In my six years teaching and living in New York City, I have come to the conclusion that unless and until the country is willing to pay more and work harder to close the acheivement gap for children of the poor, the cycle of poverty and racial alienation will continue unabated in our major cities.
For this reasons, I am strongly encouraged by Barack's support of universal early-childhood education, his call to re-examine and better-fund NCLB to better assess the whole child, and his repeated call to reduce the financial disincentives that prevent too many of our best and brightest from entering the teaching profession, particularly in the schools that face the greatest challenges. But if these were the only talking points I could offer, I would ultimately see no difference between Barack an any of the other leading Democratic contenders.
One critically important way in which Barack far surpasses his Democratic (and, of course all his Republican) opponents is in his ability to critically examine issues WITH the public, with those whose views he may not share, and in an empathetic, civil, socratic and almost pedagogical manner. I imagine that Barack's central role as president of the Harvard Law Review followed by his many years teaching US Constitutional Law in some ways contribute to this mannerism, but I suspect this chemistry runs deeper. My gut tells me this is a man who--having grown up at a rare personal crossroads of race, national identity, and class--has developed a truly profound intelligence in making meaning from it all. When I think of who I want my own multi-cultural students to become, of how I wish to impinge upon their thinking as a teacher, I can think of no higher role model than he. (I can also think of no greater asset for a political leader seeking to get things done in a bipartisan fashion).
All aspects of Barack's example are of particular importance to my many young African American students. Especially the young men. While Barack's coming of age differs from that of an inner city youngster in important ways, consistently his life choices demonstrate a profound comittment to knowing the African-American experience as among the cantral facets of identity he has come to understand in himself. He is a masterful "code-switcher" modulating his voice across a universal message that takes him gracefully from high-priced Hollywood fundraisers to the rural ranches of Nevada, to the pulpits of Baptist Churches and inner-city housing projects.
For a young, inner-city student trying to "get out," Obama's example does one better: he calls to "get back in" to bring education and a transcendent, universal ethics of hard-work and compassion to a heartsick and culturally-weakened community. With an authority that none of his opponents can claim, Obama "calls out" the African American community for its own responsibility to support education in the home.
As an urban educator who views public education as the only authentic means for social and economic freedom from the racial inequalities of the past, I see Obama as the only candidate who may at last renew both sides of an important covenant between public schools and the African-American / poor urban communities that continue to languish in the shadows of our wealthiest cities.
Andrew
NYC Teachers for Obama!
Despite the bitter cold, Barack supporters throughout New York State braved the elements to show their support, passion and organization. Keeping an eye on the incoming results from the Nevada Causes, where Barack walked away with the most delegates for the nomination, our New York hope mongers made phone calls, answered questions and signed up new volunteers throughout the day.
For more information on how to get involved in New York state, check out NY.BarackObama.com.
Tabling in Washington Heights in NYC
Barack volunteers march to Union Square in Manhattan
We’re drawing supporters of all ages
Upper West Side for Obama prepares for an “Obama Train” visibility march down Broadway.
ObamaNYC hosts a Nevada Caucus-watching party and phonebank at the 40/40 club in Manhattan. While cheering on Barack, they made over 1,500 phone calls to New York City voters.
Syracuse for Obama on the steps of Hendrick’s Chapel at Syracuse University
Souther Tier for Obama held their organizational meeting in Olean to plan the two and a half weeks before the NY Primary
Rochester holds a rally with over 175 new volunteer sign-ups
I would like to start a thread (please sound off) on this blog about a proposed debate between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton at the Apollo Theater in Harlem.
Dr. Lenora Fulani is proposing to hold a debate at the Apollo theater in the coming months in order present a political choice for the black constituency. She feels as though the sheer number of political figures who have endorsed Hillary Clinton's candidacy have made it hard for black voters to see that there is an alternative to Hillary Clinton, and that a forum at the Apollo theater will at least bring this choice to the light.
At the fundraiser at the Brooklyn Marriott last week, she was passing out a page published by the Amsterdam News that explained her desire to call for this "debate" or "forum." While I have been unable to find that page in digital form, I did find something that spoke a bit to its content. See this link for more information:
http://www.independentvoting.org/activistcenter/ClintonSharptonCutoffDebate.html
I will pass on more information as it becomes available, but I would like to hear what people have to say about this. What do you think would be the benefit of such an event?
Please sound off.
Thank you so much to all of you who made it up to New Hampshire for the first of what will be many canvassing trips. Here is a recap for those who missed out:
We arrived at the Keene office to a warm welcome from staffers and volunteers.
