I know I have felt like I worked hard volunteering in the last few weeks. You ALL have worked hard as well! We have come a long way, so let us be vigilant in our efforts to continue bridging gaps and healing our histories, so we can unite our world in siblinghood.
Peace be our banner, understanding our road. Love overcomes.
charles
It has been months since I have blogged here....weeks since I even looked at my page.
I have missed it, and been blessed by more than a few messages that I have been missed.
Thank you.
While quiet here, I have campaigned. The person to person, neighbor to neighbor way.
A few uncomfortable exchanges. Some harsh words.
More smiles, agreements, sense of belonging.
After talks like that, calls across the country, emails, and blogs -
I do have hope.
I also watch too much news.
And from that...I gain fear...even when the news is good.
I am, one who can worry.
Sleep has been uncharacteristically hard for me this last week.
Focus at work wandering.
I wonder...will it all come true?
Will there be another, even worse wrenching loss.
Worse, might there be efforts to steal that work?
And what then for this nation? for this movement? for me and my spouse?
So, I needed a way to respond to that.
First I came back here.
Read.
Went through dozens of emails here and in my private account - reading words and thoughts and hopes
of friends I have made because of this effort.
And...
I donated.
Not a lot. But more than anyone would say is prudent for me to be donating at this time.
And that is what helped.
Looking around at people I know spending days on end on the phone, on the blogs, on the streets helping, working, trying, doing what they can, it became so clear that this is no time for prudence.
It is instead, a time for thoughtful abandon of normalcy, and a two day spasm of effort, built of hope, and fed by my belief that the better world I long for, that I wish for others, ALL others with no exceptions, will have its greatest likelihood, in a Barack Obama Presidency.
So I say to all of you, for all you have done and are yet to do, Thank You.
I say to all who fear and worry as I do, BREATHE, SMILE, HOPE and then ACT - it helps.
I say to the world watching us - hang on and be hopeful with us and for us. I believe we will get this right and then be better friends and neighbors again.
I say to all who may - VOTE.
I say upward and outward with all the sincere desire in my heart- Please.
John
ENOUGH of the lies! In my opinion, ENOUGH should be the main THEME of the rest of this campaign.
Dems:
The Republicans are fired up about Sarah Palin. We know that our ticket is the REAL ticket. It's time for us to get FIRED UP!! We need to get out there and EXPOSE the lies and scams. We need to RECAPTURE the fire! Let's do this thang!
The U.S. is not currently at war, at least according to Richard Stearns, a federal judge in Boston.
The determination wasn’t just so much dicta*. Judge Stearns actually had to decide whether the U.S. is at war in order to decide whether the statute of limitations had run on certain criminal charges in a case involving the Big Dig, the massive construction project that’s been going on for years in Beantown. Click here for a copy of the opinion. (Hat Tip: How Appealing).
The background: In May of 2006, former employees of a concrete supplier were indicted on a handful of charges alleging, among other things, that they’d submitted fraudulent reports to the government. The defendants argued that because the alleged activity took place in early 2001 and before, the charges were time-barred by the five-year statute of limitations.
The government, however, argued that something called the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, as the name implies, suspended the statue of limitations. The Act provides:
When the United States is at war the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense (1) involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspiracy or not . . . shall be suspended until three years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of Congress.
Therefore, strange as it seems, Judge Stearns had to decide whether the U.S. is war to rule on a motion involving contractors in a highway project.
The opinion, while detailed, is a pretty fascinating read. The bottom line, according to Judge Stearns: the U.S. ended the war in Afghanistan on December 22, 2001 and ended the war in Iraq on May 1, 2003. In other words, the statute of limitations on the criminal charges hadn’t yet expired by the time the government filed its superseding indictment in June.
