Blog /sfm

The Language of Teamwork

Susan from SC — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 01:48:14 EDT

(also on htttp://JarsOfWater.net)

Don't you get tired of people taking up positions rather than working together? Or worse, nodding their heads face-to-face, and then going on the attack outside the meeting?

I have been appalled with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for years. Every media sound bite I had ever heard had her taking a position or on the attack. Here's a typical one:

"...the Republicans were doing their what I call war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies on the floor of the House a couple of weeks ago..."

That kind of namecalling can't be good for promoting teamwork, or leading an effective government. Maybe it's good for uniting one side against another, but whoever sits in the White House needs to be able to work with whatever Congress they're dealt.

Tonight we listened to two men who want to be President. Nevermind their positions. Listen to their words.

McCain: "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand..."
McCain: "I don't think that Senator Obama understands..."
McCain: "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand..."
McCain: "What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand..."
McCain: "Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand..."
McCain: "Senator Obama still doesn't quite understand..."
McCain: "And, yes, Senator Obama , but what he doesn't understand,..."
McCain: "And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand..."
McCain: "Now, I think the Russians ought to understand that ..."

This is the language of a maverick. Someone who challenges, someone who isn't going to back down until they make you understand.

Obama: "I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues. Obviously, I disagree ..."
Obama: "Senator McCain and I, I think agree on {topic of agreement}, but..."
Obama: "I just fundamentally disagree."
Obama: "We do need {topic of agreement}. I do not agree with Senator McCain that..."
Obama: ..."I think Senator McCain would agree"...

This is the language of a diplomat. Someone who can acknowledge disagreement and agreement. Someone who is going to give credit where it's due, yet still hold their ground.

Obama's words are what I want to hear in my own meetings. Those are the words that will get work done.

Getting work done is why we send these folks to Washington. I hope our next president is fluent in the language of teamwork.

My View on Obama's Views

Susan from SC — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:44:02 EDT

There's an e-mail circulating entitled "The Obama Title [sic] Wave", which asserts that most Obama followers are just caught up in the wave, and don't know what he stands for. I can't speak for the millions who have voted for him. I can speak for myself. Here's my response to the e-mail, point by point:

· He voted against banning partial birth abortion.

In my view, termination of a pregnancy is a serious and private matter, deserving careful consideration and discussion between the woman and her doctor, her sexual partner (except in cases of rape) and other counselors - family, friends, and/or professionals. In my view, the federal government has no place in this discussion. It infuriates me that valuable congressional time was spent even considering this kind of legislation.

· He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

I would sincerely hope that a minor's parents would be part of the decision to continue or terminate her pregnancy. Conversations about sex, including hypothetical discussion of such a conversation, without presumption of its outcome, should be part of every parent-daughter relationship. If there was going to be legislation, it should mandate that. But imagine the outcry if the feds tried to tell people how to raise their children in that way? No, instead we ask for some bureaucratic solution. Again, a misuse of congressional time.

· Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.

Education is the foundation for success in careers, and I don't believe that anyone has made a convincing case that we have educated enough racial minorities such that businesses reflect the population makeup. If you don't have the graduates coming out of college, you can't hire them.

· In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.

I'm not familiar with the particular aspects of this legislation, but I know that Obama's background makes him much more of an expert than I am. In my experience, those with more expertise ask more questions, and question what seem like obvious answers. If he wasn't applying his expertise to question such legislation, that would be more of a red flag to me.

· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.

Selling drugs is lucrative, high risk business. Kind of like the business that Bear Stearns is -- or was -- in. Unlike that Wall Street firm, and like minimum wage jobs, street level drug dealing requires no formal education, just the right connections. Can we get more kids to choose minimum wage jobs instead of street dealing, by raising the minimum wage? Not clear. Would that be less expensive than incarcerating the lot of them? Don't know. But it's worth looking at. Who knows? Maybe these risk takers could get employed on Wall Street if we can keep them out of jail.

· Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

Let's see. Honesty about youthful indiscretion. That's more courage than most people I know. "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." And after politicians like Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Pres. Bill Clinton? I don't have problems with this.

· His religious convictions are very murky.

That's a pretty murky statement, not grounded in facts like most of the others in this list. But frankly, I haven't spent a lot of time examining the religious convictions of the candidates. I'm not electing a bishop. I'm electing a president. And religious convictions don't mean anything if they're not reflected in the person's actions. He states he's a Christian. Based on the evidence I've seen, I believe him. 'Nuf said.