They gave us a brief canvassing review before cutting us loose on the neighborhoods in and around Keene.
We spent the afternoon knocking on doors and talking politics with the locals. As the evening approached, we headed over to Manchester, checked into our motel and dropped off our stuff. Hassani, who'd spent some time in the state in 2004 working with the Dean campaign, recommended a Mexican restaurant and bar named Margarita's. Things got a little blurry after that.
The following morning, a couple of us headed over to the Manchester headquarters. Here's Molly as we tried to find our way in:
Here, Matt stands in front of the motto of the state of New Hampshire as well as one of the campaign's mottoes.
We regrouped, headed up to Concord and finished off another day of canvassing. Here's another group shot of us at the Conford office, tired, but satisfied with a job well done:
I'm extremely impressed by our final tally. We spoke with 400 voters and left literature at the homes of over 1,100 voters. When you consider that the 2004 New Hampshire democratic primary was decided by just 26,000 votes, we definitely made a big difference.
Thanks again and I look forward to working again with all of you.
Of all the Obama criticisms I've heard, nothing affects me on a more personal level than the old standby, “he doesn’t have enough experience.”
Perhaps this is because I discovered a year or two ago (like many of my 25 year-old, quarter-life-crisis peers), that I didn’t want to do what I thought I wanted to do with the rest of my life. It would seem that your early 20s are about realizing that perhaps you’re not on the right path and adjusting accordingly to get where you want to be. A large part of that “adjustment” naturally requires getting a job in the field you’re interested in but don’t know enough about.
Thus we arrive at my favorite (and by favorite, I mean most-loathed) catch 22: you need a job to get experience and you need experience to get a job.
And not just experience in the broad sense, because if experience meant: “What has happened in your life? How has it shaped who you are today? And what are you capable of as a result?” well then, the catch wouldn’t exist.
It’s when experience starts to mean: “Have you, specifically, in the past, performed exactly the duties you would perform here in exactly the same kind of corporation as this is? Yes, or no?” that everyone has a little trouble.
Now we all know that Barack Obama has experience. The guy didn’t just wake up one morning with a law degree and a political career. Community organizing in Chicago isn’t exactly easy and being the first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review can’t have been a cakewalk either (and I’m excluding so many other experiences Barack Obama has that would no doubt enhance his strength as President).
To me, the problem is that Barack Obama’s experiences don’t fit into a neat and tidy little box that can be checked off, so they are counted for less. This sort of “in-the-box” thinking, is how human resources departments wind up overlooking candidates who might make a significant impact on their firm, and my only hope is that the American people are more imaginative and/or sick of what this “square-pegs-in-square-holes” thought process has rendered.
Somehow, we’ve come to believe that experience means safety and competence, and that one can only “hit the ground running on day one,” as Hillary likes to say, if they’ve had massive Washington establishment experience. Some people even voted for President Bush a second time thinking he would surround himself with establishment advisors who could provide the depth of strategic thinking accumulated from being around the White House for a long time.
Clearly, these advisors were able to lead us into historically familiar territory. Distrust of government rings a bell. Fear of cultures we don’t understand, which induces isolationism promising only to keep us less educated and well-regarded than our neighbors (who share an ever-flattening world with us) seems like something I learned about in school. I know for sure that all of the baby boomers who taught my history classes in high school and college knew someone who died in a senseless war that our country had no reason getting into, so that, too, strikes a familiar chord.
What has “experience” really done for us lately anyway? The most experienced people have lessened our safety while simultaneously making us so afraid that we’ve let them play politics with our health, our environment and our uniquely American freedoms.
They’re real pros alright.
Monumental change, the kind so many Americans claim to yearn for, rarely comes from a person or organization that has been doing something the same way as everyone else for longer than anyone can remember.
If an organization wants to get the same old job done, they should keep using the process which has served them so well, and if our country wants to continue on the path “experienced” advisors put us on, we should vote for someone who allows us to check off the most boxes and to meet our quotas.
If, however, we’d like experience to mean that a person’s experiences define who they are, what they are capable of and why, we might have the kind of President who creates a whole new field of boxes to check and quotas to meet. We could take a chance on someone who might just be the biggest fast-track hotshot this company the United States has ever seen.
Like many 20-something women in Manhattan, I attribute a certain amount of wisdom to Candace Bushnell’s “Sex and the City.” Some of the observations from the book and tv show are just too on-point to ignore.
