Im sure that I dont have to tell anyone who won the debate - if you watched it for even 5 minutes, you can answer that question yourself. Make sure to spread the word and vote in the polls that have been setup. Below is a url to a list of polls asking who won the VP debate.
http://pol.moveon.org/lte/lte_t.html?zip=60647<e_campaign_id=98
Our candidate spoke with substance; the other winked and talked her away out of the questions. The reason they resort to all the buzz words like "Joe Six-pack" and "You Betcha" is for one simple reason: they dont yet have a plan with details. Instead they must rely on tactics and strategies we have seen for years from politicians. Our country is ready for change and Barack and Biden have made their plans available from the start to get that change to the United States of America.
Its a clear choice who to vote for on November 4th.. make sure you are registered to vote (check and register to vote at www.voteforchange.com ) and get out to the polls!
2nd Presidential Debate - Tuesday October 7th at 8pm CT.
Andy
Once you catch your breath, write him here:
KOLBERMANN@MSNBC.COM
Thanks.
JWZ
--------------
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
Oftentimes, liberals will offer you big government as the solution to a problem. On the other hand, conservatives will assert that less—much less—government is the sure fix. Ronald Reagan would have had you believe that government is inherently evil, that government is itself the problem. But neither of these approaches have solved much: witness LBJ's Great Society and Reagan's social welfare cuts. America didn't destroy poverty in the '60s, nor did less government in the '80s cause us all to develop better morals. So what is government's role in solving the socioeconomic problems, and even crises, facing America? And yes, we do have crises. What is happening in the majority-black, crack-ridden inner city? There's a war going on, and most of America doesn't care. The Katrina victims haven't been properly recompensed, haven't had their homes, their communities, their cities rebuilt. And the working middle class is being ravaged. Jobs are leaving, homes are foreclosing, and a way of life is being torn asunder in a silent, faceless genocide.
Well let me tell you what's what: it is not the government's job to funnel billions into a new program, staffed by more out-of-touch, hapless bureaucrats. But neither can the government—and the country it serves—preside idly over humanitarian and economic crises. We do not have the option to do nothing—for we would become monsters, desensitized to any suffering. Nevertheless, I can understand someone who is hesitant about the government going out and trying to “fix the ghetto.” Those that are hesitant about such things are not hesitant because they believe those who live in the inner city deserve an opportunity-less, fearful existence. They’re hesitant because although we’ve tried, we haven’t succeeded, and we’ve run out of ideas besides pumping more money in, money without any organization or resolve behind it. We must regain the people’s trust in spending their money, and we must do this by spending it wisely and effectively. We don’t need a federally-administered “War on Poverty,” nor do we need money taken away from such vital institutions like insane asylums, Social Security, or Medicare. Government is not the solution—people are. But the destruction of communities because of disappearing jobs and foreclosed homes cannot be solved by good intentions alone. The cycles of poverty, addiction, recession, and bankruptcy are indeed vicious, and they are also often strong and seemingly endless. These things cannot be fought just by nice thoughts if we intend to succeed on a broad scale. There must be force behind effort, not just willpower on the part of a few, but conviction and action by the many. This is a sentiment Sen. Barack Obama has been emphasizing during his campaign. This action will not succeed if not taken up collectively.
What I’m saying in short, is that the most effective ways to deal with poverty, declining economic opportunity, and community rebuilding originate from within the community. And the most efficient way of administering these solutions is by and through the community. But one of the unfortunate parts of this approach is that community programs often lack breadth, their ability to reach many, because they lack that one important resource that frequently determines whether a program will last or perish—money. And that is where we need great politico-economic innovation: combining the fantastic depth and effectiveness of community programs with the more-encompassing breadth and monetary resources of a federal or even state program.
Governments must cease to be a bureaucratic parasite that takes large percentages of our income and then swallows it up to be wasted, misappropriated, and disappear into ineffective committees and useless federal oversight programs. Instead, government must be a tool that like-minded individuals can use to confront—and defeat—a problem bigger than themselves.
On the Democrat Party Building Site:
www.democrats.org
Most HRC supporters are saying on the blogs that they will support John McCain when Barack Obama secures the Democratic nomination.
They almost sound, uhh .... bitter?!