BusinessWeek: President Bush recently lifted an executive order prohibiting oil exploration in U.S. coastal waters, and many people believe the gold mine of oil in coastal areas could be tapped to lower prices. But the reality is that drilling in the now-restricted areas would require years of extensive seismic research before a single rig could operate. Even then, companies would not embark on such massive projects unless the profitability were clear, and the federal Energy Information Administration estimates that access to new U.S. deposits would not significantly affect overall domestic production for 22 years.
When Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute Says "Every day we wait is a day further from more oil production." I say EXACTLY!
Let's get one day further away from oil production.
Then let's get one week away.
Then a month, and a year.
And finally and rightly lets get away from oil production FOREVER.
Meant to write this last week.
Wish I had because in the light of the Friday comments re: RFK this becomes almost unimportant, but I think it still matters a bit.
A word of preparation/qualification - I am a human communications expert with a focus on conflict and intercultural communications...so this is right in my roundhouse.
Hillary and her flying-monkeys never figured out the were campaigning against a more feminine presence then their own. While Obama has a superb male voice, his words, his reliance on context, his openness to alternative views, and his respectful manner of disagreeing, are FEMININE COMMUNICATION TRAITS. While HRC was trying to dupe us into thinking she was the poor victim (being out spent etc.) each time she poked at him she made his distinction more prominent and endearing. Barack Obama as a communicator is more feminine and therefore more broad and complete than HRC. They never figured that out and it hurt them Badly.
JMac May not figure it out either. Or as we have been promised, Obama may pivot and more sharply, in a more Masculine manner, engage with McCain. Not sure which would work better. I know part of what attracts many of us to Obama is his willingness to engage, to listen, to embrace that which is different. If he were to become "a fighter" not sure it would serve his personal base. That is among the reasons that an Obama/hrc ticket is not a dream ticket but a nightmare compromise.
So what to do? Well think on it first...do you agree or not.
Second, see if you can find it in you to commuincate as he does with those who are not on board, whether they support hrc or JMac.
Third, think good and supportive thoughts for this Saturday's events in DC. I am hopeful the committee will get it right and the hrc demonstrators and protesters will at best not materialize, and at worst not embarrass the party. I fear FLA 2000 like scenarios like those so well captured in HBO's Recount. If her people storm the committee it would be awful for the party and I would have to hope the end for her as super afteer super punishes bad behavior and declares for Obama. I honestly believe she would be committing a form of Political Suicide if she allows that to happen.
So lets us be positive, principled and open and make good things happen that way.
Best-
JWZ
Once you catch your breath, write him here:
KOLBERMANN@MSNBC.COM
Thanks.
--------------
Keith-
While I do not know you well enough to call you Keith, I feel you know
me that well for almost nightly I hear you speak my heart.
Never more so than on Friday May 23, 2008.
Your special comment was compelling, masterful, and unfortunately
absolutely necessary.
It was also heart wrenching. Your efforts to support the Clintons in
the past are well documented. The obvious and painful disappointment
you feel in her massive, repeated, and inconscionable actions creates
in your delivery a different tone and cadence than when you more
gleefully rail against President Bush.
Thank you for both what you do and how. Please keep it up. This
nation, this world, and this individual are in desperate need of your
reasoned and empassioned voice.
Thank you
John W. Zinsser
All -
I have been quiet for a while.
Chalk it up to personal and professional demands, not a loss of interest and desire.
The good news is I have a bunch of things I want to write about and look forward to your thoughts and responses on.
But first this unbelievably surreal piece of politics.
Yesterday the WSJ carried a piece by Karl Rove entitled "Obama's troubling instincts."
If it was not so painfully partisan and attack driven, it could be the opening to a SNL skit this week.
I wrote a comment to the WSJ website and it follows. Encourage you all to do the same.
Do it nicely. Be like Obama - respectful, thoughtful, maybe a little funny, but courteous.
But do act.
We all know this is but the tip of the iceberg. But this bad dog needs to be shown that we, the master, will not accept this form of bad behavior. So roll up that newspaper and please take a respectful discplining swing at Rove and the WSJ.
