:44:02 EDT

There are many serious issues that need to be discussed, in tomorrow's debate on MSNBC and going forward. But if Barack Obama doesn't win the nomination, the time for some of this discussion will be over. The time to highlight the differences between the candidates is right here and now.

Senator Obama has said that it's time to sharpen those distinctions, and I'm confident he'll do that in the way that he thinks best. He's already making his points about Iraq, Iran and Social Security, and has already taken Mrs. Clinton to task for her contributions. I continue to suspect Senator Obama's judgment regarding the approach most suited to him might exceed my own, but it's refreshing sometimes when someone just blasts away. Here's an excerpt from John Edwards' speech today in New Hampshire:

... A few weeks ago, around the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a leading presidential candidate held a fundraiser that was billed as a Homeland Security themed event in Washington, D.C. targeted to homeland security lobbyists and contractors for $1,000 a plate. These lobbyists, for the price of a ticket, would get a special "treat" - the opportunity to participate in small, hour long breakout sessions with key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important sub committees of the homeland security committee. That presidential candidate was Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington - and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses.
When I asked Hillary Clinton to join me in not taking money from Washington lobbyists - she refused. Not only did she say that she would continue to take their money, she defended them.
Today Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party - more money than any Republican candidate.
She has taken more money from the defense industry than any other candidate from either party as well.
She took more money from Wall Street last quarter than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama combined.
The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.
We have a duty - a duty to end this.
I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work. And I believe that, if Americans have a choice, any candidate who takes their money - Democrat or Republican - will lose this election.

This is very clear. For me, it virtually eliminates any possibility that I will support Hillary Clinton for President in this election. While the words belong to John Edwards, my support for Senator Obama remains firm for many reasons. I think those reasons, many of which I've stated in earlier posts, will be sufficient to gain the nomination even over strong candidates with integrity such as John Edwards. But I must confess that I fail to find evidence of any lunge for the kneecaps anywhere in the statements above. The truth, especially when it's relevant, is always above the belt.

Barack Obama's Foreign Policy

Don — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:17:45 EDT

I posted a blog entry yesterday about foreign policy, and linked to Hillary Clinton's essay to the Council on Foreign Relations. Now that the football and baseball games are over, I've resumed a more serious attitude, and rather quickly located Barack Obama's essay to that same council, published in the July/August Foreign Affairs Journal. Here is the link to that essay: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html.

For convenience, here again is the link to Hillary Clinton's essay, published in the November/December issue: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

It's good to be able to compare these documents from the two leading Democratic candidates, and the similarities are fairly striking. Both papers are in large agreement regarding Iraq, emphasis on diplomacy, reducing nuclear weapons, and working to help promote long-term peace in the Middle East and around the world. One of the strongest common themes is a revitalization of American ideals and principles, not only in the rhetoric of diplomacy, but in productive initiatives that target the areas of greatest need.

Senator Obama provided us with a clear and succinct mission statement:

The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.

The United States has assumed the responsibilities of leadership in the world, and it has overseen great changes during that era. Although the challenges we now face rival that of any in the past, we are seeing very hopeful signs of a more mature and thoughtful leadership emerging from the regressive example of the current administration. America has much experience from which to learn, and unrivaled capability to mold those experiences into a deeper vision of the ideals of democracy as the most powerful instrument of positive change in the world.

I recommend that you read these papers, and expand these ideas on your own. We should take the time to collectively explore the ways we might channel the great resources at our disposal, in the spirit of our mission as expressed above by Senator Obama. As was noted yesterday, these are clear statements of forward-looking policies, but that Senator Obama's actions have been far more consistently in support of them. I believe the better we understand these issues and their importance as they relate not just to foreign but domestic policy as well, the more clearly he will be seen as the right choice to be our next President of the United States.

When Will We Learn?

Don — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:19:37 EDT

When are we going to learn that we have to learn? When are we going to see that we can't keep trying the same tired old approaches? America is the greatest country in the world, and has by far the greatest potential for good than any other nation. When will we realize our true potential?

Barack Obama has learned from history, and in the course of supporting and following his campaign, so have I. The United States of America has been enormously effective since the end of World War II in leveraging its position to spread its influence and its democratic ideals around the world. I've been on the scene myself for most of that time, and, perhaps in honor of my recently-"celebrated" 60th birthday, it's time to take stock of our progress so far. We may want to study our report card results in Foreign Affairs over those 60 years, and ask ourselves if we can do better. What do you think our grade should be? A++? C-? F?

