Thousands of protests staged 60 rallies and vigils across the nation, April 11, to demand nationalization of the banks, many still insolvent despite hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts.The actions were organized by the online group A New Way Forward (ANWF) that signed up 11,000 supporters in just three-and-a-half weeks to demand a public takeover of the crisis-wracked financial system.It included 100 people standing in the pouring rain in New York City’s Union Square, 300 in Portland, Oregon, and 400 in Los Angeles. A group who had met online staged a vigil at a street corner in Anchorage, Alaska. In Raleigh, N.C. 200 people put on a “nest egg hunt” in observance of Easter and in solidarity with millions of retirees whose nest eggs have been stolen.The protests demanded, “temporary bank nationalization and structural reform including a new decentralized banking system where no bank can ever again become too big to fail,” said an email sent out by ANWF.Tiffany Cheng, and a friend, Donny Shaw, both technologists and bloggers in Massachusetts initiated AWNF out of frustration that the Obama administration and Congress continue to pour hundreds of billions into the coffers of bankers who created the problem with no signs that it has restored the flow of credit or stabilized the economy.“People of all races and backgrounds joined in the April 11 protests who had thought about the bailouts and were angry,” Cheng (email address info@joetrippi.com) told the World in a phone interview. “These are people who want to learn more about solutions. We’re not seeing policies coming out of the White House that are actually going to help us get out of this crisis. The main thing we want to point out is that the bankers are becoming the middle-men between us and this crisis. We need to own-up to this crisis and deal with it head-on. Stop feeding the bankers, the middle-men.”Cheng said Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, deeply influenced ANWF with his open advocacy of nationalizing the banks. Joseph Stiglitz, former Senior Vice President of the World Bank has also advocated public takeover of the banks as the only solution.Polls show that 94 percent of the people disapprove of the current bail-out plans while another poll shows that 50 percent favor temporary nationalization of the banks. “So we have the job ahead of us of talking to each other about sound solutions we can all believe in,” Cheng said. “We are calling on everyone to talk with five people every week about the economy and about nationalizing the banks.”ANWF is planning four or five large panel discussions across the country on the topic “What is Nationalization?”There is some evidence that the Obama administration, itself, is divided on the way forward to solve the crisis with some, especially Obama’s political advisers at odds with the President’s financial advisers on the issue of a public takeover of the banks.“It does seem like there is a possibility that (nationalization) might be the next step,” she continued. “As long as the bankers are so influential, the chances of pursuing a policy that is actually beneficial to the people is low. We have to let President Obama know, ‘We are here to support you in these policies. We’ve got your back.’ We need to pursue economic and financial policies that will enable all people to prosper, not just the bankers.” That, she said, is the goal of bank nationalization. greenerpastures21212@yahoo.com
This poll made our day. According to a recent Rasmussen Report, only 53 percent of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. Not a very good spread for the profits-before-people, greed-is-good crowd. Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave.These numbers of course reflect the deep, transformative moment we are living in. An economic depression is a powerful force for people to experience, leading them to question the system that got us here.Then there is the 20 percent that say socialism is better than capitalism, according to Rasmussen. Another wow! Twenty-seven percent are not sure which is better.As the population gets further away from the Cold War years, the more they are open to socialism. The under 30 population is essentially divided: 37 percent prefer capitalism, 33 percent socialism and 30 percent are undecided.Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the current system with 49 percent for capitalism and 26 percent for socialism. But the ones over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13 percent of those believe socialism is better. What happened to the radical baby boomers?!As you may imagine, those who have money to invest chose capitalism by a 5-to-1 margin. But for the rest of us who have no money to invest – a quarter of us say socialism would be o.k. Only 40 percent of non-investors think capitalism is better.These are amazing statistics considering Rasmussen did not define either capitalism or socialism in their questions. In an earlier survey by the polling firm they found, 70 percent of Americans prefer a free-market economy. When using the term “free market economy,” Rasmussen asserts, it attracts more support than using the term “capitalism.”“Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors,” the poll summary stated.Imagine how Americans would react if truly a national conversation was had on the benefits of socialism. Right now most Americans see it as a “government-managed” economy and they aren’t convinced the government could do any better than the corporate royalty, according to further poll findings.Not included in the current popular view of socialism is democratization of the economy – where representatives of all communities, unions, schools, etc., would actually be involved in steering economic policy and decision making on all levels – micro and macro.Recently, a colleague of mine, Sam Webb, the chair of the Communist Party said of the current economic and political situation: “Is there any reason to think that millions in motion can't transform this country and world into the just, green, sustainable and peaceful "Promised Land" that Martin Luther King dreamed of?“It would be a profound mistake to underestimate the progressive and socialist potential of this era. The American people have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity within their reach.”While polls are just a snapshot of a very fluid and dynamic process of what people think, the more long term forces of the economy are already having this profound effect.