Congratulations Obama Supporters, for standing strong through a difficult primary season!Barack Obama's nomination is all but secured. We've had our ups and downs, but now it's our time. What a stunning night! It was exhilirating flipping to fair and balanced FOX, and hearing them groan about bittergate and Rev. Wright, and then hearing Hillary's virtual concession, that she would support the Democratic Nominee (Barack Obama!). Now we canfocus on McCain, and policies that are failing America. I can't wait to hear Barack's acceptance speech at the 2008 National Convention (you all thought 2004 was great, lol). 'NO MORE CLINTONS, NO MORE BUSH'S, NO MORE CLINTON'S, NO MORE BUSH'S........' Shout it with me America, 28 years we've waited for this. Tomorrow starts today!-no longer 'Bitter' Andy Hipwell www.freewebs .com/presidentobama
P.S. Now Barack is winning the popular vote no matter which formula you want to use!
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
April 9, 2008 | 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.
Think it was Chuck Todd on MSNBC/NBC who said this weekend that there comes a point where Obama can just GIVE Hillary FLA an MI and depower a few of her arguments and be magnanamous. That is great.
I am a conflict management and negotiation consultant. It is always worthwhile before negotiating to generate lots of options. Have seen many here. Some well thought out and others not so much so.
Was hoping some of you numbers types could help me think through this proposal.
What if Obama says to Clinton - Sure lets seat FLA and MI and here is how. -
We will divide the delegates by the average of ALL the other PRIMARY VOTES in all the other states?
How does that work out? Have to believe it keeps things...just as they are on the one hand, gets FLA and MI back in the fold.
Should the HRC campaign trot out that she "won" these and therefore should not need to average them - for weeks they were calling MI a fair election - I would lump that under more fabrication by asking how is it fair if only one candidate is on the ballot.
This way he can be seen as offering a positive option and not get painted as not interested in them.
Thoughts? Problems with this?
Fellow Obama supporters, it's time we all stopped bashing Sen. Clinton. It is unnecessary. The race, if not over, is clearly going to be won by Sen. Obama. Let's start reaching out to Sen. Clinton and to her supporters now. Let her campaign continue to throw the mud, the kitchen sink, whatever, if that's what they want to do. I trust Sen. Obama to handle it. Sen. McCain is the real opponent now, not Sen. Clinton. I've made the commitment to stop bashing Sen. Clinton myself. Since signing up on the my.barackobama.com website, I've had posted on my page the statement "Sen. Clinton reminds us that she spent eight years in the White House. Well, so did the pastry chef." Now I don't think that was a particularly harsh statement, but I took that statement down today anyway. Let the healing begin!
----
I would add to this that maybe it is time to create a group or two for reconciliation...some groups where folks who supported each can be decent to each other and begin exploring connections and ties.
I understand that some will feel so strongly, and hold such animosity to the other that it may not be possible...but for thos that can, there should be a space and support to help it happen.
Here is to 1Party...and the better world it should build.
My Dear Friend PA.
It has been too long since I wrote. I do apologize.
While my visits have been few in recent years,
you continue to occupy a special place in my heart.
The school years I spent outside of Philly in Bucks County
matter as much to me as anytime in my life.
That time, and you, had a big part in making me who I am.
Writing that I think to, how much of a role you had in making our nation what we are.
You hosted the continental congress that birthed this nation.
It is a signature event our nation's past. Thank you for hosting so ably.
It could not have happened anywhere else.
I recall as well how you changed the course of our nation some 4 Score and... years later. A deep red scar. A singularly costly time. A turning point. No joy in hosting that moment. But recognition of its necessity.
And that is why I really am writing. I wanted to ask...can you do it again?
Now the "fighting" of the last few weeks can not compare to the loss of life and treasure in the early 1860s. But I find it hurts me none the less. In fact, I think it has hurt us all.
We may no longer wear blue or grey. But whether we are decked in blue of a pale or fuller hue - and even for those who would wear red - the last few weeks have hurt more than helped. All of us are less I feel
PA, can you help?
Yes You Can.
I believe.
Why don't you show us again your capacity and import.
Help us emerge into a whole new political reality and positive era.
You have done it before. Would you please do it again?
You can be THE deciders.
You can end the rancor.
You can end the acrimony.
You can make peace and foster quiet amongst that blue party.
So it and all of us, may go forward.