The foreign policies of the current administration are finding fewer adherents. But how different are they, really, from those of other presidents in our recent past? What are the morals of the story of American involvement in Iraq during that time?

Hillary Clinton's recent elaborations on her view of foreign policy actually strikes me as rather hopeful. You can read her remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

For me, Hillary's views as expressed above represent an evolution in thinking even compared to her husband's presidency, and I can't help thinking that's a very good thing. The Bush Administration policies represent a regressive version of this approach, and generate more visceral reactions of disagreement. But as we consider our place in the world and our expanding sense of responsibilities, isn't it time for each of us to take these questions to heart and gain a better sense of the stakes involved? If these are serious times, we need to make some serious effort.

Hillary Clinton's document above provides us with an extensive look at her ideas on foreign policy. The following link on this site -- http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga -- provides some equivalent, but I would like to see more details. Of course, Hillary's document is a little verbose, it might be added. But for all the admirable principles she endorses, her words and her votes often seem problematic when viewed in that essay's context. If this represents some of the new thinking in foreign policy, might it not be important to support a candidate who is consistent in support of that new direction?

I am confident of Barack Obama's consistent leadership with regard to his views on foreign policy, and I look forward to more opportunities to highlight the great importance of this evolution in thinking that is embodied by his campaign. As tensions rise in the world today, due in no small part to American activities, the magnitude of these concerns cannot be overestimated. The great promise that Obama's campaign represents is nowhere better on display than in a sober review of our impact on this globe, and our thoughts on what might be, if we have the will and courage.

We have large challenges ahead. I am deeply concerned for the prospects should we fail, but I'm inspired by the opportunities they present. I believe Senator Obama has reflected deeply on these matters, and I enthusiastically support the new era of hope he envisions for America and the world.

If we are to meet these challenges, we have to learn, grow and develop. Old ideas that are no longer effective, and perhaps were never truly in all our interests, must be discarded if we are to be all we must be.

This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership. The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it.

This will require a new spirit – not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. It will also require a new leader. And as a candidate for President of the United States, I am asking you to entrust me with that responsibility.
-- Barack Obama

Obama Opposes Telecom Immunity

Don — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:46:06 EDT

I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start.

Senator Obama has made a strong statement about the attempt to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies in the latest update to the FISA bill. I can't try to pick the Senator's fights -- there are so many -- but I want to briefly use this space to highlight what I think some of the implications are in this issue, and why it's so important to stand firm in opposition.

It's clear that extraordinary measures have been taken to gain access to private communications in the name of security. It's also clear that some modernization of surveillance is absolutely necessary considering the revolutionary changes of the electronic age. It is critical, however, that we make every effort to protect our privacy, because without it we are fundamentally redefined as a society, and our liberties are shockingly constrained in ways many of us may not be sufficiently aware. There are reasonable approaches to incorporate sufficient oversight into the surveillance effort without compromising efficiency in any way, and there no longer appears to be any legitimate disagreement about this point.

The recent updates to FISA legislation include measures to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies who agreed to cooperate with the aggressive surveillance techniques employed by the current administration. Senator Obama opposes this, and fellow Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd has vowed to filibuster if necessary to prevent it.

Why is this so important?

(1) This is how we communicate with each other, so it's not just about the 4th Amendment, but #1 as well, and we need to be very clear about where to draw the line regarding any infringements.

(2) We see time and again the heavy cost of failure to examine our behavior, particularly our behavior in stressful times, and we avoid such self-examination at our peril.

I don't dwell on what sort of punishment might be imposed on companies who overstepped the line. I do think about the dangers of not knowing about what lines were crossed, what harm was done, and what we can learn about ourselves so we can do better. I see no need for vindictiveness, but I do believe we must have a reasonable level of concern regarding safeguards to our lifelines to each other. If we relax our vigilance here, we have failed ourselves in a really fundamental way.

Thank you, Senator, for speaking out! Congress absolutely must stand firm against demands that we embrace a troublingly incurious attitude toward these questions. This is certainly where the line has to be drawn. The enormous power of modern communication technology requires enormous care to ensure its responsible use, and the responsible consciences of its providers.

Say Hello To Cousin Dick!