President Barack Obama said March 30 that the government will withhold additional long-term federal loans for General Motors and Chrysler unless the company, its creditors and the unions make more concessions. He also raised the possibility of “controlled bankruptcy” for one or both of the two companies.Hoping to reassure potential car customers, the president announced that the federal government would immediately back the warranties that new car buyers receive – a move he hopes will assure people it is safe to buy American automobiles despite the sorry shape of the industry.In a statement from the White House, Obama said he is “absolutely committed to the survival of a domestic auto industry that can compete internationally. And yet, our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough.”Obama’s remarks underlined the extent to which the government is now calling the shots for the two auto giants after recent moves that gave it controlling interest in banks, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.In an unprecedented move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend.Ford Motor Co. has not requested federal bailout loans, and was not included in what the president had to say.The Bush administration, last year, approved $17 billion in federal funds to help GM and Chrysler survive. It also demanded both companies submit restructuring plans that the Obama administration would review. Although he called their efforts “unsatisfactory,” the president offered General Motors “adequate working capital” over the next 60 days to produce a reorganization plan acceptable to the administration.Obama said Chrysler’s situation is more precarious, and the government will give the company 30 days to sell itself to Fiat, the Italian automaker. “If they are successful, we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed,” the president said.The Obama move came after an explosion of public outrage over bonuses paid to business executives and AIG executives while the economy tanked. Critics of the president are saying that dumping Wagoner lets the administration deflect attention away from Wall Street where the Treasury Dept. is still up to its neck as it struggles for solutions to the mess there. The administration’s detractors say the moves in Detroit allow Obama to portray himself as tough on the corporate executives who are ruining America, without having to draw blood from the bankers.Defenders of the administration note that Obama has yet to give AIG one cent. The TARP bailout happened under President Bush. If additional funds are given to AIG or any other banks with no guarantees in exchange, they say, then they might be willing to point the finger.There is a way forward for the auto industry right now. Beyond turning out “green” cars and a variety of other fuel-efficient vehicles, the industry should re-tool to help meet the enormous mass transit needs of the country. Hopefully, this is the direction in which the Obama administration wants to move.Unfortunately, “restructuring” has usually meant shutting down production in the U.S., laying off workers and squeezing those remaining for more concessions. The auto workers resent being called on again to be the fall guys. They resent being told that corruption and greed on Wall Street and incompetence in Detroit’s corporate boardrooms can only be solved by busting them and their union.They particularly resent this because, for decades now, they have been the ones who always lose. The slow drain of the auto industry has drained them of their benefits, wages and jobs.In his speech Obama announced the appointment of a new “director of recovery for the auto community and workers.”What will determine the success of any plan for the auto industry is not whether GM or Chrysler survive as profitable outfits. More than keeping any particular company operating, it is the responsibility of government to keep workers of the auto industry employed. “Retraining,” by itself, is meaningless to a worker who asks, “Retraining for what?”The people of Michigan need a lot more than “training” and tax breaks.They need a program that involves major government subsidies for new industries to locate in hard-hit areas like Michigan.The new employers will have to be required to hire the union members who lost their jobs and to pay union wages to the additional workers hired. The Employee Free Choice Act would help a lot in this area.A massive effort to enlist the universities in establishment of training centers for workers who need new high-tech skills, might not be a bad idea.A massive plan to create government jobs in the area will be needed. These can include jobs resulting from a new national healthcare plan, for example, or jobs connected with the rebuilding of mass transit,infrastructure or numerous other areas.In cases where nothing can realistically be done for individuals or for groups of workers, the government plan should incorporate meaningful help in relocating people.The auto workers were left out of the auto company deliberations when those companies devised their restructuring plans.The auto workers were left out of the deliberations of the experts who advised the Obama administration about the positions it should take.The auto workers have been left out of all the bailouts and rescue plans.The time for leaving them out is over. jwojcik @ pww.org
We Don't Ask - National Ad for the Employee Free Choice Act
...pass it on.
