Sent to Sen. Byrd's Office by email Aug. 1, 2007 10AM EST
Feel free to send something of your own - it can only help.
www.senate.gov
Dear Senator Byrd,
First of all I would like to thank you for your prophetic, courageous, inspired and judicious positions on Iraq since 2002.
Other Senators have also been wise, but you are the standard-bearer of wisdom.
I am flabbergasted that some politicians are still able to get away with the claim that they had bad information, as if you and your esteemed colleagues didn't even exist then.
You had the same information, and you made the obvious right choice. Thank Goodness we have senior statesmen like you who are not blinded by the politics of the moment.
You have truly earned the title "Dean of the Congress."
Second, I would like to ask you to advise where I can go to make a contribution to your re-election campaign over the Internet.
Third, I would like to ask you to make a public endorsement of, and to actively campaign for Senator Obama.
Your active support of his campaign will make all the difference in the world. Your sturdy presence in front of the camera with Senator Obama will be a monument to the power of recollection, reconciliation, courage and hope on many levels.
I strongly believe that our next president should have minimal executive experience. The imperial presidency has gone too far already.
Al Gore is right to focus on our departure from civilized rational interpersonal discourse as a core problem of our rapidly transforming information-age society. We need to return prominence to the core institution of our democracy, the legislature, the glorious institution which is the true mother of our nation.
While Senator Obama's experience pales in comparison to yours, it seems clear to me that he has more real legislative depth than any of the other front-runners. His attitude seems to me "How are we going to really get this done?" rather than "How am I going to get you to vote on this."
Prevailing this fall will not require long speeches, even from gifted orators like you and Sen. Obama.
A photo of you and hin, with any or all of the following 4 captions or sound tracks will be truly powerful and persuasive:
1. "We had all the information we needed to avoid this tragedy."
[OOPS! I just realized that one could be horribly misinterpreted. LOL ;)]
1. "We had all the information we needed to avoid the tragedy in Iraq."
2. "We can't just blame Bush"
[not in ltr - we need to redefine what this phrase means in people's head's: it means "We need to blame Hillary and Edwards, too"]
3. "We made a terrible mistake when our justified anger led us to let our country lash out irrationally."
4. "Support us now as we try and put our country back on the path of truth and righteousness"
No. 2 actually might spark the most discussion. Much needed discussion.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my gratitude to you and my desire to support your vital work.
I sincerely hope that an endorsement of Sen. Obama by you in September or early October will be the hallmark event which shifts the Fall campaign.
We need your help. As you know, Sen. Obama has been attacked for supporting you, and has almost certainly lost votes from one of his core constituencies as a result (we all know which one).
We've almost all lost our conscious racism, but we also know that it has been proven that when a black and a white walk in to apply for a job, we just "feel" the white is more competent. Your assistance in laying this "competence" bug-a-boo to rest will be invaluable.
I sincerely hope by joining the forces of your campaign with Sen. Obama's, all progressives will make serious advances in both executive and legislative elections.
In 1978, America was "liberal," then Reagan won by a landslide. I believe we can hope for the same in 2008 as the pendulum swings back left.
With heartfelt thanks and sincere respect,
Tom Fennell
7421 Valley
Omaha, NE 68124
(away from home until August 20)
See a great article on Blogging at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/why-the-dems-are-going-to_b_58497.html
It is supposed to be published in the World Herald tommorrow.
As a born and bred Omahan, I am staggered to learn that this little gem of an article is to be published in our beloved "Weird Herald."
Last week's lightening foreign policy slugfest zapped me out of my slumber. Blogging forces one to respond to many positions, which can be very liberating.
My blogging in the past week has led me to the following main insights:
1. We need a leader with strong legislative talents to restore the balance of powers in our government. We don't need another imperial executive.
2. Barack Hussein Obama is the only leader among our frontrunners who will have a shred of credibility in the Muslim Mid-East.
Hard as it still is for us to feel comfortable about being led by a black man, led by Barack, we may be able to find some sort of less horrible path in the Mid-East. Sound like pie in the sky?
I lived in Berlin in 1985-96 when Reagan arrived and we all called him crazy and unrealistic. I've lived in Russia since 1989. Not everything's rosy, but amazing things have happened, things many said would never happen.
Rejecting the opportunity Barack's candidacy offers us will doom us to yet more, and worse strife, and to the inexorable advancement of mass terrorism.
3. There are 5 stages of reaction to tragedy: shock, denial, anger, grief, and loss.
We made the mistake of acting out blindly during our anger stage with 9/11, which has only led too an even greater tragic loss in Iraq. God forbid that we should continue to act out in anger again; the losses will be devastating and senseless.
As we move to grieve for Iraq, we will finally also truly grieve for 9/11, a process which has been unnaturally delayed.
As we move to return to reality and finally grieve our irretrievable losses, Barack, the only frontrunner not blinded by pandering to anger, will be our steady hand in finding us a new and perhaps even better place in the world to replace the one we've lost forever.