Don — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:24:08 EDT

It's true, apparently, according to CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/16/all-in-the-family-cheney-and-obama-related/. Barack Obama and Dick Cheney share a common ancestor from the eighth generation preceding them, which, if I recall, is said to make them something like ninth cousins, once removed. Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton is said to have quipped: "Obviously, Dick Cheney is sort of the black sheep of the family."

So, how do you all like Cousin Dick? You can't take him anywhere, he could shoot someone in the face, but he's a cousin. I guess there's no avoiding it after all. Deep down, underneath all the infighting and distrust, we really are all together.

I guess you could say we're treating each other like family, too, in a really dysfunctional sort of way. But when you realize it's not just words, that we really are all in this together right down to the blood in our veins, you know it says something about how we could do a whole lot better.

We're family.

Barack Obama On The Ed Schultz Show

Don — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:06:49 EDT

I'd like to blog about Barack Obama's visit just now to the Ed Schultz talk radio show carried on station AM1090 here in the Seattle area from noon to 3 weekdays. I'd like to blog about it, but I missed it. I got in the car, and Ed's voice came out of the radio to say his goodbyes to Barack. Darn!

What I did hear, though, was the guy who called into the show a few minutes later. You know him. You've heard him speak. He's a voice being groomed all over America by one side of the talk radio scene. I've seen what he writes on the internet, sometimes even on this site. I don't remember his question verbatim, but here's the gist:

"Is Barack Obama a Muslim, and why won't he wear our flag on his lapel?"

Yeh, you know this guy.

Ed Schultz was great. Ed is no stranger to controversial topics, so he didn't skip a beat, of course. I don't listen to Ed all that much, although I like him, but I'm sure he hears from these folks all the time. I wouldn't have toyed with this guy as much as Ed did, but after so many of them, I guess Ed just wanted to play. He never bothered to answer the Muslim question; he just said "So what?" I don't think the guy expected that.

Ed preferred to press our opinionated friend about what that lapel pin meant to him. He pointed out that many others in politics don't wear that pin every time out, and Barack had probably just been caught on a day without it, so the press made a big deal. All this was lost on our friend, of course. For him, the lapel pin is America. For him, the pin, his church, and the President are all of a piece. You and I know how stupid all this is, but it appears some effort is being made to make big issues of these things in the conservative talk show world. When they're not busy with this, they're hassling the S-CHIP kid, so these folks are making quite a name for themselves.

I listened to this gentleman with his questions, and it was obvious his mind is permanently closed. Ed tried, but there was no progress. Ed actually got fed up at the end, and basically told him to get lost. Good riddance, but I'm not done with him. I know he's coming back.

I'm not going to talk about the Muslim thing, either. Ed had a good idea there. You go look it up, doggone it, if that's your thing. Do a little research, use your brain, get all the answers you need on your own. See if you can pay attention long enough to get it straight. (Sorry, I got a little ticked.) Just one thing, though: when you encounter someone of the Muslim faith, it might be a friend. You never know. It's hard to imagine, but strange things happen. Talk to people.

So, how about the lapel pin? Ed was probably correct, and Barack Obama probably just didn't have one on that day. But what if Barack made an issue of this on purpose? As a thinking, passionate liberal, that would suit me fine, even though Obama likely did nothing of the sort. To me, one of the most important assignments for each of us as we try to select our next President is to get to know the person and not the facade. A lapel pin is just a symbol; it's about talking instead of doing. Clothes and accouterments may "make the man", as they used to say, but when I vote for a President, I need to know a little about his (or her) heart.

These are two superficial issues, just two sides of a single coin. If Barack Obama dares to face the world without a flag to hide behind, how can we tell if he's a patriot? Could it be that we actually need to pay attention, and decide?

So, I won't even bother to answer the second question. Is Barack Obama a patriot? Take a few months and find out. Listen. Think. Decide for yourself. There's a lot of opinions out there, and a staggering amount of stupid talk. But I bet if I could just sit down with that guy from Ed's show and really talk, we'd start to make sense after a while, maybe even be friends. We're better than this, and we've got important stuff on the table. We get so stupid when we're angry, all of us, and it's good having someone like Barack Obama around to remind us to stop and think, and make good decisions.

I hope I don't offend by discussing these topics. Talk radio feeds on controversy, and sometimes you need to confront it head-on, because this is festering out there. Barack Obama isn't going to stoop to this level (thank goodness!), but I'm not proud. I just held up the mirror for a minute. If you're reading this, and you called the Ed Schultz show today, take a look. It's ugly, isn't it? Are you still proud of yourself?