My Response -
_______________________________
Wait... Karl Rove is titling a piece "(anyone else's) troubling instincts?" Karl Rove who is under supboena from Congress for his troubling ACTIONS not instincts - but ACTIONS? Karl Rove (and others associated with him) who either instinctually or with great personal fore thought continue to choose to thumb their collective noses at the legislative branch of government in hereto fore unseen ways making a mockery of our form of government and balance of power? Karl Rove has no right to question any one else's instincts these days. Something about those in glass houses seems right here. I laughed so hard at the headline, had to wait for the tears to clear from my eyes before I went on to the article. Troubling Actions Karl...how about you write us a meaningful piece about your very troubling, offensive, and possibly illegal actions. That, or show up on July 10, and tell us all about it. Someone will be there to write it all down for you in the congressional record. SIDE BAR - The WSJ's editorial slant has so declined and shifted since the purchase of the paper and realignment of leadership there, that I can almost not read it anymore. It is quite sad to me. Like watching a good, trusted friend, one who was smart and intelligent and helpful, loose that capacity to some insipid brainwashing or disease. A real loss to the business community and America as a whole. Thanks. John
Please read what Tammy has to say here....pass it on...especially to woman on the fence or in the HRC camp.
I could not have written this...gender and dumb luck of being born to the family I was...but I can honor, support and recognize the importance and power of this very personal story.
Think about it.
Then ACT on it.
We - YOU AND I - are the people who will help this campaign win. Leave it to no one else. Not Barack and Michele - not Plouffe - lord know not the democratic party. You and I.
Yep, that's me; white female baby boomer (WFBB) having raised my daughter as a single mom now hoping to earn enough to retire before my bones give out.
But hear this, Mrs. Clinton: You may have built your reputation as a fighter, but you ain't the only WFBB who knows how to get down and dirty. So I will dip yet again into my retirement fund, go out to www.barackobama.com and hit the donate button one more time, as will over a million others—not to beat the Republicans, but to make you go away.
Not that it is of any consequence to you if we are tapped out by the time convention rolls around. In fact many are starting to speculate on your reasoning which most figure goes something like this: Your best case scenario is successfully managing to strong arm enough Super Delegates into throwing you the nomination by using your formidable lawyer skills to make the "he can't win" argument having smeared, undermined, and attacked your opponent w/relentless innuendo, fabrications, and outright lies, pushing all the right buttons.
Unsettling though your best case scenario may be to consider, the alternative provides us (your would be constituents) w/an alarming insight into the jaded character that has become Hillary Clinton: Your campaign tactics all point to the inevitable conclusion that your worst case scenario is to disable your same party opponent in the primary, paving the way to four more years of a Republican White House where upon you regroup and have at it again, as the "I told you so" candidate in four years, while still in your early sixties.
Clearly, all those years of experience have rendered you hardened to old school politics where you felt compelled to adopt the tried and true "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" means to survival.
Woman, for love of country, get a grip! Here's a thought: If you care so much about getting those great solutions of yours implemented why not become a team player and pass the puck to the guy standing in front of the net! Your secret's safe w/me: By and large, we white girls coming of age in the sixties were not exactly encouraged to play team sports. In fact we were much more likely to write that term paper for our guy--as he trotted off to practice learning the art/value of being a team player--thus ensuring his availability for a date on Friday night. It sucks; but the good news is we taught our daughters how to be team players by getting them into the game early.
Ever consider it's just not meant to be, Hillary. Can't you take comfort in knowing you had eight years to make a difference as First Lady and now as Senator? When you think about it you've had more shots on goal than most of us will ever realize, not least of which represents your health care plan, which failed because you didn't know how and/or were not willing to be a team player. Just think if you had been successful, all those people who's tragic stories of strife for lack of health care would have had better lives. But then again, where would you get all those heart wrenching stories your campaign is so eager to exploit?