We've had enough experienced executives expanding the imperial presidency ever further.
Following Al Gore's lead, its time to return to rational discourse, and that is exactly what the legislative branch of government specializes in. The executive branch is supposed to execute strategic policy, not necessarily formulate it.
Barack has more experience as a legislator than Hillary or Edwards, and by all accounts, he has been superb at forging constructive compromise and even consensus both in the Land of Lincoln and in the Senate. This is which is what the legislative branch is all about.
Besides Lincoln, I'm curious to know if any other bloggers remember which other Presidents were primarily legislators before assuming the Presidency. Truman (one year VP doesn't really count), plus there must be 19th century examples, plus Adams and Jefferson of course.
Frankly, the "Obama doesn't have enough executive experience" argument held me back from full commitment to Obama in June and July.
Thank goodness the Clinton-Obama clash reminded me what is really important in this race, and then got me thinking more deeply on the management issue.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/clinton-obama-duel-keeps-rocking/#comment-156193
When are the mainstream media going to start analyzing how Hillary's support for the war will cripple her ability to be effective in the Middle East?
Only Obama will have the credibility to lead any kind of regional negotiations. Not to mention that Barack Hussein Obama is the only candidate who has lived in a Muslim country, and moreover during his formative childhood years.
Are we ready to talk to the Muslims, or are we still trying to punish them for 9/11? When we're finally ready to talk, experienced legislator, negotiator and constructive compromiser Barack is obviously our only realistic hope for a breakthrough.
We have been given this gift to get us out of the mess we have gotten ourselves into. If we don't accept it, we can expect the worst.
His bottom line: He liked Obama's answer, and he thought Hillary misconstrued what he meant by "preconditions" in acting like Obama had agreed to meet Fidel and Chavez with no diplomatic groundwork whatsoever. He said his question just meant there shouldn't be a requirement of a change in a country's behavior as a condition of talking to them.
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/07/stephen_speaks.html#more
This is my submission for soundbite of the week.
Dear Fellow Bloggers: please read below. It starts out as the standard political diatribe, but then morphs into a rather colorful and, I hope, interesting proposal. Any comments will be greatly appreciated.
We cannot wait until 2010, as Hillary proposes, to deal seriously with Iran and Syria (OK, Hugo Chavez can wait, but what's the point?)
Who has the moral high ground with Syria sheltering a million refugees from our war and our failed occupation?
Who needs whom? Thinking that we can get out of this war with our heads held high and our regal "POTAC" prestige intact is a naive and irresponsible pipe dream. (BTW I find all this POTAC stuff on the Hillary sites and from her supporters a little creepy and again, 1984-like - you know, the robot-like "All Hail the POTAC, All Hail the POTAC").
Well, nobody wants to hear the following, and I don't know when the correct time to say it to the broader public will be, but we are definitely going to have to eat some humble pie to get out of this disaster.
There are 5 well-known stages of major loss: shock, denial, anger, grief, and acceptance.
We're still in anger, and now is not the time to serve up the humble pie - we'll just get it thrown back in our faces in righteous, confused anger. However, those of us who are ahead of curve on this one (and have been since 2002) better get out our recipe books to figure out how to cook up various versions of old humble pie that will be tolerably palatable as we move into the stage of grieving for our lost war.
Now, humble pie is a delicacy (remember, the main ingredient is crow) that is certainly not to everyone's taste, but everyone knows in their heads that its good for them when they really need it, whether they like it or not, and consumption will speed up our transition out of that unpleasant grief stuff and into the acceptance stage, and that pleasant feeling of "I guess we're not that bad after all". But you don't get the dessert before you've eaten the pie.
Dear Fellow Bloggers: What do you think of all this? Am I way off target with my colorful musings or on the right track with this stuff? Do you think there's any hope for a humble-pie fest in 2008?
Our leader did get caught in a verbal trap on the issue of "negotiations without preconditions."
I think he understood the question to mean "preconditions" as opposed to meeting "without any diplomatic preparation". A summit meeting is always an intricate diplomatic dance of preparation. Not even summit meetings with Britain or Canada take place without preparation and agreement ("conditions") on a range of protocol and substantive issues.
Of course, he did say "conditions" with Chavez, but it would be no big stink to say "I meant preparations. I look forward to building upon my degree in international relations through further coaching in the fine points of diplomatic language from the superb professionals at the State Department, just like Bill Clinton was coached in 1992.
The political verbal parsing fogs the main issue: we cannot continue political grandstanding with our adversaries. Because of this politicing, Hillary Clinton has now taken the position that she will wait until at lease 2010 before she start serious negotiations with the Syrians and the Iranians. In this, she is profoundly mistaken, again.
I'd rather be in the position of correcting myself on the fine diplomatic nuances between diplomatic preparations and reconditions in an interview on Chavez than be in a position of having to justify waiting until 2010 before dealing realistically with the situation in Iraq."
Ltr to Maureen Dowd – NYT 29 July
Dear Coach Dowd,
I been rememberin' ya March 3, 2007 article “Where’s His Right Hook?” alot.