· He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I'm glad to hear it, as long as his security team is up to the task. It's easy to imagine someone not governed by either leader deciding to make history and blow them both up. I'd certainly want better security than we're getting for the Olympic torch. But assuming it's secure, I like the idea. Obama is charismatic, and if anyone is going to get America's point across with the likes of these, or even get them to change domestic or foreign policies, it would be him.

· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.

Again, I think this is an excellent idea, if the security can be arranged, especially if he can be brought in to speak, and IF it has the backing of the United Nations. There is a lot of good in Islam that is shared with Christianity and the American way -- I'm thinking in particular about charity towards those in need. But extremist views that are nurtured by Islamic states, that turn into terrorism, cannot be tolerated. I think that Obama can credibly make that statement of solidarity, accompanied by the reprimand. But I don't want him to do it on his own. For the reprimand to be anything more than saber rattling, we need to have the UN leadership in the conversation.

· Opposed the Patriot Act.

My recollection is that the Patriot Act gave the executive branch a lot of power without adequate oversight. Even if I did trust the current president and all of his advisors, who's to say that the next one and his or her advisors would be equally trustworthy?

· First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.

I'm not sure how this is a bad thing, unless it would have been better for it to be another type of bill. I don't think that any politician has a lot of control over their first success. It depends on the opposition, on the legislative calendar, etc. And if campaign finance reform is supposed to be a bad thing, I have to disagree. "Follow the money", and all that. It's way cool that Obama's raising so much from grassroots, and in my view, it oughta be that way.

· Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.

Are there any businesses that are free to operate without the threat of law suits? Isn't part of our health care cost problem today that doctors aren't free to operate without the threat of law suits, and have to carry expensive insurance policies? Doctors are in a life-or-death business, with the moral mandate to save lives. Gun manufacturers are also in a life-or-death business, with the presumed rationale to save lives as well. Why should they get a privilege not according to our doctors? Such a bill makes no sense to me.

· Supports universal health-care.

And as we know, supporting it is not the same as accomplishing it. He is not in favor of required universal health care, which Clinton is. The current system isn't working. I'm not so sure that universal health care is the answer, either, given the long waits I've heard about in the UK and in Canada. But I'm not satisfied that Bush has made any progress on the health care cost problem, any more than Clinton did, and I want the next president to be more effective on this issue. He thinks we have a problem -- that's a good thing. But until he actually does something about it, whatever he supports is mute.

· Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

I still don't get why we think that the Guantanamo detainees are not prisoners of war, and why the U.S. isn't willing to abide by the Geneva convention for prisoners of war. Is it because we aren't at war with a sovereign nation, and the detainees aren't technically prisoners of war? I don't know. But they're on our soil, and for the U.S. to have any credibility in the world, or with its own population, those prisoners need to be under some sort of rule of law.   In my view, habeus corpus is representative of rule of law.

·    Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

To get a driver's license you need documentation that you are you (passport, birth certificate), and you need to pass the driver's exam. Those are good things.   Why is this a problem?

· Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

If someone has paid into Social Security, I'm not sure I care whether they're legal or not. But, like the recent tax rebate, if they haven't paid in, why should they benefit?

· Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.

Hallelujah! I live in California. 'Nuf said.

· Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

If participate means "pay in and receive benefit", then I agree.

· Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.

I'm ambivalent about raising the minimum wage. I've seen enough debates on this in my lifetime to have a healthy skepticism for both sides: a) businesses seem to survive the hikes, and b) people are still poor.

· Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.

Okay. What about the other 4%? And what is the record of his opposition?

· Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.

As am I. Look at the Islamic states. Do we want to set our country up to be Christian versions of those nations? No! We pride ourselves in our diversity, in our common values, and our religious freedoms. I remember as a kid, asking about how the Baptist church was organized, and getting the vehement reply -- the Southern Baptist Convention does not represent my church and has no authority over me -- this from someone who attended that church. I guess being around all those Baptists as a kid gave me the same strong belief in the separation of church and state.

· Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.

Take a look at the Dow Jones, and tell me that anyone in their right minds wants the savings of the country to be in the stock market. Sure, it works in the long run, but we all have the option of changing the mix of investments when we need or want more stability and predictability. If we privatize, are we not asking the likes of a Bear Stearns account manager to manage our retirement savings? No way! If raising taxes is what it's going to take, then that's what it takes. We all laughed at the prices that the Europeans were paying for gas, but look at us now. We all shudder at the taxes paid by the Canadians and the Europeans, but they seem to manage just fine. Have you seen the dollar vs the euro lately?