Maybe you feel it is "your turn" having paid your dues. Here's another view: Maybe you are being tested and given one more chance to make the right choice to stay true to yourself.
Speaking in terms of self-worth, I may not have made $20 million dollars last year, but every single penny of what I did earn was made standing on my own two feet—after putting my ex husband thru college and then forfeiting any benefit (financial, social, professional, or otherwise) to divorce in the face of his betrayal. That was my choice, and does not in any way reflect on your choice presented w/the same dilemma. In fact, I supported your choice passionately to the people in my circles—effectively making the impressive argument you had every right to stay married for your own reasons.
But whatever those reasons may be, we are defined by our choices. As every parent knows, kids—being smarter than we give them credit for—listen to what we do, more than what we say. My choice resulted in a smaller house, downscaled social circle, more bills and…a sense of peace. The point is that it came at a cost—as all choices do; I was prepared to pay the price for my regaining sense of self, because the pain in my jaw from grinding my teeth was intolerable and I would’ve done almost anything to relieve it. Your choice to do whatever it takes to advance yourself as the first woman to win the White House, I suspect, has also cost you dearly.
Which, again, is all well and fine: as long as you pay your own bills. Your duplicity, however, as you stand in judgment of Senator Obama’s deeply personal choice to maintain a relationship w/his minister even as you declare your own right to “choose one’s family” in the face of your husband’s blatant self indulgence at the country’s expense begs to be called out for its barefaced hypocrisy. I, for one, intend to do my level best to see that every single voter from here to Denver understands the price this country has paid for electing un-trustworthy leadership of narcissistic character to represent the United States in the international arena.
This fight has been yours to define dear sister of the sixties—in as much as it was initiated on your behalf at your insistence—and the country’s to lose.
So know this, Mrs. Clinton: You may have persevered in Pennsylvania, but you lost all credibility and any moral authority you had left by making false accusations, playing w/words in a transparent attempt to confuse the issues, obscure the truth, and demonstrate your adeptness at that indispensible Washington insider skill: doublespeak.
And Mrs. Clinton: We the people/super delegates, et al are on to the disingenuous arguments you spent the last three decades working to perfect, presumably because you concluded—during the six formative years of your early career sitting on the Wal-Mart board—that’s what it takes. Perhaps you were right--in the past; which makes your thirty eight years of experience a liability this country will not tolerate.
Not This Time.
As the math in the eye of the spin clearly illustrates, Americans understand we can no longer afford to look the other way and/or derive public governance from corporate etiquette. We will find a way to force this fight into the light and win: Because we know we must to regain our promise as Americans in the eyes of the world--and for all that is just.
Does Hillary surround herself with girly men? Obama and the experience question. Plus: Lincoln, Madonna's new face and a Bush with real authority.
By Camille Paglia
I would like to get your feedback on the subject of those who end up in Hillary's orbit. Can you conceive of a strong, leader-type male ever working under her? An alpha, if you will. And if the answer is no, then why do you think that is?
The men you always see under her are to a person passive-aggressive, sadistic, mean, little, petty beta-male pieces of work who would not naturally succeed in a common male-type hierarchy. By that I mean an environment that values straightforward achievement rather than the darker political arts.
That statement is in no way meant to exclude women. In fact, I work with many women who succeed just as well in this environment. It is just a shorthand for an environment that values achievement and straight talk. Hillary's persona is simply not compatible with another strong will, male or female -- but definitely male, and that itself is a big red flag.
What kind of person would go to work for a Clinton in the first place? A naive true-believer? Everyone knows what they would be getting into: constant war rooms, personal attacks, spin, daily damage control, a boss prone to temper tantrums, placing your own integrity out on the ledge as a shill for a fundamentally dishonest person. I would argue that nobody who hasn't already sold their soul years ago would ever want to be a part of that mess.
Your thoughts?
Chris RichardAgoura Hills, Calif.
