Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics Videos

Obamusic

[digg-reddit-me]Great political campaigns – and successful political movements – inevitably inspire music. It’s not always great. It’s often cheesy and ages pathetically. In a few years, most of it will make you cringe, if it doesn’t already. Movements and politicians may be remembered well by history, but campaign music rarely is. But in the moment, it’s beautiful and inspiring.

Here’s a selection of Obama-inspired music. Vote on your favorite. You can add your own. I’ve avoided adding the already played out “Yes We Can!” video by will.i.am and the “I’ve Got a Crush on Obama” video by Barely Political’s Obama Girl.

{democracy:2}

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons

The growing chorus

An unusually intelligent argument (set to music) by Obama Girl on why Ms. Clinton should withdraw her candidacy:

Update: A female friend writes to me about this video: “What is wrong with her? Watching that video made me embarrassed to be female.”

I didn’t think it was that bad – despite the awkward attempts to insert barely clothed pictures of Obama girl into the video…She’s still making good points.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

Idealizing ourselves while demonizing others

 William Greider of The Nation captures one of the essential attractive qualities about Mr. Obama that was especially apparent in his “More Perfect Union” speech:

In psychological terms, what’s extraordinary is [Obama’s] refusal to split off himself and his own experience from those others. So he embraced them, knowing the risks. Then he tells us – audaciously – that we are capable of doing the same. Yet most of us do the opposite in everyday life, defining ourselves in contrast to the others we are not, idealizing our own selves by demonizing the others. Obama knows all this. He still insists we can do it. He has seen it happen in life.

Categories
Election 2008 Liberalism Libertarianism Obama Politics

Republican Party to Ron Paul Supporters: Get lost!

[digg-reddit-me]One of the core magazine of the Republican conservative establishment has this explicit message to Ron Paul supporters:

[G]et lost. There should be plenty of room for [all of you] in Obama’s big tent.

The Republican party seems to be making no attempt to woo or otherwise capture the energy of Congressman Ron Paul’s supporters. I admired Mr. Paul’s campaign – even if I felt I could never support him. I believe that Mr. Paul’s campaign got some of the biggest issues facing America right – with regards to federalism, the balance of power, and executive overreach. On many other issues, I think he argued from a principled and insightful stance – one that those Republicans – and many Democrats – in power today do not take into account. In foreign policy, he was a military isolationist; on currency, he was against all regulation. These stances are radical – but reflect the reality of America less than a hundred years ago. Although many of those in power ignore this, there are still many fringe aspects of America that they ignore.

Now, the Republican party is rejecting the many young supporters of Mr. Paul – presumably because these elites see these supporters as part of the unwashed masses that get to have a say every four or so years, but who are essentially dumb creatures. There is a contempt for Mr. Paul’s supporters that is hard to fathom – especially for a party that is in decline.

I agree with Mr. Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard though. Barack Obama has many positions at odds with Mr. Paul. But I think Mr. Paul’s supporters can find something to support in Mr. Obama’s platform. And they are welcome in Obama’s big tent.

Here’s a grand liberal-libertarian alliance this November and beyond. (Do you hear me Kos? Freedom Democrats?)

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

The Good Friday Interview

[digg-reddit-me]Key Premise:

It’s important that Mr. Obama not pander – but in today’s fractious media environment, he needs to appear on partisan conservative media outlets if he is to speak to those Americans directly, instead of filtered through the partisans themselves.

Proposal:

Senator Barack Obama should go on The Rush Limbaugh Show this Friday for an interview as long as Mr. Limbaugh will give him – preferably at least one year.

The Rationale:

Mr. Obama’s speech his Tuesday was effective and moving. It was a nuanced and subtle plea for Americans to have perspective, and to focus on the important issues facing our nation instead of sideshows. But it did not succeed on two levels:

  1. It did not reach the conservatives who were only treated to small snippets of the speech in the midst of scathing reviews that entirely misrepresented Mr. Obama’s message. A great deal of Mr. Obama’s appeal is that he can speak to all Americans – but the partisan media outlets are not adequately representing his message, so he must speak to the people directly.
  2. It did not end the Reverend Wright story; many people were shaken by the fearful possibility raised by Mr. Obama’s association with Reverend Wright – and I have heard some of the unlikeliest people tell me of their fears of an angry black man becoming president.