Contracts can’t be broken. We learned that lesson well over the past few days when AIG honchos swore that despite being bailed out by $173 billion in taxpayer funds, they couldn’t break the sacrosanct contractual bond that guaranteed billions in bonuses to the same top executives who brought the insurance giant to its knees. But we also were taught another lesson in these months of financial chaos: Contacts can’t be broken—unless they involve unionized autoworkers. Tim Rutten at the Los Angeles Times really hits the mark today when he writes: What we’re essentially being asked to believe is that employment contracts involving hardworking men and women on Detroit’s assembly lines are somehow less legally binding—less “sacred” in the current rhetorical argot—than those protecting a bunch of cowboy securities traders living in Connecticut. [snip] For years, the smart guys on Wall Street have convinced a growing number of Americans that organized labor is an impediment to economic progress, an unacceptable “cost” in a globalized system of production, a quaint social fossil from the era of mills and smokestacks. If there’s a lesson to be gleaned from the current crisis, however, it’s that when the chips are down, organized labor is a far more responsible social actor than the snatch-and-run characters who fancy themselves financiers. Who re-negotiated their contracts in the face of a taxpayer bailout? Not AIG CEOs. It was the autoworkers who agreed to put their middle-class wages on the line to help out the struggling industry. So far, not one AIG CEO has stepped up to the plate to return that $1 million or so bonus. (AIG bigwigs aren’t alone in soaking up taxpayer money for personal fun—a video clip here by Brave New Films lists more CEOs on the taxpayer dole and urges people to take action on March 19.) When General Motors (GM) and Chrysler asked for government support in December, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) pushed a pay cut amendment in the Senate that called for slicing the autoworkers’ wages to those paid to nonunionized workers. So, Bob, your fans are waiting breathlessly to hear you call for AIG billionaires to give back their bonuses. Or, as a columnist in Corker’s home state puts it: Paging Bob Corker! Explanation please! [snip] So, to make sure I have this right, we can give $185 billion to AIG and we have to uphold their employment contracts with 80 people, but we can’t give 1/5th that amount to General Motors unless they abrogate their employment contracts with 100,000 workers. Yes, taxpayers own 80 percent of AIG. But we can’t seem to stop AIG execs from getting bonuses. After all, AIG CEO Edward Liddy and the company’s apologists argue, AIG knew it needed to keep its people. The implication here is that financial wizards who run a global company into the ground are more valuable than the blue-collar men and women who aren’t paid seven-figure salaries and whose jobs involve creating tangible products like, say, automobiles. Meanwhile, AIG bonus information so far includes: * $200 million in bonuses. * 73 AIG employees receiving bonuses of $1 million each, almost all of the employees…responsible for creating the exotic derivatives that caused AIG’s near collapse. * Some of those receiving the bonuses are not U.S. citizens. A CNN poll released today shows the American public increasingly fearful that the nation’s economic downturn will mirror the Depression. Asked whether Depression-era circumstances could reign in the next 12 months, 45 percent of those polled reported that was likely. That’s an increase from 38 percent who responded in the same fashion in December. As AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says, “These outrageous bonuses are yet another example of an economy that has become fundamentally imbalanced.” All of the power is concentrated in the hands of the very few at the very top and the gap between CEOs’ and workers’ pay continues to grow. That is why we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act will allow workers to have a voice at work, lift their standard of living and build stronger communities as well as stronger families. A Gallup poll released in recent days found 53 percent of the U.S. public supports the Employee Free Choice Act, which was reintroduced in the U.S. Congress last week. Why? Because we need a stronger middle class. One with contracts that are sacrosanct.