You have succinctly expressed one of the most unsettling aspects of Hillary Clinton's character and modus operandi. There is a strangely static and claustrophobic quality to the fiercely loyal cult she has gathered around her since her first lady years. Postmortem analysts of this presidential campaign will have a field day ferreting out all the cringe-making blunders made by her clique of tired, aging courtiers who couldn't adjust to changing political realities. Hillary's forces have acted like the heavy, pompous galleons of the imperial Spanish Armada, outmaneuvered by the quick, bold, entrepreneurial ships of the English fleet.
I agree that the male staff who Hillary attracts are slick, geeky weasels or rancid, asexual cream puffs. (One of the latter, the insufferable Mark Penn, just got the heave-ho after he played Hillary for a patsy with the Colombian government.) If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Hillary is reconstituting the toxic hierarchy of her childhood household, with her on top instead of her drill-sergeant father. All those seething beta males (as you so aptly describe them) are versions of her sad-sack brothers, who got the short end of the Rodham DNA stick.
The compulsive war-room mentality of both Clintons is neurosis writ large. The White House should not be a banging, rocking washer perpetually stuck on spin cycle. Many Democrats, including myself, have come to doubt whether Hillary has any core values or even a stable sense of identity. With her outlandish fibbing and naive self-puffery, her erratic day-to-day changes of tone and message, her glassy, fixed smiles, and her leaden and embarrassingly unpresidential jokes about pop culture, she has started to seem like one of those manic, seductively vampiric patients in trashy old Hollywood hospital flicks like "The Snake Pit." How anyone could confuse Hillary's sourly cynical, male-bashing megalomania with authentic feminism is beyond me.
I have no idea whom I will vote for next November. Everything is open to me, and I am watching, listening and thinking. Regarding your comments on Sens. Clinton and Obama in your most recent article, I thought you were a little tough on Hillary in that you did not discuss any of Barack's shortcomings. No mention at all that the man who claims he will clean up Washington, D.C., was involved in a real estate transaction so questionable even my 7-year-old understands the implications.
Sen. Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School, claims he did not break any laws, that he was only guilty of being "boneheaded." If I were Sen. Clinton's campaign manager, every ad would have the video of Sen. Obama saying that over and over. He claims his judgment is so good that he knew we should never have gone into Iraq, yet he had no qualms going into the real estate deal with Mr. and Mrs. Rezko. No mention that he has very little experience in politics.
I look for experience when I select my doctor, my CPA, my dentist, my child's teacher. Why can't I ask for some in my president?
Anonymity requested Houston, Texas
Obama's Rezko embroglio is certainly troublesome. But the splotches on Obama's record are few and relatively minor compared to the staggeringly copious chronicle of Clinton scandals, a mud mountain that the media have shown amazingly little interest in exploring during this campaign cycle. For all their grousing about media bias, the Clintons have gotten off scot-free over the past year from any kind of serious, systematic examination of their sleaze-a-thon history from Little Rock to Foggy Bottom.
Obama has actually served longer in public office than Hillary has. It's very true that he lacks executive experience, but so does she. Her bungling of healthcare reform, along with her inability to control the financial expenditures and internal wrangling of her campaign, does not bode well for a prospective chief executive. Beyond that, I'm not sure that your analogy to professionals like doctors, accountants and teachers entirely applies to presidents. There is no fixed system of credentialing for our highest office. On the contrary, the Founders envisioned the president as a person of unpretentious common sense and good character. Hillary may spout a populist line, but with her arrogant sense of dynastic entitlement, she's a royalist who, like Napoleon, wants to crown herself.
I too wish that Obama had more practical experience in government. But Washington is at a stalemate and needs fresh eyes and a new start. Furthermore, at this point in American history, with an ill-conceived, wasteful war dragging on in Iraq and with the nation's world reputation in tatters, I believe that, because of his international heritage and upbringing, Obama is the right person at the right time. We need a thoughtful leader who can combine realism with conciliation in domestic as well as foreign affairs.