BUT, Only if you choose to vote for Obama.
If she wins...it goes on and I fear gets worse.
More blood spilled in PA's rich soil, no one needs.
This would not be the blood of soldiers...
but rather, the life blood of a chance too rare to squander.
If he wins...it is over.
The chance to progress would again be saved on your land.
Through your hands, hearts and minds.
So, PA, I have to ask -
What are you going to do?
Who do you want to be?
A nation turns its eyes, tired and pained by the last few weeks, to you.
I wish you great good luck and much providence in your choosing.
With deep affection and high hopes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1geo58GVrx4
Turn on the sound. It takes about 1 minute.
Worth it.
(An obviously snarky)
"A man may dwell so long upon a thought it may take him prisoner" - Lord Halifax.
You have dwelt more than long and dotingly enough upon Rev Wright and this whole matter.
Part of why the story lives, is you keep breathing life into it.
Some of the breath - purposely agitating (See Fixed Noise <Thank you Keith Olberman>.
Others of it less targeted to destroy, meant only to sell copy or ad time - but by that, no better in quality.
You cut away from Obama's economic speech this morning.
But not last weeks Race speech.
Tell me why?
Race matters more to this country than the economy? I think not.
While Race matters, I think it is not as central as the current and deepening economic tumult we are enduring.
Let it go.
So we all may go forward.
Think on that which does in now matter.
And build toward a better and clearer choice.
The right one being...Obama.
"Keep cool, and you command everybody." Louis De Saint-Just
One key aspect of Obama's appeal is his calm demeanor, at almost all times.
I do believe, that a piece of what got so many of my kind (color-less that is) worked up about the Rev. Wright, is not only what he said, but how he said it.
One thing that thrills so many of all types about Obama is the cool way he says so much...especially the very difficult, the very challenging, the very most necessary. That is in part where his "command" comes from.
When I hear hrc say things, I always hear this...grinding, scratchy, edgy, angry quality. It is part of why I can not believe in her...her voice belies the inner turmoil I believe she is now and has almost always been in.
Barack's "cool" makes me more comfortable - that he is aligned with himself and that others can therefore align with him.
I ask you...can you do it as you work on his behalf? Can you muster the resolve and the cool to be strong, smart, careful, and clear in the face of adversity and support alike? Can we all be that "cool and commanding?"
I am game to try...how about you?
The following is from the WSJ's Law Blog.
The Pepperdine Professor in question, D Kmiec, has taken a courageous stand.
Looking at the comments he is being widely savaged by conservatives in the field of law.
He stands fast. That is what is required today. Courage combined with Hope and Intellect.
Prof. Kmiec in his opening answer states elequently what brought me to this campaign...
A man, capable of respectful disagreement, and the ability to explain, what he is thinking, why he makes the choices he makes. I do not agree with Obama on everything either. That is not whay I need in a President. What I do need is to understand why he reached the decision he reached. What I need is the chance to present my ideas and have them respectfully heard, whether they are in fact adopted or not.
This is why I am with Obama.
I encourage all of us as we go forward to work with this set of principles...
Listen
Be respectful
Explain your own thinking after learning of the others
Be patient
Stay open and engaged
Be hopeful.
Yes We Can. And with each passing day I feel more and more, both that we MUST and that we will.
Yesterday, the Law Blog mentioned that the Pepperdine con law prof, Douglas Kmiec, had endorsed Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency on the Slate Convictions blog – a surprising move for the high-profile Republican who was a lawyer in the Reagan and Bush I administrations.
In Kmiec’s endorsement letter, he confirmed his belief in “traditional marriage,” a “limited judicial role” for the Supreme Court and that “life begins at conception.” Kmiec went on to write: “In various ways, Senator Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced . . . . he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.”
News of the endorsement quickly ricocheted around the blogosphere, eliciting moans from conservative legal bloggers like L.A. lawyer Patrick Frey, who writes the Patterico’s Pontifications blog. “Prof. Kmiec, that’s all very nice,” Frey responded. “But, you see, there is a candidate — his name is John McCain; you might have heard of him — who actually supports the principles for which you claim to stand. Why are you refusing to support him?”
The Law Blog caught up with Professor Kmiec to get a response to his critics.