· He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax

AMT is a tax that only applies to people making a lot of money. It happens to apply to me. Would I rather keep that money? Sure. But don't ask me to keep my money, while the country is in desparate need of money to fight a war and fund successful domestic programs. Don't balance the budget on the backs of fixed income retirees and others less well off than me.

· He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax

Here again, let's balance the budget. Don't reduce the incoming funds when you're increasing the outgoing ones!

· He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.

As I recall, the Capital Gains tax was lowered not so long ago. Do we have evidence that it helped anything economically? Not in theory, but in practice? Without that evidence, I would have to agree with Obama. We need to balance the budget.

· Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.

What is success? Are we any safer than we were after 9/11? No one appears to be able to answer that question with facts that aren't immediately countered by other indications. The surge is costing more money. That's a fact. Is it working? I don't know. There were hearings today on the matter, but I don't trust that the view I got from the media really answered the question. The little bits that the news had time to air wouldn't provide "the preponderance of the evidence" that I would want.

· He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

Ranked by whom? And why should I care about that label? I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I find myself agreeing with Republicans who are mortified by Bush's lack of fiscal responsibility. But when it comes to votes on the Senate floor, would my record be much different from Obama's? Somehow, I doubt it.

He also voted NO to make English the official language!!

As did I, when I had the opportunity to vote on that initiative here in California. It passed anyway. And what difference has it made? It was used as an excuse to stop funding some educational programs. Great. More less educated kids. Just what this country needs. Did we increase funding for programs to teach people English as a second language? Not that I've heard. Documents are still published lots of languages. When I call a customer service number, I still hear the prompts to press a number for Spanish. Sure, it would be better if we all spoke the same language, but I don't think legislation like this makes any difference at all, not unless it's backed with the money for ESL programs. And how are we going to pay for that?

It's way past my bedtime, but I thought this was important, not just for the person who passed on this e-mail, but for me, to validate my own decision to support Obama for President in 2008.

The Speech on Race

Susan from SC — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:56:22 EDT

See my other blog: http://jarsofwater.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/press-coverage-part-1/

Change

Susan from SC — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:52:00 EST

I had a job once where I got trained to speak to the press. I was coached on sticking to my message. One of our campaign messages is Change, and we must be doing well with that message because a new e-mail is circulating saying that these candidates can't change anything. The e-mail is cleverly written, but on this particular point I disagree.

Presidents can change policy. Take Bush and stem cell research, as an example.
Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices, changing who has the majority, and what laws are interpreted as constitutional or not, or even what laws are allowed to be appealed to the Court.
Presidents can influence their peers in other nations, and together with them change, for better or worse, the political stage of the world.

All of those things can have a fundamental effect on this country. Does it change the foundations?
By constitutional design, no, Presidential impact is limited by their terms in office, and the staying
power of the policies, Supreme Court justices, international programs, and influence on the ways of thinking of leaders that have longer terms of office. I would have to disagree with the statement that the President doesn't change anything.

Obama in 2008, and yes, Obama for Change.

Unity

Susan from SC — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:17:34 EST

Listening to the radio this afternoon, an editorial commentator talked about how the majority of both Democrats and Republicans want their candidates to compromise with the other party, to not be so black and white -- how the majority want unity. That rang very true to me. With all the divisions we hear about overseas, with daily news reports of Serbia vs. Kosovo, Sunni vs. Shiite, and Chad vs. Kenya, it is no wonder that the majority of Americans crave for our home to be different. We want to feel unified, in the face of a world that at times seems determined to keep its historical tribal patterns.

But not only as a reaction to today's events, it is so very American for us to want this unity, to work together. It's codified in our name -- the United States of America. Look at the preamble to the Constitution which we memorized as children

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Perfect union, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare -- these are the words of a people looking for unity.

And just a little further along in our history, there's the Civil War, the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression -- whatever name you want to call it. Bottom line, though, the Southern states wanted to secede from the United States, and the United States government went to war to prevent it. If you look at the years running up to that war, there were all kinds of wheeling and dealing just to try to keep the unity between the two sides. Check out the Missouri Compromise.

As a nation, it's a recurring theme, and in the context of the world today, it's a mandate, a domestic twist on the national security concern. We the people are telling our government to "get over it" and work together.

I've seen this people's mandate here in California as well. When Schwarzenegger tried to come to the people to get around the legislature a few years back, the people didn't buy it, effectively telling him to go back and work it out.

Is the California legislature still struggling over issues? Sure. Do we as individuals have our own sticking points where we don't want compromise? Of course we do. But it doesn't surprise me that as a nation, we want unifying leadership. And it's wonderful that we have a candidate who can be that leader.