As an Ohioan and Obama volunteer, I am very concerned about the legislation under consideration this week in both houses of the Ohio State Legislature. This is Ohio Substitute Senate Bill 380. Ohioans need to be voicing strong opposition to their Ohio legislators. One objectionable component of the legislation would require the Secretary of State to create lists of voters with mismatches between their voter registration information and their information in social security and motor vehicle databases. It is well known that such mismatches are widespread even for properly registered, eligible voters. The lists would go to the Boards of Elections and would be publicly available, thereby serving up caging lists to those with malicious intent. In the run-up to the November 2008 election, Ohio Republicans sued to require the Secretary of State to create and distribute such mismatch lists, but the courts sided with Secretary Brunner. Now Republicans are trying to legislate this disenfranchisement mechanism. Another measure that must be stopped is an amendment to Sub SB 380 that would tighten the ID requirements in Ohio to require a state photo ID for voting. Currently Ohioans without a state ID can use other documents such as a current utility bill or almost any current government document showing the person's name and address. The legislation also calls for the elimination of the "golden week" during which Ohioans can register to vote and vote at the same time. It is well established that any fraudulent voting in Ohio is miniscule. This legislation is opposed by the League of Women Voters. If enacted, it will disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters. It is a step towards defeating Secretary Brunner in 2010. Any future repeat of the happy results of Ohio 2008 would surely be dangerously threatened by a Republican Secretary of State (remember Ken Blackwell and Ohio 2004?) and by the loss of voting rights that would be brought by the passage of Sub SB 380. Wake up! Call your legislators!
Contact Info for Your Ohio Legislators: At this link, you can enter your zip code and find the names, phone numbers and email address of your Ohio senator and representative: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/search.cfm#reps_zip Also, toll free messages can be left for members of the Ohio House of Representatives at 1-800-282-0253.
League of Women Voters opposition at:
http://www.lwvcols.org/theleague/displaynews.php?id=73
After the polls close tonight, here's the next step: Grow The Hope <http://www.growthehope.org>
For so many of us the Obama campaign has inspired us to hope for a better future and engage in the political process to make change possible. We know that something special is happening in this campaign. We feel it. We experience it personally and share this profound and moving feeling with others.
We celebrate this special moment and continue our work to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States. The final day of this historic campaign is crucial to our success. We will canvass, phone bank, and organize until the polls close. While we keep focused on the prize - electing a smart and moral man as the next president of the United States, we also feel moved to do what we can to nurture the hope that has built within this campaign and within many of us. Thus we begin the process of building Grow The Hope - a people's movement for progressive social change. We seek to capture the spark of creativity and hope that has come alive during this campaign. If you are interested, please join us. Explore the brief introductory website at: http://www.growthehope.org and sign up by giving us your contact information. As this movement unfolds we will reach out to you.
Those of us working on Grow The Hope are so busy with the campaign that we don't yet have complete answers about what's next. We have not yet determined our organizational structure, programmatic initiatives, or funding options. If you get involved now, you can help shape the future direction of this emerging movement. At this point, we urge all those interested to take one minute to sign up, spread the word, and get back to working on the campaign! Let's do all we can this final crucial day of the campaign to make sure that we can celebrate on November 4th. Then on November 5th, let's take a day of well deserved rest. On November 6th, let's be back in touch to see how we might join together and Grow the Hope.
Yes We Can!Brian
Brian CorrOrganizer, Progresive Massachusetts for Barack Obamahttp://my.barackobama.com/page/group/ProgressiveMassachusettsforBarackObamaBCorr@CambridgeConsultingServices.com -----------Grow the Hope is not affiliated with Obama For America.