John Edwards Has Strong Performance on Meet The Press

Don — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:09:04 EDT

I was very impressed by John Edwards' performance on Meet The Press this morning (Oct. 7). He was very clear in his comments, refused to be distracted by side issues, and made a number of excellent points in a very effective way. I don't expect the cynical press will give him much credit, but he made a very valuable contribution to the dialogue we're having about this election. I feel even more strongly than before that, if John Edwards wins the nomination and is elected President in 2008, that would be a very positive thing for America.

Before you start telling me to go join the Edwards campaign, let me explain. First, I reserve the right to award points when they're earned. John Edwards earned a lot of points with me this morning, and I expect with many others as well. But he also earned a lot of points in the minds of a lot of Americans for many of the issues we care about most in support of Barack Obama's campaign. Don't be ashamed to accept help whenever it's offered. John Edwards did us a lot of good this morning.

We're supporting a candidate whose qualities compare very favorably with John Edwards, but who happens also to have been correct on the big issues right from the beginning. It's unfortunate that Edwards will always have to defend his error in 2002, but it underscores the importance of being ready to make the right choices before it's too late.

I recommend we congratulate John Edwards for his excellent interview on Meet The Press, and continue to wish him every success -- except for one -- as we go forward.

Let's Redesign Barack Obama (Not!)

Don — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:58:14 EDT

The bloggers are blogging, the Hardball pundits are pontificating, and they all want to remake Barack Obama into a more marketable product. Some of them say he should be more like Hillary (honest!), and others say he ought to raise his fist and shout "Power To The People!". In addition to our other common characteristics, opinions are one more thing we all seem to have.

I've decided to support a man named Barack Obama. I have never said he was perfect, and I never thought I would like everything about him. He's just a man. But I have an opinion, too, of course. Why should I be different?

I'll be disappointed if Obama does anything but continue to be himself. If we want to elect someone President of the United States, I hope we can trust him to do the right thing.

I'm listening to a pundit on Hardball now (via Tivo) saying "If Obama had just done this and this ... yada yada yada ... he'd be ahead in the race today". Umm, isn't he actually ahead in Iowa? It might surprise the pundits, but he's doing just fine.

Hillary Clinton is far from the inevitable candidate. I've been known to cringe painfully at the behavior of my Democratic hopefuls in past elections, but I'm not cringing now. I trust this guy to do what he thinks is right.

Of course, if he wants my advice, I'm always ready with a few suggestions.

1/20/09

Don — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:09:02 EDT

January 20, 2009. That's less than sixteen months from now. We have so much to do before then, but it's never too early to begin planning.

I would love to see all of you in Washington, D.C. on that day when Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. I would like to see a celebration on that day such as the world has never seen.

Let's think ahead a bit to arrange vacation time, plan lodging contingencies for unprecedented numbers, and other logistics that may require serious thought to allow for successful management. Also, it's fun to look forward to the day we finally take back America.

The crowds in Manhattan were impressive, but that's just the beginning. What if we have ten million celebrants in Washington that day? 20 million? 50? I want to have the first party that can be seen from space. We can send a message to the world every day until then, in smaller ways, but on Inauguration Day let's tell the world America is back, and better than ever.

Fantasy? If so, then why are we here? Remember, you gotta believe!

Make your reservations in advance.

Tough Love

Don — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:21:52 EDT

I'm a believer. I remember the Amazin' Mets of many years ago, and relief pitcher Tug McGraw shouting "You gotta believe!". I believe Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination because he's the best candidate running the best campaign, but also because I gotta believe. Every time in my life I've said to myself "I can do it!", didn't waver in my faith, and persevered, guess what? I did it. (Well, I couldn't fly like Peter Pan, but I didn't have any pixie dust. I recall persevering, though.)

But there's nothing wrong with a little tough love. I know I don't have the answers, but I see the questions, and I know the Senator continues to respond in his own style, with integrity. Some of the more difficult questions were raised today by David Bromwich of the Huffington Post in his blog Hillary Clinton Votes For War Again. We can appreciate the scathing critique of Hillary Clinton, but there are some questions for Senator Obama here as well. I have written here previously of my concerns regarding Iran. David Bromwich has eloquently echoed my sentiments, and challenged all of us, I believe, for a response.