There's a part of me that still believes that the United States is supposed to be a beacon to the rest of the world. Yes, I know that going too far in that view is dangerous foreign policy. But I still want my country to lift up a light, as the Statue of Liberty personifies, to show a better way for the world.

Let's elect Obama. For real unity that isn't just lip service, but is really hard work. That takes careful listening, and even more careful legislation.

Obama in 2008

McCain article

Susan from SC — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:36:23 EST

Getting most of your news from the radio has it's advantages when you're a working mother. You can do it on your commute to and from work. You can turn it off when it's too depressing or offensive. You get a decent overview of "what's going on in the world". You don't expose young eyes and ears to material that they're not ready for yet. However.

You also only get the very top parts of the story. Take the Times McCain article as an example. All I heard about on the news were the allegations of romance between McCain and a lobbyist. But tonight I decided to take a look at the full article, and I was rather surprised. I must've been in an anti-news episode of my life when the Keating Five scandal broke, because it was news to me. I appreciated being able to catch up on all the various pieces of old news around McCain and lobbyists in the center sections of the article. I'm hoping for more articles like this, as the election comes around, pieces that help to give you some historical continuity on the candidates, and not just the sound bites that are current events.

But I had to smile at the McCain response posted at the end of the article, along the lines of Americans being tired of this kind of scandal reporting. Well, yes, and no.

News is all about conflict. If there's no conflict, it isn't "real news". On stations like NPR, pieces without conflict are trashed by listeners as info-tainment, or filler. Campaign reporting is no different. The piece has got to have conflict, or better yet, scandal. Sometimes I do get tired of all the negative stories, and I tune out, or switch over to KLOVE and let them tell me about some positive things happening in the world. But like most Americans, I expect the news to tell me what the campaigns aren't going to tell me.

The question is, what standard will the McCain campaign hold up when it's up against Obama? What will an Obama vs. McCain race look like? Will we see the gutter politics against Obama that the McCain camp protests at the end of the Times article? My bet is not. No, there will be some third party group playing that card, leaving McCain's image quite clean -- or at least clean enough to pass under the "above the fold" and "radio news" radar.

It's going to be a very interesting fall.

Response to Political Satire e-mail

Susan from SC — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:16:13 EST

This week I got a great example of campaign satire against Obama forwarded my inbox, titled A PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT.

It starts by including Hussein in Barack's name, which spawned the question from the sender, "Is he Muslim?" What a great question. I answered it like so:

Obama's a practicing Christian who has a Muslim parent.
It's like being a baptized kid, who goes to church and has communion every Sunday, and who has a Jewish mother and a Mormon father. What religion is the kid?
Many Jews would say the kid is a Jew. Many Mormons would say the kid is Mormon. Most Christians would say the kid is Christian. So what's the answer to the question? And is the answer a good thing or a liability for the kid? It depends.

How wonderful that this piece of political satire should lead to that kind of question! I'm not particularly fond of forwarded e-mails, but I love them when they spark a dialog.

The satire has some of the old attack about lack of legislative achievement . It also has the relatively new attack that tries to downplay the charismatic effect.

IMHO, you cannot completely discount charisma. If charisma and popularity didn't matter to a President, then why do the press go on and on about presidential popularity polls? Are those meaningless too? Maybe.

But look at Reagan, and Schwartzenegger, and Bush -- all incredibly popular at points in their careers. Reagan still carries that mantle, as does Arnold, and even Bush in some circles. All of them have been able to cash in on some of their charisma to help other people get elected, and to get popular support for their agendas, which can translate into popular pressure on the other elected officials. The popularity account can be overdrawn, but it is a real asset for a politician.

The crowd responses that Obama uses so effectively in his big rallies (which are very different, I've read, from the smaller encounters) serve to unite and ignite that popular electorate that would be a real asset in the White House. It makes sense for his opponents to try to turn this asset into a liability, much as Hillary's opponents try to turn her seriousness and professionalism into coldness and unlikeability.

Hillary is even using this kind of flip side in her campaign now, saying that her lack of success against Republicans in Washington, her three-year unsuccessful fight for health-care, gives her experience, helps her to "know what she's up against". I refer to the example for Obama's success with the videos of police questioning in the Illinois legislature, so I don't buy Hillary's line.

