Just today, Barack Obama said that he would work to end the mindless partisanship and divisiveness that plagues our nation. But he can't do it alone. He needs all of us. That's why I've started the New National Dialog Project, both here and on Facebook.
The New National Dialog Project is, at this point, just an idea. It is a recognition that Barack Obama's highly successful ground game in 50 states has helped turn this election around for him, and that it can just as easily help turn around the culture wars of this country. When people speak to people - their friends, neighbors, family members, people wherever they spend time, strangers on the street - they can begin to explore our differences and our similarities.
The idea behind this project comes from Barack Obama, but we have to make it real. Please join the New National Dialog Project and help build it, define it and make it real. You can find it on this site and on Facebook. Some day, I hope we'll have our own website and that a national campaign, and that Barack Obama will take the reigns of this idea and begin the healing that, over the next four or eight years of his presidency, can bring sanity and unity to this country and end the domination of fear and lies.
Please join us now.
Thank you,
Rusel DeMaria
A Republican women's club in San Bernardino County sent out a recent newsletter with a photo of Barack Obama surrounded by fried chicken, watermelon and ribs compliments of Ms. Fedele.
The excuses she gave along with her explanation about her choice of food are totally unbelievable in fact the more she tried to convince us she wasn't racist the more convinced I am that she is.
It is outrageous! But wait there's more...
An image on the Sacramento County GOP website this week showing Obama in a turban beside Osama bin Laden with the words: "The difference between Osama and Obama is just a little B.S." The site also exhorted members to "Waterboard Barack Obama."
Not all republican's are racist...
Gary Ovitt, a county supervisor and chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party stated that "He is disgusted and appalled by it, and he believes it is blatantly racist and offensive no matter what the intent was,"
A sharp reprimand from Ron Nehring, California Republican Party chairman."Any material that invokes issues related to race is absolutely unacceptable, tarnishes our party, diminishes the hard work of the tens of thousands of volunteers who are working hard every day for our candidates, and must be condemned," he said in a statement Thursday. "This material I've seen inspires nothing but divisiveness and hostility and has absolutely no place in this election, or any public discourse."
Republicans and Democrats as well as Independents MUST come together for the sake of our great country and adopt a NO TOLERANCE policy for racism in all of it's ugly forms.
The article stated that volumteers cannot be fired! No they can't... However they can be asked to leave and not come back. Reprimands and giving them a good talkin to is simply NOT enough!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-foodstamps17-2008oct17,0,2209911.story
Juli Norwood
Sarah Palin has been telling anyone who will listen that Barack Obama is "not like us." The Republican rallies are becoming increasingly venomous. Barack Obama's middle name--Hussein--is used as a slur, to prove his differentness, and to foster the idea that he somehow has ties to the Arab world, and by extension, terrorism. It's working. Audience members shout that he should be killed, that he is a terrorist. Even uniformed police officers, who should know better, fan the flames.
Just over 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln warned us that "a house divided against itself cannot stand". While the image of national disunion, prophetic as it was, was what captured the national imagination, his actual message was not that the house would fall, not that the Union would crumble, but that
It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it... or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States...
His speech was a call to action, a warning that the Union was on a path that would lead to that which the North felt was inconceivable, the full legalization of slavery. It was a warning of the course the Republic was on, unless direct and strong action was taken to avert it. Sadly his speech was not strong enough to rally him the support needed to attain the Senate, let alone achieve his goal. Rather, it wasn't until the house actually began to fall, that states seceded, that a war was fought, that he achieved his goal and then paid its price.
I can easily imagine the horror he felt as his nation trod relentlessly towards slavery or disunion. I can imagine it because our house, our houses today are divided. The nation is divided, the Republican and Democratic parties are each divided, the proponents of civil liberties are divided. Polarization is rampant, and it endangers what we cherish.
Now that we've secured the nomination, it's on to the convention. I'm hopeful that the remaining super delegates will come to their senses soon so we can end the infighting that is clouding the focus of voters and turn our attention to the general election.
Right now, I'd like to put out a call for Barack to keep Hillary OFF the ticket. Her refusal to accept defeat has shown that she is not in this for the party or the country, but for herself and herself only. This is the kind of person that we are tired of seeing in Washington and I will seriously reconsider my support of Barack if Hillary is his choice for Vice President.
Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's history is in a lot of ways Cheney-esque, pock-marked with scandal and corruption that this campaign does not need to win. The recent opinion poll in Ohio showed an 18-point victory for an Obama-Edwards ticket, 9-points higher than Barack is beating John McCain head-to-head.
Once Clinton bows out (or is dragged out by Howard Dean), I hope that the campaign separates itself from a woman who has brought nearly as much divisiveness to this country as the Bush administration.
Senator Clinton announced that she represents “hard-working, uh you know, white voters”. Does this mean that non-white voters are not hard-working? She then clarified her remark by saying this means hard-working white voters without a college education. Does she think that those who went to college do not work hard? And what must she think of non-white voters with college educations?!? Senator Obama recognizes and appreciates that Americans of all races and all levels of education work hard to do their best for their families and the future of our country. Barak Obama’s message of changing Washington is something Americans across the board can unite behind. This is not the time for divisive tactics.
Hi folks!
Ah, we are not as divided as our politics suggest!
Some of us have taken it upon ourselves to bring a bit of sanity to MyDD.com. Below is an exchange that proves that there is Hope for all of us.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/16/224624/795#60
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack (0.75 / 4)
"We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!"
ARE you telling me that these are not the same comments that caused the uproar? (RACIST/ ANTI AMERICAN )
ARE YOU THAT BLIND in your following!
ARE you telling me a SENATOR who reads the very comments above is JUSTIFIED! to keep associating and GRANT A POSITION to the REV in his campaign for a presidential run.
YOU GOT BE KIDDING ME!!! LOL
by ATLJay on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57:50 PM EST [ Parent | Reply to This | none0- hide1- troll2- mojo ]
You don't understand. (2.00 / 2) I think it would be really difficult to understand Rev. Wright's anger if you have never been the target of government approved or sponsored discrimination. Until you have been treated like 2/3 person, you really won't understand.
Rev. Wright is not racist and he is not anti-American, and there is a degree of truth to a lot of his controversial statements, even if they were out of line. Take a look at Obama's speech on race relations. Maybe you'll understand this a little bit better. If you don't want to do that, read the diary I wrote on it. Maybe you'll understand this a little bit better.
It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.by psychodrew on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:12:02 AM EST [ Parent | Reply to This | none0- hide1- troll2- mojo ]
[new] It's an honor to Mojo a Clinton supporter (none / 0) ...and this from an Obama supporter! ;~)
AltJay, FleaFlicker... these folks cannot be seriously Democratic (or Republican, for that matter) and it's hard to believe they even support basic American ideals.
This whole election cycle is, to me, an encouraging sign of the strength of this country. I've lived in Canada (off and on) half my life. Travelled a decent chunk of the rest of the world, and talked (some would say too much ;) to thousands of people from all walks and all geographies.
Free Speech, Individual Rights and Responsibilities - all of these would be pipe-dreams if people were as stupid and gullible as those like AJ would have us believe.
But we aren't.
For the first time in all of history, millions of people are directly involved in the debate about world leadership. For the first time ever in human history there is more information and opinion being put forth by individuals than by Powers (Monarchies, industrial powers, dictators...) - and It Is Good.
People aren't stupid.
I have had the chance to try to figure out why people support those I oppose, and even some of those foaming at the mouth in honest opposition (I reserve a tiny sliver of possibility that even AJ is one...) often climb down to have informative discussions quite frequently.
I've directly debated with white supremacists and their opposites, Earth Firsters and Pave the Earthers, communists and libertarians. It's amazing what happens when people actually speak to each other - moderation and understanding materialize (and ideological trolls are exposed for what they are).
Thanks, psychodrew! I may hope your candidate loses, but I hope you win. :~)
-cheers!
-chris
This morning I turned on the television, and listened to Obama's address in Philidelphia. And I cried.
I wrote about my complete feelings here.
A question I get frequently asked, as I should, is why I am voting for Barack Obama. The question should be: why wouldn't I vote for equality among all? Why wouldn't I vote for someone that promised change in our political system? Why wouldn't I vote for someone who is separated from the typical Political fabric we all complain about? All things considered, who in this country would not vote for Barack Obama? That should be the real question.