Here Comes The MSNBC Debate

Don — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:20:48 EDT

They're on MSNBC right now telling Barack Obama what to do in tonight's debate. You know what? Barack Obama will do what he wants to do. So far, he's been doing just fine, and his performance in this campaign so far will win believers the better folks get to know him.

I have my own disagreements with some of the other candidates, and there are plenty of things I would like to say, but aren't you glad I'm not your candidate? My trust in Senator Obama's judgement has been well rewarded so far, and I don't feel any sense of urgency at this point for this campaign. We're going great, folks!

Good luck, Senator Obama!

Senate GOP Wants To Filibuster

Don — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:13:44 EDT

The GOP in the Senate wants to filibuster every proposal that comes to the floor (except when responding to newspaper ads, of course). I say, filibuster away.

Next week, and every week after that, let's let the Republicans filibuster all they want. But let's not let them enjoy it with cloture votes. Let's have some real filibusters! Force them to hold the floor every time they want to filibuster. Let's have some more all-nighters, if that's how they want to play. The American people need to be alerted to what's going on here.

Sure, they'll say it's just "political theater", at least the first couple of times it happens. Americans can be a little slow on the uptake. But stand firm. If they filibuster, they've got to be made to earn it. Sooner or later, it's going to dawn on the public that "political theater" isn't made by the target of the filibuster, but by the instigator.

Democratic Senators may miss a lot of fund-raising dinners, but so will the Republicans. Every time a Republican Senator tries to sneak out to make some quick cash, have a quorum call. I suspect there's a limit to how many money-making opportunities Republican Senators can stand to miss, and who knows? We might find we can break a filibuster or two, and finally get something done!

Obama Strong in Opposition To Iraq Policy

Don — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:40:05 EDT

Senator Obama is speaking out very strongly against the Iraq Occupation, as evidenced by this MSNBC report published this morning. This, amidst an avalanche of critical problems, is the single most important issue of our time. It is a test of who we are as a nation and a leader in the world, and it is the focal point of Obama's campaign. The Senator believes we must change direction in Iraq today, not sixteen months from now, and I believe the best campaign effort we can make is to brainstorm about the best ways we can help to achieve that.

Before we turn to discussion involving protests and advertising, why don't we review the current strategy by the Democrats as we approach these crucial votes, and what our options might be for success? We don't have enough votes, that's the first problem, and that means the odds are against us. To me, it seems the biggest obstacle to defunding the war is the argument that it also defunds protective equipment for the troops. So, is there an effort to produce a bill that fast-tracks all soldier-specific equipment for guaranteed funding and expedited delivery, as a separate Support The Troops First measure? Wouldn't this be a very practical approach to removing that obstacle once and for all? Then Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reed could prevent the other funding bills from even reaching the floor, since they have control of the agenda.

Is it worth pressing for a Support The Troops First special funding bill to ensure that no soldier in the field is ever manipulated like a pawn in political disputes? I would promote it with the simple truth: that we're in for some serious discussion about our policy in Iraq, and the safety of soldiers has no business being any part of that issue. It sure makes sense to me, so what do you think?

If we become free to dispute the policy without involving the health of soldiers, we could be much more firm in our approach, and could even, as I said, keep war funding entirely off the agenda until enough members of Congress accept that the Democrats have a majority, and are prepared to respond to the voters who put them in office.

Fund the troops first, then stop the war. I think we could do it. Comments?

Words of a Statesman

Don — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:51:08 EDT

At every stage of this war, we have suffered because of disdain for diplomacy. We have not brought allies to the table. We have refused to talk to people we don't like. And we have failed to build a consensus in the region. As a result, Iraq is more violent, the region is less stable, and America is less secure. ...
Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

These are the unflinching words of Senator Barack Obama in his speech today. They represent a succinct and inclusive indictment of American policy in the 21st century. If words were enough, then this would be sufficient to be the terminating factor for the most willfully wrong-headed era in American history.

But wait! There's more. I've been reviewing some of the speeches by great, and not so great, statesmen in history, and I've longed for the universal humanity echoed in the speeches of our great figures of the past like John F. Kennedy. Senator Obama rose to the occasion with a message of hope to the world:

It's time for us to breathe again. That begins with ending this war - but it does not end there. It's time to reclaim our foreign policy. It's time to reclaim our politics. And it's time to lead this country - and this world - again, to a new dawn of peace and unity.