Perhaps my current favorite is Bushnell’s comment that the only successful, functional couples in Manhattan are gay. While I’m not sure it’s that black and white, I must say that many of my gay friends are in the happiest, most loving relationships I’ve seen, while many of my heterosexual friends seem far from all-out commitment.
I personally believe that any and all of my gay friends who want to should be able to get married to whomever they desire, be it man, woman, or Angelina Jolie (she doesn’t count as a real human, she’s just too beautiful).
Right now, the best thing we can say about heterosexual marriage is, “one out of two times, it works every time.”
If you’re straight, marriage, like voting, is an inborn right—something the law guarantees you can do if you feel like it. I have always felt like voting, I believe it is important and I believe that to abstain from voting is unpatriotic. I also believe that, because I’m a passionate person and because I believe wholeheartedly in the institution of marriage, when I meet the right guy, I will make that lifelong promise and honor it forever, and if it gets tough, I’ll stick it out, and if it gets unbearable, I’ll get a divorce if I absolutely have to.
But until I meet that guy and make those decisions, the fact that I can someday get married if I so desire isn’t that important to me.
But, it’s monumentally important to many of my gay friends who want to get married, raise children and build a life together. It’s so very important to them because right now they can’t do that—because our very own country is saying that, while we believe that all people are created equal, gay people are not quite equal enough to sign a contract and promise to love and honor each other as long as they both shall live. Which is why many of my gay friends, the very ones who would be phenomenal Obama volunteers, are on the fence about him.
So, since my friends matter to me, and since I very much want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. And since, after he wins, I very much want for my friends to be able to get married and dress their children better than I will dress mine, I thought I’d do a little research on where Barack Obama stands on gay rights--and specifically, on gay marriage.
While barackobama.com does have a lot of material about the issues, I haven’t been able to find a lot on gay rights. So, below is what I’ve been able to find through some internet sleuthing. If you have more info, please, add it to the pile. I’ve got a whole bunch of friends to get on the bandwagon and need all the help I can get:
Comparison: Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and John Edwards on Gay Marriage -http://lesbianlife.about.com/
Obama: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.
"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Clinton: Some gay and lesbian voters don't feel like Hillary Clinton has done enough to support gay and lesbian rights, while others believe she is the best candidate for gay and lesbian issues. Clinton opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage. "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.
However, in October 2006 Hillary Clinton was quoted by 365gay.com as saying, "I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."
Edwards: Edwards opposes same-sex marriage, but he does not think the Constitution should be amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
On 2/24/04 Edwards said in response to President Bush's proposed Constitutional amendment, "I am against the president's constitutional amendment on gay marriage...I don't personally support gay marriage myself. My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."
Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on the Federal Marriage Amendment-6/5/06
Today, we take up the valuable time of the U.S. Senate with a proposed amendment to our Constitution that has absolutely no chance of passing.
We do this, allegedly, in an attempt to uphold the institution of marriage in this country. We do this despite the fact that for over two hundred years, Americans have been defining and defending marriage on the state and local level without any help from the U.S. Constitution at all.
And yet, we're here anyway because it's an election year - because the party in power has decided that the best way to get voters to the polls is not by talking about Iraq or health care or energy or education, but about a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that they have no chance of passing.
Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But let's be honest. That's not what this debate is about. Not at this time.
This debate is an attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged in this country. It's a consensus between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, Red States and Blue States, that it's time for new leadership in this country - leadership that will stop dividing us, stop disappointing us, and start addressing the problems facing most Americans.
It's a consensus between a majority of Americans who say, "You know what, maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital and share health care benefits; most of us do believe that they should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected by the federal government."
And we all know that if this amendment were to pass, it would close the door on much of this - because we know that when similar amendments passed in places like Ohio and Michigan and Utah, domestic partnership benefits were taken away from gay couples.
This is not what the majority of the American people want. And this is not about trying to build consensus in this country; it's not about trying to bring people together.
This is about winning an election. That's why the issue was last raised in July of 2004, and that's why we haven't heard about it again until now. And while this is supposedly a measure that the other party raised to appeal to some of its core supporters, I don't know how happy I'd be if my party only talked about an issue I cared about right around election time - especially if they knew it had no chance of passing.
I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.
Today, we should take this amendment only for what it is - a political ploy designed to rally a few supporters and draw the country's attention away from this leadership's past failures and America's future challenges.
There is plenty of work to be done in this country. There are millions without health care and skyrocketing gas prices and children in crumbling schools and thousands of young Americans risking their lives in Iraq.
So don't tell me that this is the best use of our time. Don't tell me that this is what people want to see talked about on TV and in the newspapers all day. We wonder why the American people have such a low opinion of Washington these days. This is why.