Too often in my life, I hear people defending themselves and giving excuses about why they don't participate in politics. Those same people complain that politics, in general, are deceptive, dirty, and divisive. They separate themselves from the real issues whatever reason they deem fit to justify their actions. When they do decide to take part by voting, they vote based on deceptive smear scams and demeaning measures that many political parties resort to in order to get the support of the general public. Look at what that kind of disregard for knowledge has gotten us. We have fallen into the current problems for exactly that reason. Far too long we have been absent from the shared exchange of information between people and state. Decades have passed where we left the critical decisions of political diplomacy up to only a hand full to decide where we as one go as a nation. Continuing to stay absent from the exchange is only hurting you and everyone you care about.
There is a chance, thankfully, for that exchange to take place. It isn't often a candidate comes along that is driven by hope, inspiration, and vision, a recipe of traits that has been at the heart of any American who has ever accomplished anything worth while. It’s not often we have a candidate that wants to open that exchange up to us, because such a direct conversation about how to make things better could fundamentally change the way things are. Barack Obama is that candidate.
There are those who believe, however, that a conversation with us is not needed. Many of us assume that this is because these people are expected to be experts in politics. They are expected to know everything they deal with. But many times, those who move us forward are not usually the people who claim to be experts, but they are the people who are great at leading and inspiring the masses, and those same people should know how to lead the right people who have the right knowledge in the right direction. The knowledge of one person will never be as effective as the shared knowledge of many. There is a finite limit to the amount of knowledge one person may learn in their lifetime. A leader has to be able to draw on the knowledge of others as well as his own. That type of skill is something that anyone who deserves the office of President of the United States should have.
Our president is also the face and voice of our country, the central voice of our views, and the embodiment of what we represent to the world. Having the right person in office can bring something to both the local and global stage that this country has not had in a long time - inspiration. Inspiration of that type has moved many groups of people in our country to act, and that kind of momentum might flow to new groups of people, those who lie outside our country and have been ignored and who have lost the hope that they might have once had in one of the world's leaders.
I think that, in the case of Obama, we have seen that sort of momentum take shape. In this campaign alone, where he has many contenders vying for the same position, his own message transcended the entire campaign on both sides. His message of "Change" for our leadership is so transcendent that it has been assimilated into the campaigns of his competitors. A visionary message can have that kind of power, but Obama doesn’t get angry that his message has been copied and recycled. He embraces it because that's what a powerful message is suppose to do. His message gets those who were silent and inactive motivated to talk, debate, and come to a conclusion that is best for all people in our country. Anyone can follow policies tested and tried through time and experience, but very few people have the recipe and vision needed for something great, something bigger, and something life changing.
That sort of change scares some, but not Obama. He chants In many of his speeches, “yes we can”, which not only shows his determination and drive to change what he can but also reiterates that we strive to change things as a whole. While he might retain the presidency, we all have a say. We are just as much a part of his plan as he himself is. His slogan is “Obama for America” , and a new chapter is emerging, a new chapter for one nation. A chapter where we might once again become a beacon to the rest of the world again. Call it false hope if you like, but every great achievement would not exist if those who would achieve lacked the hope to do so. Change in our country would be hard, even with Obama as president, but it would be even harder for those who would hope to imagine things getting better if another president lacks the hope and vision needed for change. The age of fearing the differences in strangers, enemies that don't exist, and change itself has got to end.
This nation has suffered through a lot of tribulation, but I think our best years lie ahead of us. We can finally grow and rise above issues of race, of divisiveness, and of reasons for war that are forgotten while we continue to fight. It is now our turn to lead by example, to show the world that America can become what it needs to be, and to show that young and old can love their country alike and reform it to be the country that many of us dream of but has not come to pass.
Don’t let this opportunity for a chance to change slip away. Don’t look back again in hindsight and wish you had not acted when you know that you should. If you constantly vote for those who would lead us down the same paths, you can’t expect change to happen. This kind of leader, this kind of opportunity, and this sort of change come along very seldom. The hope that we all share in our own lives can grow and form into the unified hope for something better than we look for in our country, so why not take that hope and turn it into action. I intend to do so, and that is why I'm voting for Obama.