Again, if only words were enough.

Despite the insufficiency, from logical and statistical perspectives, of the reports of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in justifying the continuation of the current policy, the cards still seem to be stacked against the appeal to reason so eloquently expressed by our favorite candidate. We need to put pressure on our representatives out there, all of us with Senators and Congresspersons still siding with the Bush Administration in this unjust and counterproductive endeavor.

Call them, email them, pressure them. Let them know you agree with Senator Obama, and that if they continue this policy, they will be strongly opposed, both now and in their upcoming re-election campaigns.

Is it important enough to do this? Does it matter enough to make a phone call and send an email or two? It matters to me. And it matters to Senator Obama.

We can do it! We can end it! Tell your representatives what you think today!

In Remembrance

Don — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:25:20 EDT

I wrote my 9/11 blog a bit early, on August 14th, in response to Keith Olbermann's mention of a truly demented radio sequence on right-wingnut John Gibson's radio show. Below is the text of that blog:

I'm rushing the season a little, but Keith Olbermann on Countdown picked someone from Fox News as his "Worst Person in the World" for the 9000th time. Today, it was John Gibson, who, on his Fox News Radio Show on August 10th, entertained a discussion of a column published the day before in the Philadelphia Daily News. The column was written by a conservative named Stu Bykofsky, and declared that America needs another 9/11 to straighten it out.
I'll let that sink in for a minute.
There's an informative article about this on mediamatters.org, including the voice audio and a text transcript of that portion of the broadcast. The article also contains a link to the column. I recommend you watch the YouTube clip below before examining the material on mediamatters. It's a moving 9/11 remembrance video that features the relevant portion of the post-9/11 Jon Stewart Daily Show broadcast.
I lived in Manhattan for nearly nine years. When I walked outside my apartment building down on Houston Street in the West Village, the World Trade Center towers dominated the sky to the south. I even worked briefly in one of the towers. Although I was in Washington State on 9/11/2001, I was deeply affected. For some time, I watched the lists of the dead in case someone I'd known had been among the victims. I had left Manhattan over 20 years before, and the names on the lists were unfamiliar. But that's not how I felt. The breathing, bustling heart of Manhattan never leaves you if you've lived there any length of time. Those brokers and administrative assistants and data processors and policemen and firemen were my brothers and sisters. My grief was nothing special or unique, but it was very real.
I'm not going to editorialize very much about all this. As we near yet another sad anniversary of 9/11, we all have our private thoughts and reactions to our memories, and to these latest references to the tragedy. I'll leave you to them.
I don't think you'll find much sentiment in the Fox broadcast or the Daily News column, but the video below is unabashed in its emotion. It's a fitting homage. As you watch, you'll remember what we lost, but you might also reconnect with what we somehow gained.
I don't need another 9/11. I haven't forgotten a thing.

At the bottom of that blog entry was an embedded YouTube video in memory of 9/11, featuring Jon Stewart's comments on his first broadcast after the tragedy. The blogging software here appears to strip object embedding code, so I'll just link to that video here. You can see the original blog post here.

(Caveat: my apartment was actually on Hudson Street. Hey, it was a long time ago. I had forgotten.)

Six Years Later

Don — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:27:36 EDT

Here we are, six years after 9/11. Are we any better off? Have we captured Osama bin Laden? No. We're mired in a civil war in a country we ourselves attacked. Shameful!

We face another tremendous challenge in the days ahead, and if we fail, we lose more than money, more even than our young men and women who fall in battles we should prevent. We stand to lose the most important thing of all.

I want to reprint here a portion of an email I just sent to my representatives in Congress. The core of its argument comes from the Great Communicator himself, and I think it speaks to all of us.

I'm writing now to remind you of a portion of Ronald Reagan's farewell address I rediscovered over the week-end. It reads as follows:

'"We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.'

I don't often cull my arguments from the words of Ronald Reagan, but in this case, I think it's noteworthy that this sentiment is offered in this context. I believe it's the common thread that connects us all in this democracy, and it stands before your judgment at this time. By every reckoning, the American people have spoken to say we must end this war here and now. If this is, and will continue to be, a government of, by and for the people, then the people must win the argument on Iraq, and our Congress must stand up for their constituents all the way. Failing that, please tell me, how will we define our democracy from there on out?

Thank you for your time.