Hi Professor. Thanks for chatting. Many have criticized your Obama endorsement, arguing that, based on your stated beliefs, Senator McCain would be a better candidate for you.
I have nothing against McCain. Indeed, he was my candidate in 2000, and I would still think him the better choice in 2000. But, perhaps like my time, his time has passed. John’s understanding of warfare is the understanding of, as Tom Brokaw put it, the greatest generation. Just as shock and awe did not prevail in Iraq, McCain’s under-estimation of the cost of deployments both in terms of money, life, and international standing, make him not well suited to protect our national security in a time of terrorist threat.
You worked as a lawyer in the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Do you see any qualities in common between Obama and those past presidents?
I actually think Obama and Ronald Reagan have more in common than not when it comes to qualities of leadership, communication and ability to call us to our better selves. President Reagan used to tell all of us in his administration, and the public generally, that his proudest achievement was making the country feel better about itself. I believe Obama is committed to giving us reason to feel better about ourselves. I’ve seen it in the classroom. I’ve been teaching for 40 years, and have not seen a more electric and engaged atmosphere with regard to the democratic process. We’ll be saying something quite disappointing to that generation by saying we want to continue the politics of the past.
One of your former students, writing on a conservative blog, says he can’t understand how you reconcile your beliefs with Senator Obama’s. Take abortion, for example.
Senator Obama has the interesting capacity to go to people and emphasize the values of self responsibility. So when he goes to Planned Parenthood, he says the usual things the Democrats say, but then he also emphasizes that we need to teach young people to have a reverence for what sexual intimacy means and how it’s necessarily linked to new life and parenting. That’s remarkable for someone on his side of the world to say. It’s not enough to satisfy my concerns as a Catholic and conservative who believes the Court had no business in that territory. But it is a kind of federalist reminder – that these problems get solved first in family, church and the community.
Can you talk a bit about Obama and Supreme Court appointments?
One of the hardest things to reconcile was my concern with the Supreme court, which I do think President Bush, somehow miraculously, deserves credit for. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito are unparalleled. But I view those appointments not as partisan appointments, but rather appointments that, as Roberts tried to articulate, are designed to take politics out of the Court. So when my fellow conservatives say that even thinking about Senator Obama betrays the importance of Supreme Court appointments, I think they’re smuggling in an improper premise – that there aren’t people of integrity from both parties that can do constitutional interpretation in the vision of a limited judicial role.
On blogs, some of your fellow conservatives have been quite outspoken and critical of your position. Have you received any direct responses?
I’ve received some e-mails which have been quite thoughtful. It’s a curiosity that people write in a tone on the blogosphere that they wouldn’t say to the person themselves.
From a book by Joe Brewer and George Lakoff
The conservative view of the world as a dangerous place where military threats always lurk nearby is not conducive to the tasks that make our world safer: communicating effectively with leaders of other nations, building trust and forging lasting alliances across the globe, promoting peace through diplomacy and engaging in efforts to ease suffering through initiatives that build secure communities at home and abroad.
We need a president, not just a commander in chief.
This is a workable and usable line.
I do not wish for someone ready to be Commander in Chief.
I want someone to be President.
There is only one.
OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA
When people talk of the freedom of writing, speaking or thinking I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists; but I hope it will exist. But it must be hundreds of years after you and I shall write and speak no more. John Adams
It is now hundreds of years after Adams wrote this.
And I ask you...are you speaking or writing or thinking freely? truly?
Are you exercising the essential faculties of democratic liberty within the representative structure?
Or are you, reacting to small minds and deeds of others? Are you falling pray to that which can be brutish and bruising within us?
I ask you again to write, speak, in all its modern forms, but also those of the past, pen and paper, face to face, one person to a group...and do so freely, properly, respectfully, and hopefully.
As you do so please keep this in mind.
The happiness of society is the end of government. John Adams
That is all there is. I wish to be happy again, proud again, of my society. I like Michelle have too long gone with too little to be proud of or happy with.
That said, I would be happy with this campaign FIRST. Happy with its tone, demeanor, purpose and passion.
I would rather be happy with the way each of us, for we are the campaign, holds ourselves, and speaks, writes and thinks, then win at the cost of that.
Be happy in what you do today for Obama and otherwise.
It may well make all the difference.
In Hope.
Hope - The Ultimate Renewable Resource.