I also found it really funny that the author of this political satire is portraying Obama as shallow. But that's the rub. Taking very black and white stands in a world that is shades of gray IS shallow, and only serves to polarize. Those of us that support Obama are tired of the polarization. We see it as an immobilizer for governments. If you want to talk about rhetoric, look at all the lovely rot we hear about "working together" at the start of every congressional term, that vanishes quick as a flash -- right after the commercials. But if you read Audacity of Hope, you'll see that it isn't just sound-bite rhetoric. It's who he is.

And it gets even funnier when you consider that among the first Obama supporter camps (according to the press) were the well-educated Democrats -- ones who probably read Audacity of Hope. Yeah, we like Obama because we're shallow!

These political e-mails are fun to read, and to pick apart. It reminds of how much I enjoyed literary analysis in school. Between e-mails like these and listening to NPR during my commute, it's lining to be a really entertaining campaign.

/sfm

How I Became an Obama Supporter

Susan from SC — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:08:30 EST

I wrote the following in an e-mail on the Friday after Super Tuesday in a letter to another Obama supporter. Tonight I copied it into another e-mail. I realized I'd been thinking and writing alot about Obama lately. I was finally ready to begin blogging.

Here's how it all began.

As a pro-choice woman, it wasn’t an easy decision.

It started when I picked up Obama’s first book last year and read it, and liked what I read, especially his attitude towards Republicans and Democrats, and religion, and family. A man with a demanding career, who appreciates the sacrifices that a woman with a career makes in a two-career household, and will actually talk about it -- well, it’s rare.

I liked that he was a constitutional lawyer. I’d just finished a fantastic CD course on the Supreme
Court history that made me think that understanding that history would make for a much better President.

I talked to some Brits when we were there on vacation, and they confirmed that Clinton has a good reputation internationally, and they were surprised I was considering voting for anyone else. That gave me pause. But then, the international community was amused by the Bill Clinton affair – how could the Americans be so … high-minded? Well, I’m sorry, but we have a history of being morally high-minded, going back to the Puritans. We have huge segments that are morally conservative, in the South, and in the Catholic communities, both white and Latino. It’s just rude to snub your nose at all those people by philandering in the White House. You don’t have to agree with someone’s moral position to be respectful of it, particularly if you’re supposed to be representing them to the world!

The idea of putting Bill Clinton anywhere near the White House made me uncomfortable. I don’t think Hillary can keep him under control – just look what happened in South Carolina. [He mounted a campaign against Obama that ended up backfiring on Hillary.]

All the while, I was getting e-mails and mailings from Emily’s List asking for money, talking about how we needed to support Clinton, since she was the Democratic candidate. I like the idea of providing financial support to women candidates in government, so I joined Emily’s List a few years ago. However, the tone of the mailings was very us vs. them, pitting women against men. I’m sorry, but I just don’t think that way anymore. My “life work” is teams, breaking through the us versus them attitudes, and getting people to work together.

I talked to my mother, and she told me she was going to vote for Clinton. Obama was just too inexperienced. I’m hip to that, but I work for a company that talks to successful startups run by twenty-somethings all the time.

Inexperienced people are doing amazing, innovative, successful things. Plus, look at Jimmy Carter and the success that he had, and is still having, making world a better place, overseas and in the U.S.. And he didn’t know how to “do Washington” – Obama’s ahead of Carter in that department.   As inexperienced as Carter was, he did successfully project a new image to the rest of the world, something I think that we badly need again today.

Then I talked to a Democrat at work to find out who she was voting for, and found out she was voting for Obama. She talked about her decision, and how she was trying to figure out how to tell her son that she wasn’t going to vote for the woman. In her mind, Obama was the better candidate.   I realized that I had been wondering how I would explain to my daughter as well, and took comfort that another mom had come to the same conclusion that I had, and was wrestling with the same concern.

Finally, as I was headed to the polling place from work, listening to NPR, they were interviewing an 84-year-old black woman Democrat who had voted earlier that day. She said that she was pleased to be able to make such a historical vote – that either vote would be historical – but she had voted for Obama.   Funny enough, that cinched it for me.   Voting for Obama would be historic. His values aligned with my values. He seems to be the right person to put at the helm after so many years of Bush and Clinton.

All that was before I voted.   Then, after I came home from voting, I ended up on my computer, looking at voting results for South Carolina (Go Obama!). Somewhere along the way, I tripped over this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

which led me to women.barackobama.com.   I loved what I read there.   It supported so much about my decision. And I really loved the pieces they had about what happened in South Carolina, especially the one about the chants “Race Doesn’t Matter!” in response to the Clinton video.

Whoever would have guessed that I'd be writing my own blog, just a few weeks later.