We are better than this. And we certainly owe the American people more than this. I know that this amendment will fail, and when it does, I hope we can start discussing issues and offering proposals that will actually improve the lives of most Americans.
From the Chicago Tribune-9/25/04
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," Obama said.Obama said he would not let his religious beliefs dictate the way he approaches public policy. He said he would supports civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.
Don’t get me wrong, debates are serious stuff—it’s not all fun, fun. Debates provide a forum for discussing the issues, a time for voters to get brief glimpses of a candidates’ true personality and character and a chance for all of us to gather around the television and talk about our goals for the future of our country.
But debates also provide a forum for one-liners (such as Kucinichs’ “Government leaders say, ‘Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps,’ and then they steal your boots!”), a time for glimpses into a candidates’ narcissism (such as Mike Gravel’s insistence that he is the only candidate with the moral fiber to lead our country) and a chance for all of us to gather around the television and laugh together as these things happen.
Last night's debate at Howard University was the first one I watched outside the discomfort of my own home in the summer swelter. The debate party I attended was considerably more enjoyable than any Super Bowl, March Madness or World Cup Party I’ve ever nacho-scarfed and beer-imbibed at (watching political discourse, it turns out, is just as entertaining as watching athletes kick and throw things).
For one thing, it’s fun to watch a debate with Obama supporters, because we’re all rooting for the same guy, and it’s that much better when he scores! (Or should I say “wins” considering the HIV-testing reference made last night?).
For another, it’s a great way to make friends who are passionate about their country and their place in it.
And finally (at least, this was how it went down at Jacki Esposito’s Riviera Debate Party in the West Village. Well-planned, Jackie) it’s the perfect chance to bring friends along who may be apathetic about politics and involve them in the process on the promise of $15 sangria pitchers. By the end of the night, who knows? You may just have people sporting Obama T-shirts and planning a trip to New Hampshire…
Don’t forget that tomorrow night, Thursday the 28th, is the next Democratic debate. The All-American Presidential Forum will be hosted by Tavis Smiley and broadcast on PBS at 9 p.m.
There are debate watching parties popping up all over the city, in Brooklyn please join Bed-Stuy and Brooklyn for Barack at one of two locations off the Kingston-Throop C, or join groups in Bay Ridge or Crown Heights.
In Manhattan, you can head to a lively gathering at the Riviera Cafe; and in Staten Island Terrence is hosting a party. As always, see the Brooklyn events page for more details (and more events). Show up early and stay late to talk about organizing support for Senator Obama in your neighborhood!
I was a college senior and I cared very little about politics. What I cared about was riding on a float in the Chicago St. Patrick's Day Parade. My friend Mindy (who, at the time, was more politically-astute) was volunteering for a State Supreme Court Justice campaign, and they needed energetic people to ride around, pass out flyers and drink in the St. Patty's spirit.
We were playing football in the middle of Lake Shore Drive before the parade began and I was trying to execute the Nebraska Option when Mindy yelled "That's State Senator Obama getting out of that car! We HAVE to go meet him!" I knew not who Obama was nor why he had a funny name (nor why a state senator was important in any way), but my friend Mindy hadn't consumed quite so much St. Patty's spirit, so I took her word for it and shouted in my loud voice "Mr. Obama, Mr. Obama, can we take a picture with you?!"
Mindy tried to correct me, "State Senator Obama," she said properly, "We'd be honored if you'd take your picture with us," but her voice did not naturally project the way mine did.
Mr. Obama, who barely had time to exit his vehicle before we approached, graciously shook all of our hands and posed for a photo. He asked us if we were having fun. We spoke with him for a few minutes, and then went on our merry way.
What a nice guy, I thought to myself as we got on our float and prepared our flyers.
A few months later, Mr. Obama made a little speech at the Democratic National Convention that most people tend to think put him on the political radar, so to speak. Mindy and I had graduated from school and were now in New Orleans and New York respectively.
“Can you believe it!?” I shouted into the phone when I called her as Mr. Obama closed his speech to thunderous applause. “We met that guy. It’s amazing! We shook his hand!”
Now when I look at our photo, it seems so obvious to me that Barack Obama was bound for greatness.
I wish I could claim some dramatic emotion swept over me the day I met Barack Obama and I instinctively knew that the man whose hand I shook would run for president and change the country with a ground-breaking campaign that would inspire me and involve me in ways I couldn't imagine. But I can't.