What Mr. Obama needs to put this behind him is an interview with the least sympathetic person possible. To me, this seems to be Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Obama needs an opportunity to face the toughest questions head-on – for someone to outright ask him if he hates America, to ask him if he is a secret Muslim, to ask him if he is just denouncing Reverend Wright’s statements out of political expediency. I believe Mr. Obama would be very convincing on each count – even to the unreceptive audience listening to Mr. Limbaugh’s show. More important, Mr. Obama has used this controversy to pivot to an innovative ((But now new.)) progressive message. This message has the virtue of being true, seemingly deeply felt, and appealing to many voters who traditionally do not vote Democratic – the message that as authentic, understandable, and deeply felt as the racial resentments may be in our country, they are essentially a distraction from achieving the change the middle class needs to in this globalizing and uncertain economy.

Mr. Obama would have an opportunity to speak to an audience which has never heard from him before – and most important, an audience that I believe would be very sympathetic to the substance of the message from his “More Perfect Union” speech. ((Even if this audience has little chance of ever voting for him, it is important to speak to all Americans and quell their fears. Although most of Mr. Limbaugh’s audience would tend to favor conservative ideas at odds with Mr. Obama’s; although as many are partisans, they will dismiss what Mr. Obama says no matter what; it is essential to reach out to them, because then they will be able to see that Mr. Obama is more than the cardboard cut-out he is presented as. In addition, it might take out some of the energy in Operation Chaos. )) Rush Limbaugh has been “demanding” all sorts of answers – and Mr. Obama should prepare responses to each one of his questions. But most important would be what Mr. Obama’s presence and manner would communicate to Mr. Limbaugh’s listeners.

The move would be brilliant political theater – and would enhance Mr. Obama’s appeal; it would demonstrate that he was running a different sort of campaign, and that he could reach out to voters that Ms. Clinton cannot. It is unlikely that Mr. Obama would win over many voters – but the interview would be spectacularly successful if it merely dampened the worst fears of the far right. Citizens are apt to do crazy things if they believe a secret Muslim, America-hating liberal terrorist-sympathizing extremist is about to become president. Mr. Obama cannot stop some people from believing it. But the vile rhetoric by many people on talk radio – including Mr. Limbaugh – that encourages this view should be dealt with head-on. Mr. Obama has often said that transparency is the best disinfectant – and by appearing on Mr. Limbaugh’s show, he would be putting himself out there to be examined by Mr. Limbaugh’s audience. My feeling is that the more attention they pay to Mr. Obama himself, the better they will think of him – because the caricature of him painted by the right wing smear machine is clearly at odds with the candidate himself.

N.B. For those who believe that Mr. Obama should not appear on Mr. Limbaugh’s show because it would only enhance Mr. Limbaugh’s stature: Mr. Obama has said that he would meet without conditions with Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Castro in his first year in office. That is the right decision because a strong leader has nothing to fear from meeting with his adversaries.

N.B.II. The most important thing to come from this interview would be the fact that it took place. The second most important thing would be the one or two sparring matches that would be endlessly replayed on cable news. Mr. Obama must be careful not to cede any ground to Mr. Limbaugh in one of these exchanges.

N.B. III. I’m sure Obama’s campaign has a specific strategy for dealing with these issues – specifically the rumors and fear-mongering of figures such as Mr. Limbaugh. I don’t know what it is. But to me, this seems the best method.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

An Historical Change of Course


[Photo courtesy of the excellent Joe Crimmings]

[digg-reddit-me]Updated: After reading the speech and seeing how it is being received, I am updating the tense of the piece to reflect this afternoon’s events.  For the full text or video of the “A More Perfect Union” speech, go here.

There have been many crucial tests and defining moments of this primary, one of the most invigorating in memory and certainly, the most exciting in my lifetime.

There was Hillary’s stumble in Philadelphia; there was Mr. Obama’s Jefferson-Jackson speech in Iowa; there was Iowa itself, gloriously arcane; there was an energy pulsing through the nation in the days after – and then the tears of proud woman and the resurrection of an old man in New Hampshire; there were dirty tricks and subtle slanders and oversensitive bristling; then after a few more rounds of bruising battle, it became a grudge match; Mr. McCain clinched his nomination and took shots at the two Democratic titans as they pummeled one another – one candidate unable to clinch the win; the other unable to allow herself to lose.

There have been many important days in this campaign already – subtle turning points and dramatic victories. But today, March 18, 2008 will prove the most crucial. In Iowa we learned about a man and a movement; and after New Hampshire, we learned that this movement and this man were strong enough to withstand negative attacks and setbacks. Today though is not about the “movement”. It is about Mr. Barack Obama and what he can do.