Full disclosure: I have contributed small sums to Obama's campaign twice this year. I was lucky enough to see him up close as he spoke at a recent rally in the Philadelphia suburbs, where he answered policy questions in great detail. I was very impressed by his easy, relaxed authority and quick humor as well as his classy elegance. I'd love to have a woman president -- but slippery Hillary, stolidly pumping and pumping her narcissistic bellows like a steam engine, just isn't it.
How to Inspire People Like Obama
By Carmine Gallo
Public speaking skills are critical to the success of every leader. Over the past several years, I have been interviewing, observing, and writing about business, academic, and political leaders who have the ability to influence their audience – leaders who fire up the rest of us. Whatever your political leanings, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is one of them. For a look at what makes Obama’s public speaking skills so effective, I outline four techniques this Presidential hopeful has mastered and explain ways to use them in your own repertoire.
1. Hold Out Hope
Like Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama speaks in the uplifting rhetoric of hope. After his defeat in New Hampshire, Obama’s political oratory was so hopeful he sounded more like a winner than a runner–up. Obama knew a hopeful message would embolden his supporters. In a speech on Jan. 8, 2008, Obama said, “We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change… We have been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.”
You are the leader people want to believe in. Your customers and employees are bombarded by bad news – the credit crunch, a housing slump, an economic slowdown – but they are eager to hear something positive. That doesn’t mean leaders stick their heads in the sand – far from it. Inspiring leaders acknowledge the situation but also remind people of reasons to be optimistic.
2. Use Rhetorical Devices
Many observers say Obama sounds like King. This is because he uses some of the same techniques that made King an electrifying speaker.
Parallel structure. We can thank the ancient Greeks for this rhetorical tool – they called it “anaphora.” It simply means repeating the same word or expression at the beginning of successive sentences or phrases. One of the most famous examples is King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed…. I have a dream that… I have a dream…” Obama uses the same device frequently. In his Iowa victory speech on Jan. 3, Obama said, “You have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do. You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days. You have done what America can do in this new year.”
Anaphora’s sister technique is called “epistrophe.” It is the repetition of a word or expression at the end of successive sentences or phrases. For example, in Obama’s New Hampshire speech, the expression “Yes, we can” rallied thousands of supporters when used like this, “It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out for distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.”
Alliteration. Both Kennedy and King were fond of this device that strings together words starting with similar sounds. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote speech that brought Obama to prominence, he said, “Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?” In 2005, during a commencement speech at Knox College, Obama described America as “a place where destiny was not a destination, but a journey to be shared and shaped…” When speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in August, 2006, Obama proclaimed, “The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph.” In January’s New Hampshire speech, Obama used alliteration again: “We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics.”
Rich Imagery. Persuasive speakers have long understood the power of imagery to stir emotions – the creation of mental pictures through the words. In his 2004 speech, Obama described what he meant by the audacity of hope: “It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs, the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores, the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta, the hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds, the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.”
3. Exude Confidence
In debates Obama appears unflappable, answering tough questions while maintaining strong eye contact. He doesn’t fidget or shake his head when listening to sharp attacks from his opponents. While seated, he leans slightly forward. People will make an impression of you after only a few seconds. Pay attention to what your body is saying. Communicate confidence, competence, and control.
4. Use Dynamic Vocal Delivery
A monotonous speaking style lulls the listener to sleep, regardless of the power of the content. Obama knows how to enhance his delivery. Consider these three aspects of his delivery.
Pacing. Obama varies the speed at which he speaks. Very few sentences are delivered at exactly the same pace.
Volume. In his victory speech after the Iowa caucuses, Obama raised the volume of his speech with each sentence in the following paragraph: “We are one nation. We are one people. And our time for change has come.”
Pauses. Nothing is as dramatic as a well–placed pause, and Obama knows it. He pauses at key moments to make a memorable impact.
Obama connects with millions of people thanks to his public speaking skills. Consider learning from him to influence your own audience.