What I can claim is that I liked him immensely. He was not politician slick--he didn't mind my botching his title, our beer mug necklaces or my explanation of the difficulty of running the Nebraska Option with an Irish quarterback whose brogue was thicker than my Guinness. He was just a nice guy, unassuming, happy to be out in a great city on a gorgeous day seeing people enjoy themselves and their city. Just a nice, humble, caring, brilliant, inspirational, world-changing guy I was lucky enough to meet on St. Patrick's Day in 2004.
Don't be fooled by some of the negative rhetoric out there. This plan is a good one:
LINK
On Meet the Press this past Sunday, Mary Matalin confirmed my nervousness about Hillary as a nominee: the GOP wants to run against her (and I believe they fear Barack the most):
Link
So let's nominate the guy they fear the most!
Please go here to read and see photos of the rally / fundraiser held yesterday at Battery Park, New York.
So I’m walking back from the bank wearing my Barack shirt and reading Barack Obama In His Own Words while juggling a bunch of bags. As I’m a pretty clumsy guy, I drop the book and it tumbles…into a sewer.
Yup.
I gather up some sticks I think may be strong enough and I lean over the curb to fish the book out. Cars are whizzing by and all when this black pick up truck putters around me and puts on the brakes. I’m using a stick to nudge the book into a dry brown paper bag as the faintly southern voice of an older Black American Man chimes in, “You dead?”
I lift my head up and he frowns, “Nah. You’re just stupid.”
I smile as he tells me how dangerous trying to retrieve this book is. In his dirt smeared white T-shirt and black jeans that are a few sizes too big for him, the Man asks me what is so important that I'm willing to reach into the sewer to get it back. I think he was relieved that I was trying to get a book.
After he makes me swear I will in fact read this book if I get it back, he drives off to get some tools. I listen to Rachel Portman’s theme song to Cider House Rules on my iPod while I wait.
The pick up putters to the corner and the Man emerges with three rather large tools. He offers me a gardening hoe.
This man stands in the street while I use his gardening hoe to fish my book out of the sewer. We shake hands and I offer to give him one of my Barack shirts for free.
He mulls it over, sighs that retired man sigh, then releases the proudest of proud smirks, “I’ma sign for'm anyway. You give that to someone who ain’t. Cause I’ma sign for'm anyway.”
And with that, he was gone.
Democrats get drowned out again.
Giuliani took a page from Cheney's book, ranting on the Sean Hannity Show that the democrats "do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us. . . They want to take us back to not being as alert which to me will just extend this war much, much longer."
The democratic challengers attempted to swing back, including Barack, who was the most articulate, stating that Giuliani has taken the politics of fear to a new low, etc.
My problem is that the issue is not really cut sharply enough to pierce the white noise. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all reacted as if Giuliani was insulting them personally. That's not really the point. The point is (according to the press) that Giuliani is referring to DEMOCRATS, of which there are several million in America. Ironically, the "democrats who don't get it" appear to include the democrats of New York City, who elected Giuliani to two terms as Mayor. So much for being a leader who unites the country. He believes that democrats are not in the armed forces. He believes that no democrats lost loved ones on 9/11. He believes that no democrats have died for this country, that the VA hospitals are empty of democrats who have lost arms and legs fighting in a war.
American right now is sick of party politics as usual. In fact, I would argue that Americans don't like parties at all, because parties have ideologies and Americans are naturally suspicious of ideology. That's why most americans regret putting Republicans in the white house. They are republican before they are American.
Giuliani (now that he has left Gracie Mansion) is now casting himself in the same mold: he is Republican before he is American. That is why he says that Democrats don't see the danger that terrorists pose. Republicans are the parents who need to take care of the children in the best interests of everyone.
Enough Democrats and independents voted for Bush to put him in the White House. And now I think that those are the democrats who now get it. As for Giuliani, his current strategy appears to be to insult all the democrats in the United States and expect to be elected anyway.
There's a interesting interactive debate on MSNBC.com. Obama won the first Democratic debate, now it's this is your chance to rate him in online. Barack Obama is number 7, you can choose how positve his talk was by clicking and holding the upside down triangle and scolling across to the green(positve) section. Then after that you submit your rating, click on the orange rectangle shaped box on the bottom right hand side of your screen. Here is the Link Link also has his own candidate page, with the latest news and free video's of his spreeches. Link for reading
Click here.
What I like is this:
"Obama now leads among voters under 40. Clinton is strongest among those 65 and older. Clinton has a two-point edge among Democrats. Obama has a nineteen-point lead among independents likely to vote in a Democratic Primary."