Want to know want can come from organizing independently at the base? Bringing together antiwar activists, Obama youth, labor and civil rights groups? Or a notion of what we can do down the road? Take a look at this....
http://students.barackobama.com/page/content/sfbohome
Arizona voted NO in 2006
Now we have to vote NO again in 2008.Help us make it loud and clear —VOTE NO on Proposition 102 on November 4th
The state has more important issues to address.
Arkansas Families First is organizing and working to defeat Initiated Act 1—and we need your help! Please contribute to our campaign, sign up for email alerts, find opportunities to volunteer.
The following information will be included in the November ballot materials.
Ballot Title and Summary
Proposition 8:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.
On August 8, 2008 Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that the Attorney General's Title and Summary of Proposition 8 is accurate.
Ballot Argument
OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION -- the law of our land -- SHOULD GUARANTEE THE SAME FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO EVERYONE -- NO ONE group SHOULD be singled out to BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.That's what this election is about -- equality, freedom and fairness, for all. Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. PROPOSITION 8 WOULD DENY LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES that same DIGNITY AND RESPECT.That's why Proposition 8 is wrong for California.Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech. PROPOSITION 8 MANDATES ONE SET OF RULES FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND ANOTHER SET FOR EVERYONE ELSE. That's just not fair. OUR LAWS SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY.In fact, the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV or do in our private lives. We don't need Prop 8; WE DON'T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES.REGARDLESS OF HOW ANYONE FEELS ABOUT MARRIAGE FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR STATE. Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS are NOT MARRIAGE.When you're married and your spouse is sick or hurt, there is no confusion: you get into the ambulance or hospital room with no questions asked. IN EVERYDAY LIFE AND ESPECIALLY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. Only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people know they can count on in their times of greatest need.EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. Prop 8 separates one group of Californians from another and excludes them from enjoying the same rights as other loving couples. Forty-six years ago I married my college sweetheart, Julia. We raised three children -- two boys and one girl. The boys are married, with children of their own. Our daughter, Liz, a lesbian, can now also be married -- if she so chooses. All we have ever wanted for our daughter is that she be treated with the same dignity and respect as her brothers – with the same freedoms and responsibilities as every other Californian.My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently and now the law doesn't treat them differently, either. Each of our children now has the same rights as the others, to choose the person to love, commit to and to marry. Don't take away the equality, freedom and fairness that everyone in California -- straight, gay or lesbian -- deserves.Please join us in voting NO on Prop 8.
"Proposition 8… would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry – traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment – by definition relegates them and their relationship to second class status."Los Angeles Times Editorial, August 8, 2008
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should guarantee the same fundamental rights to every Californian. Vote No on 8.
Let's remember that gay and lesbian people are our neighbors, our friends, our coworkers and our family members. They are nurses, firefighters and small business owners. Same-sex couples are loving and committed couples who want to get married. They care for each other, they pay taxes and they want to protect each other and take responsibility for each other, just like other couples. We should not hurt same-sex couples in California by eliminating their right to marry.
It's not the government's place to tell couples who have been together for years whether or not they are allowed to marry. In California, we let people decide what is best for themselves – without government interference. Eliminating fundamental rights for same-sex couples treats them differently under the law – AND THAT'S WRONG. Vote No on 8.
Domestic Partnerships are NOT the same as marriage. Domestic partnerships are just legal documents. They don't provide the same dignity, respect, and commitment as a marriage. In a marriage, a paramedic doesn't tell you that you cannot get into an ambulance with your spouse. Married couples can automatically make life or death decisions for each other in these crisis situations, no questions asked. Vote No on 8.
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, it's wrong to eliminate the fundamental rights of fellow Californians – and hurt our friends, neighbors, coworkers, and family members. THAT'S WRONG.
Here's what's fiction and what's fact:
Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is "false and misleading."
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent's objection to the school curriculum will happen here.
Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don't agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won't affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.
Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it's about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn't grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren't supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.
Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.Fact: California's laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.
Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won't have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Regardless of how you feel about the issue, we should not eliminate fundamental rights for ANY Californians. Please vote NO on Prop 8
http://noonprop8.com/campaign_updates?id=0001
We need your help and we need it now. There are so many ways you can help fund the fight against Prop 8. You can help to raise much-needed funds and educate your friends and family about why it is so important for Californians to vote NO on Prop 8.
Sign up to receive more information on Prop 8
http://eqfed.org/equalityforall/join.tcl
The nation was ready for a change.
It had been through a depression, a war, and sixteen years of government by the same political party. The incumbent was an unpopular man who had been a "last choice" pick four years earlier for the Vice-Presidency. The challenger was an intelligent, charismatic, well-spoken and experienced governor of a major state who had been nominated once before and whose time had finally come. Everything was in place, the polls looked great, and on election night, the media was so certain of the challenger's imminent victory that a major American newspaper reported that he won before all the votes had come in.And then Thomas Dewey lost. The great hope of the Republican Party failed to take the presidency away from Harry Truman, a man who inherited the office in the shadow of Franklin Roosevelt.Fast forward sixty years, and we Obama supporters find ourselves in a similarly dangerous situation. The polls look great, and our opponent looks like a beaten man who made a bad choice for a running mate, and can't seem to do much of anything right. Our guy looks presidential, and no one can deny he has the charisma of a classic American leader. The whole world wants him to be elected. But just as in 1948, the only thing that matters is the final vote count. Not polls, not charisma, not clever slogans. And if we do not work every day to until November 4th to win this election, as if we were the ones who were ten points behind, we could well find ourselves mourning a numbing loss of the White House the next day.If you're young, it's so easy to feel over-confident about all of this. Hell, even if you're old it's easy. It's so obvious that Obama is the best choice for the job, right? How could anyone not see that? But many don't, and many won't, and you and I will never understand why they won't, because we just don't think that way. What I'm trying to say to everyone who reads this is that we can lose this election. The only way to prevent that is to resist the temptation to believe that we have already won it. The media is singing into our ears about how great our campaign is, how well-funded and well-organized we are. How naturally presidential Obama looks and sounds. Don't believe it. Work as if we have nothing and need to gain everything. Speak passionately but patiently to people who are not yet convinced that Obama is the right choice to lead the nation. We need them to join us if they can. If you are living in a part of your state where our victory is very clearly assured, then consider going to another part of your state where it's an uphill battle, and your help is desperately needed. This election symbolizes deep change on many levels, but only one of them has to do with the election. We are at a point of cultural and generational change in this nation that will take place no matter what the result of the election may be. The people who remember the Great Depression are now all near 80 or older. The youthful generation of the 1960s that we still see in films and television shows, the ones who are often seen as eternally youthful hippies; they are now all near or over 60. So change is going to come; the question for us is will we get the political leadership we want to steward us through those other kinds of inevitable changes.Time has done its part; it's up to us to do the rest. As Barack Obama has said from the very beginning, it's not about him, it's about us. He can do nothing unless we make him the next President.Let's get out there and make the change we want.
Andrew Hammer is a writer, speaker and activist with over fifteen years of experience as a consultant on faith and politics to progressive political parties throughout the world.
1900 Superior Ave. Suite #221
Cleveland OH 44114
Phone: (734)645-6261
www.concerneddemocrats.org
An Open Letter to Democratic Candidates for Office
October 5, 2008
Dear Democratic Candidate for Office:
We are writing you as Democrats to another Democrat. As a Democratic candidate for office in this historic year, you are in an unique position to help Barack Obama and Joe Biden reverse our nation's priorities.
Unfortunately, the combination of the Obama/Biden campaign’s practice until very recently of de-emphasizing use of traditional visual materials such as yard signs, bumper stickers and buttons and the natural tendency of local candidates to be focused on their own races has resulted in a repeat in 2008 of what has been a longstanding problem in Democratic campaigns during Presidential years: uneven levels of coordination between local campaigns and the top of the ticket in many areas and inadequate support for the top of the ticket.