To the Editor:
A lifelong Democrat, I was saddened by your endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Clintons are using “scorched earth” rhetoric to destroy Barack Obama personally and, in the end, destroy a Democratic Party inclusive of all Americans no matter what race, gender, economic level or religion.
Barack Obama is reaching out to embrace all Americans, not only African-Americans. He offers hope, new energy and fresh ideas for a better United States. He can bind the wounds of divisiveness and deception that have sent our country into decline at home and abroad.
The Clinton machine is willing to win at any price. They seem to forget their earlier moderate political ideas.
We need a leader who inspires hope, brings innovative ideas and attracts “the best and the brightest” to lead this nation, not another divisive leader who continues to divide our nation and our world. Barack Obama is such a leader. Hillary Clinton is not.
Sharon W. BarnesAlexandria, Va., Jan. 25, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/lweb26elect.html?pagewanted=2&sq=
Students of the political craft will recall how Reagan was able to draw sharp (albiet fallicious) distinctions between opposing camps of "Them" and "US". After quickly getting people to think of themselves as part of the "US" camp, the flock is then progressively informed how they must think in order to stay in the club.
In the South Carolina debate Clinton stated:
I think that the whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. [Hillary, Debate 01-21-08]
Pardon me, but I along with many others happen to agree with Obama's health care plan. Does this mean that I am at my core not a Democrat? Does that mean that Obama is not a democrat? Who elected Hillary the most politically correct priest in charge of determining who is IN with the Democratic party IN crowd?
What the heck- I'm willing to listen to all arguments. But Mrs Clinton does not show why hers is a core Democratic principle and Obama's is not. Instead, we hear that her position is our position (we are all democrats after all). Her position is dressed up with the trappings of truth- it is cast as pure (it isn't- illegal immigrants are excluded) and by golly it must be great if someone is willing to fight until the bitter end for it. (Really? It was dropped in 1993, so what happenned in 94, 95, 96, 97, and 1999?) But nevermind that- nevermind that no reasoning is provided to back up this breathtaking statement. In this brief utterance, the opposing position is cast as is impure, unprincipled, and that the opponent will only halfheartedly fight for. Is this supposed to be a shining example of enlightened political dialog? Or is this supposed to be a demonstration of the skill we have heard so much about concerning Hillary's ability to beat the Republicans at their own rhetorical games?
This kind of rhetoric is straight out of the republican play book and it is nothing less than nauseating. To paraphrase the subtext of Clinton's message:
Step 1. Wave the flag and proclaim yourself leader of the "US" camp. Hillary first asserts that her view is a "Core Democratic principle"- After wrapping herself in the flag she gets heroic and proclaims she will charge up the hill: She's "willing to go to the mat for it". Step 2. Next, cast the opponent (Obama) as the heretic. We studied the plan. Guess what? It is not Universal!" Someone flash the Boo sign for the audience! Hey! Maybe he isn't a Democrat! Yikes! Hey- and just yesterday had good things to say about Reagan! Well- maybe he isn't part of "Them"- but who wants a leader who is confused about who "We" are?
Step 1. Wave the flag and proclaim yourself leader of the "US" camp. Hillary first asserts that her view is a "Core Democratic principle"- After wrapping herself in the flag she gets heroic and proclaims she will charge up the hill: She's "willing to go to the mat for it".
Step 2. Next, cast the opponent (Obama) as the heretic. We studied the plan. Guess what? It is not Universal!" Someone flash the Boo sign for the audience! Hey! Maybe he isn't a Democrat! Yikes! Hey- and just yesterday had good things to say about Reagan! Well- maybe he isn't part of "Them"- but who wants a leader who is confused about who "We" are?
This is skillful by the logic of divisive politics, and after 8 years of the Bush presidency, we are all too familiar with it. The message from Hillary to her followers is clear. Those dissenting from her view need not consider themselves true democrats. We need not apply for membership in the Clinton club. "You are either with us or against us" and so on and so forth is the same game of exclusion that Rove played. The alienation then feeds on itself- we begin to draw parallels between the smarmy style of Hillary's rhetoric with the suffocating atmosphere of a beauty parlor clique of middle aged white women. But we notice that by responding in kind, we are drawn into the same dirty game of casting her into some "them" outcast position.