It seems that your Ingrid Bergman channeling has finally kicked in, eh?
[Dowd compared herself to the coaching nun in "The Bells of St. Mary's]
And the kid's smart - he didn't pick a fight with his tormenter, but waited until she made the mistake of lashing out first with that "naive and irresponsible" personal attack.
Our champ turned that one around on a dime!
And then following through with that Bush-lite number! Whamo! Ka Bam!
She even had to scurry to ask Tom Vilsack to defend her, not to speak of all the right wing commentators and TV talking heads.
What's the good Sr. have to say about the rookie now? I hope your beaming with pride.
Next moves to work on are the whole inexperience thing. Good thing there's an excellent coachin' tape from a master - see Bill Clinton on experience, 1992: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k .
Do you think those formative childhood years with a Muslim step-father in Indonesia and African family reunions may just be the type of real-world experience Bill is talking about? Or does the Dame's gliterrati, coddled jet-setting count more? Which is more likely to be really useful in our current situation?
Then comes the incompetence set-up. You know how if a white gal and a black guy walk in to apply for a job, we automatically perceive the white as more competent, even if our head says that's unacceptable (reams of studies to prove it).
Don't you think our guy might actually be being pre-judged because of his skin color?
I mean everyone's always talking about how the Lady's being judged for her gender (clothes, chest, hair, ooops, sorry, she's praised for being proud of how much attention she pays to her hair, its the guys who get in trouble for gender-bending, which is of course justified, not discrimination, unlike with the dames. Women can be women and men, but guys gotta be guys - dem's da rules! Leads to more guy-like behavior overall, which is of course exactly what we need).
Racial bias, na, ridiculous, it'll never fly. Not in America, not in our progressive day and age. People will never admit to it, and we may as well not even bring up the argument. We'll be booed out out the ring for trying that worn-out, wimp liberal move that everybody hates, even if it is true.
Well, that's it from this sports fan.
Dyin’ to see your upcoming columns on the big verbal slugfest.
Your loyal reader,
We all know that childhood experiences are personality-forming and blood is thicker than water. Barack Hussein Obama's childhood in Indonesia and connection to Muslim relatives offer us a unique opportunity to make a very serious change indeed. It offers real hope for minimizing the catastrophe of Iraq and coming to some sort of settlement with Iran and Syria.
Hillary's involvement in the policy establishment and glitterati acquaintances with the elites of the world will hinder more than help. Not to mention her cowardly inability to oppose a doomed war which the Mid-East rightly views her to be complicit in.
Well, it seemed like the horse race really began this week, with Hillary calling Barack "naive and irresponsible." Looks like our man isn't the wimp people are trying to portay him as!
The debate was far from trivial, and goes to the heart of the central issue of this campaign: a real change in the direction of US foreign policy.
History teaches us that after a major war loss, countries nearly always undergoes serious systemic political change, and 2008 for America is no exception. Just as losing a loved one, sad as it is, can lead to personal and spiritual growth, so to with losing wars. It may be part of a larger plan.
Hillary showed clearly this week that she is trying to hold on to past solutions, agreeing with Bush on preconditions for negotiations with our adversaries, differing only in tactics , and vastly underestimating the urgency of the need for agreements with, especially, Iran and Syria to head off catastrophe in Iraq. As for the moral high ground, Syria has taken in millions of Iraqi refugees. And us?
Anyway, I've certainly been spurred to intellectual action by this week's debate, and have taken my first real plunge into the world of blogging (previously I'd only stuck my toes in), and, as they say at McDonald's "I'm lovin' it!"
Seems like the creative juices are really flowing, and boy does it feel good, after years of feeling stymied here in Russia in oh-so-many ways (returning home to Omaha in August 18, and feeling more and more happy and hopeful about this - oh ye roads of Iowa, here I come!).
I've written quite a bit, and will now paste each of these entries into my blog below.
I hope that someone finds these contributions interesting and perhaps useful.
Tom
I have been reading the "Audacity of Hope," and I have been emotionally moved on several occasions.
We need to remember what a powerful gift for good eloquence can be. It can lift people out of their ordinary views and habits and enable them to support extraordinary efforts. This is the type of president we need, and the contrast between Barack Obama and the current president in this area could not be greater.
The most recent time I was moved in reading his chapter on Race.
Barack speaks of a day of meetings in Cairo, IL, a town with a history of racial troubles. He writes of his belief in the subtle power of such meetings, spreading out like a "ripple from their immediate point: ...people of all races carry these moments into their homes and places of worship; ...such moments shade a conversation with their children or their coworkers and can wear down, in slow, steady waves the hatred and suspicion that isolation breeds."
Speaking of his own encounters with racism, he says that he too has been forced to drink "the bitter swill of swallowed-back anger".
This really resonated with me as a gay man, although I would paraphrase and say that what we GLBT people are forced to experience more often is the "silent burning of undeserved shame and fear".
Let's all work to see that we are inspired to greatness again.