True, there are many areas in which there is strong support for the top of the ticket and vice versa. That may very well be the case in your area. But this Open Letter stresses the importance of supporting the top of the ticket in very simple ways, such as wearing Obama/Biden buttons, putting Obama/Biden bumper stickers on your car, putting an Obama/Biden sign in your own front yard, trying to get Obama/Biden yard signs up where your own supporters have yard signs, etc..
Concerned Democrats was formed with goal of raising consciousness among candidates for office about the importance of the use of such Obama/Biden materials, in order to send a symbolic but important message to everyone who sees you that you support the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America.
Although there are many logistical causes of lack of coordination, lack of support for the top of the ticket also has political roots. It has manifested itself most often when there has been a liberal candidate for President, such as in 1972, 1984, and 2004. This year Barack Obama has articulated a uniquely pragmatic point of view. Barack Obama realizes that the social problems facing rural, suburban and urban American can’t be solved in isolation from each other.
Senator Obama is the real maverick in this race. He has worked successfully across party lines on nuclear proliferation and other issues. He defied the odds and ran a tough primary campaign during which he and Senator Hillary Clinton made history together. But their efforts and those of their supporters will be nullified if we don’t unite to elect Barack Obama as President, Joe Biden as Vice-President, and Congressional and state candidates across this country and state.
This makes it particularly important that all Democratic candidates unite to show the flag for the top of the ticket. That is the best way to build the turnout needed to win up and down the ticket. This year, undecided rates are still at a high rate, according to recent polls, and many voters are looking for guidance to those persons in public life they know and trust. In your area, that would include you!
You are in a good position to help voters in your area realize that our local problems can’t be optimally addressed without a change in administration in Washington. However, if voters don’t see consistent and visible evidence of your support for Barack Obama, they may mistakenly conclude that you are actually distancing yourself from the top of the ticket.
Thank you for hearing our concerns. Please feel free to call contact us at any time at mdover@concerneddemocrats.org. We are especially interested in hearing unique ideas as to how you have improved coordination and generated momentum in your area. We will then collate these ideas and share them with you in a follow-up email just prior to election day. We will also share them with the Democratic Party and the Campaign for Change, although I want to make it clear that Concerned Democrats does not represent either of these entities.
From preliminary conversations, one idea has already arisen, and that is for each candidate to say at every possible opportunity, "If you are supporting me, I would strongly urge you to also vote for the Obama/Biden ticket on election day."
One day, years from now, all of us who are active in this election will be asked by people close to us, "What did you do to help elect Barack Obama as President in 2008?" As a Democratic candidate for office this year, you will be able to proudly point to your candidacy and its important contribution to change in your area. However, I am writing you to ask that you also be able to say that you did whatever was in your power to be help elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden!
Sincerely,
Michael A. Dover
Concerned Democrats
See www.concerneddemocrats.org.
While I respect the campaign's wish that folks not operate independently, in addition to working within the campaign, I must do so. We'll be distributing 2000 buttons, 1000 bumper stickers and 2500 lapel labels directly to rural and suburban House candidates in Ohio and Michigan and seeking their pledge to more actively support the top of the ticket in the weeks again. The Obama/Biden campaign's stubborn failiure to listen to the people coming into the office asking for materials to distribute to neighbors and friends (due to David Plouffe's faulty and mistaken belief that visual materials don't matter and his over-reliance upon email, text messaging and TV ads) has combined with the intentional and unintentional failure of local candidates to show the flag for the top of the ticket. This 'perfect wave' is threatening the election outcome in Ohio and Michigan. When rural and suburban voters don't "see" visible support by their local candidates for the talk of the ticket, this lack of 'visuals' makes them think that these candidates aren't supporting Obama/Biden, which is very often not true. I'm hearing one story after another from these candidates about how hard a time even they have getting materials! So we're sending them on our own one candidate at a time.
Mike Dover, mdover@concerneddemocrats.org