We must resist this sort of response.
Anyone can observe for themselves what Hillary is doing and many of us have the view that these sorts of tactics are the most powerful means to achieve the end of the more progressive society we all desire.
Obama points out that this sort of polarization tactic is not only mistaken from a moral and social standpoint. It is also very mistaken strategy. In this year, in this election, the republican "revolution" that Bush/Cheney/Rove were stewards of is at its historic weakest. Now is not merely the golden opportunity for victory over whomever the republicans annoint for that throne. Due to the damage Bush/Cheney have done to the republican claims of sound governance, democrats can win employing little more than the simple rules of the swinging pendulum. But that would squander an opportunity to do much more.
We can change not just the players in the game, but put an end to the way this game has been played. Now is the opportunity to persuade former supporters of republicans to not merely be sullen and circumspect about their leadership, but to turn from the divisive US/Them mode in which they approach the political process.
Hillary will never win these voters with her rhetoric or her US/ Them techniques of divisiveness. If anything, her characterizations will energize them in opposition, hardening and uniting the fragmented republicans rather than winning them over to a movement to turn away from destructive and unproductive policies of the past and unite to join together to build up what makes America the shining light of hope in the world.
Senators Clinton and Obama had at it in last night's debate, "in the most intense personal exchange of the presidential campaign", according to the New York Times. (And also according to me.) Sharing attacks on each others characters, one accused of associating with slum lords, and the other accused of being on the board of directors of Walmart while working the streets, they revealed a bitter division between the candidates. But the division wasn't on policy differences. There were really no challenges to the candidates on the issues that matter to people.
Why?
Because there's not a hair's breadth of real distance between them on the issues. They both offer tweaks to health care, tax rates, energy policy, and the like, albeit somewhat different tweaks. Neither of them are offering to make fundamental changes to the system of power that has kept our government in the grip of corporate influence for many decades. Neither of them are offering truly progressive change.
And all that's left for them to talk about is their personalities.
The Republicans are offering their voters a few more substantial differences between the candidates. With them, we're either going to get a Christian "paradise" or security that will be so difficult to crack that it will be hard to breathe freely. But as far as policy is concerned, the policy effects would still be the same no matter which Republican is elected. They want to tweak services according to a different ideological model than the Democrats, but they're still only tweaks -- since the Right already has made its fundamental changes to the power structure.
So does it really matter if a Democrat or Republican wins in November?
If the Republicans win, theres a good chance that they'll fire the final bullet into the corpse of the Republican party. If the Democrats are elected -- a decreasingly sure bet -- they'll be so divided from the personality fight that they'll continue to be weak leaders. The Republican and Democratic fights will continue with no resolution in sight. And the country will continue to drift in divisiveness, with the world looking on and wondering what the hell is wrong with us.
It seems that there won't be a truly progressive candidate this year and that there won't be any real change after the election. The best that I can hope for is the final demise of the Republican Party over the next four years.
Hmmm... maybe I should vote Republican and give them another go at killing themselves off!
Part of what excites me about Obama is his inclusiveness, his desire to listen to people who disagree with them--to absorb what they're saying and then chart his own course. like many out there, I'm tired of the divisiveness of the Clinton/Gingrich/W Bush years. (I was a huge Clinton supporter, but let's not sugarcoat those years; the country was totally polarized. Of course Bush has deepened those rifts.)
I think this whole "spat" between the Clinton and Obama camps (Link) shows just why we don't want Hillary to lead us. Is it just me, or does she sounds like she feels entitled to the support of every democrat out there? Why is she whining about someone criticizing her? And why should Obama have to apologize or denounce someone for expressing his opinions?
Let's get behind someone who can take the shots without hypocrisy (what Robert Ford said about Obama was far worse, though I don't think Hillary should give his money back either).
Let's be the generation of inclusiveness and creative problem solving. Let's not be torn-asunder by tired, irrelevant battles. Let's not let America's Montagues and Capulets (Clintons and Bushes) rule this country any longer.