My latest blog at blogspot.com, "A City upon a Hill", expands on this topic.

Iran War Drums (final chapter?)

Don — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:58:26 EDT

I'm taking Senator Obama off the hook. I'm no less concerned about conflict with Iran, But the Senator's column in today's New York Daily News is a response, offered in the now-familiar style that cuts through animosity and looks forward to positive solutions.

The drums are still beating. I could offer a half-dozen new links from major sources expressing their concern. But while the voices of reason speak directly to this issue, we can hope for peace.

Your answer wasn't quite how I would have said it, Senator. But your way sounds pretty good. I look forward to seeing a government in office I don't have to worry about all the time.

Iran War Drums vol. 3

Don — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:48:17 EDT

Bloggers Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane have earned attention and respect with their carefully researched and courageous writing. Yesterday, they posted an article outlining the current state of military preparation for attacking Iran. This morning, on the Thom Hartmann show on Air America radio, Larisa recounted her dialogue with an unnamed "high-level government official". When she asked if anything could stop this, the response was "nothing can stop it now".

I believe the next President of the United States can stop it, and, Senator Obama, I implore you to do so. Unless we stand up now, we may suddenly find ourselves in a world hurtling toward unprecedented destruction.

It appears that I need to keep this blog front and center until this danger has passed. I have not gone through life as an alarmist, and I'm not happy to sacrifice my dignity by screaming here like Chicken Little. But if my loss of dignity saves a single child from the horrors of war, the cost is cheap, indeed.

Senator Obama. We. Need. You. Now.

Iran War Drums (cont.)

Don — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:38:21 EDT

President Bush is talking about an Iranian "nucular holocaust", and announcing that he has directed his military leaders in Iraq to confront "Iran's murderous activities". Couple that with new Bush pal Sarkozy's comments yesterday, and the drumbeat is now in stereo.

Please, Senator Obama! This is the time to be proactive, before the administration rolls out its Fall Product Line. If you can't read the tea leaves, I can. We're dealing with a deeply troubled administration whose only chance to get back in the chips is to go Double or Nothing.

Speak out now, and speak out continuously! If you do not, I fear this awful thing is going to happen. If we get close to war and you are still silent, I will side with the Democratic candidate most vocally opposed to this serious danger, and will strongly advise others to do the same!

You're my candidate, Senator Obama. I haven't felt a need to "tell you what to do", and don't want to be in that role.

But this is danger time. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

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

An additional note: Way back at the first debate (MSNBC, I believe, with Brian Williams), Obama was asked the infamous "hypothetical question" about another terrorist attack, and was criticized because he thought first of helping the victims, and secondly of a counter-strike. It was Obama's calm and compassionate first instincts to assist that so impressed me. To my mind, he won that question hands down, and I want such instincts in the White House. All the more reason for my impassioned plea above.

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

Here is Senator Obama's reaction to the President's speech. I was ready to declare the end of my vigil, but wait! There is no mention of Iran here, only Iraq. This is not yet the head-on opposition required. I do appreciate the Senator's response, but there is certainly a larger issue, a wider war, that was previewed today. We cannot hope to be so fortunate that this problem will just go away.

Speak Out Against Iran War Drums

Don — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:46:42 EDT

Obviously, I'm a Barack Obama supporter. I have taken his side in political discussions, and have signed up to commit a small amount of funds to his campaign on a monthly basis. I am very much impressed with Senator Obama, and I would like nothing more than to see him take the Oath of Office in January 2009. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

But right now, I'm frantically searching this site and the rest of the internet for any sign that Senator Obama has spoken out against the recent machinations of this administration against Iran that cause me to experience a sickening sense of deja vu. As soon as I find something, I'll update this blog.

If the disastrous effects of the Iraq Occupation are compounded by war with Iran, we won't be looking at a disaster any more. We would be participants in a catastrophe. With this in mind, I implore Senator Obama to speak out immediately. Dennis Kucinich has already done so, and it's time for Senator Obama to do the same.

Please, Senator Obama! This is how it all got started before! Not again!

My Blog at Blogger.com Is Regularly Updated

Don — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:45:53 EDT

In the interest of avoiding duplication, I hope you will allow me to direct you to my blog at http://zenhodgepodge.blogspot.com. I create a new entry every few days, and I assure you that my modest efforts are offered in good faith, and in the spirit of bridging, not broadening, the divisions between us.

Thanks.

Donald Weed