I subscribe to a variation on what is called the “great individual (or man) theory of history.” It seems clear to me that some men and women at crucial times have been able to alter the course of history. These historical figures were able to do so because their unique combination of gifts and talents matched the opportunity their time gave them. Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War; Martin Luther King, Jr. during the 1960s; Mohandas Gandhi before the birth of India; Winston Churchill during World War II; and in a negative sense, Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. These all happened to be men who captured the zeitgeist of their times, who were able to channel events beyond their control to achieve the ends they sought. They achieved great successes because the forces of history – demographics, geography, cultural trends, technology, politics, and most of all chance – conspired to give these individuals an opportunity for which they were uniquely suited.

I – along with most Americans – believe that we, as a nation, are on the wrong path. I can name many specific issues – but the sum total of these specifics is more than the sum of these parts. There is something ineffably rotten in the state, in the nation that is more serious than all the specific maladies. No candidate, no leader will be able to fix all of this – or even much of it. But what is needed – more than anything – is an historical change of course. ((To reverse the trend of expanding executive power; to begin to address global climate change; to take steps to minimize the social effects of globalization; to address growing income inequality; to find solutions to the coming governmental disaster of the entitlement crisis; not to mention defusing the increasing extremism in the Muslim world and creating an effective strategy for the fight against terrorism.))

I believe that Mr. Barack Obama is the only candidate or leader of any sort in America who is capable of initiating this change of course today. I believe that now is the time of opportunity to change course – the first since 1992; and that the opportunity is ripe today for historical change (in part because of Mr. Bush’s astounding incompetence which has – as one Republican congressman put it in the Washington Post, “destroyed the Republican brand” – and in part because of underlying trends; and in a large measure because of Mr. Obama himself – because he has been able to call on many latent forces in American cultural, social, and economic life.

However, throughout the past several weeks, Mr. Obama has been deluged with attacks on his pastor, on his race, on his supposed secret religion. These attacks, designed to attack the core of his appeal, have begun to have an effect.

Today Mr. Obama has responded, and while we are still waiting to see the full effect of this speech on the political environment, he seems to have done everything he set out to. But for him to prove himself as a transformational leader, his response must defuse the attacks and call Americans to a higher purpose.  If he cannot, then he still is likely to beat Ms. Clinton for the nomination; and though weakened, he seems to match up well against Mr. McCain and has a solid chance of prevailing in November. And if elected, I believe he will still be an exceptional president.  Based on what I have seen so far, Mr. Obama has passed this high threshold.

Today we will see if Mr. Obama can re-shape the media environment and the politics to his needs – if he can create a moment that will break the poisonous spell of repeated loops of Reverend Wright saying, “God damn America!”; of a black man dressed in traditional Somali garb; of the constant iterations of black! man!; if he can become one of the “great men of history” able to shape events as well as respond to them.

Mr. Obama has shown he can hit back – and in a vicious news cycle, he wins as often as not against the Clinton press machine – with twenty years of media experience and press relationships. In this traditional politics – Mr. Obama can win. But he cannot win as big as he needs to – and he cannot be the figure we need as a nation at this moment to correct our course.

Today is not the day on which Mr. Obama’s candidacy rests; he is well-positioned regardless. But today we have seen Mr. Obama rise above the fray, the petty attacks and the identity politics – and take the first steps to becoming the transformational leader many of us hope he will be.

N.B. Although in this piece, I have spoken in generalities and of history, I have often been more specific:

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Obama Politics

A More Perfect Union

I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but here is the full text (as prepared for delivery) of Mr. Obama’s speech (video here; the stakes at play in this speech from a previous post here):

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk – to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

Continued after the jump…

Categories
Election 2008 Libertarianism Obama Politics

God Damn the United States

ka1igu1a over at the Freedom Democrats writes with regret that Mr. Obama will soon take what he refers to as a “loyalty oath” to the United States in response to the Rev. Wright controversy. ka1igu1a believes that the core element of this controversy is the conflux of race and patriotism.

What ka1igu1a would prefer is that Mr. Obama declare that rather than being devoted to the United States, he is devoted to liberty itself as Sam Adams did when he declare, “God damn the King!”  He concludes:

But this Libertarian can’t help but to think, why, yes, God Bless Thomas Jefferson, God Bless the Cause of Liberty, but God Damn the United States.

I appreciate ka1igu1a’s point; and I do believe that principles must be placed over nationalism.  But I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive – and I believe I too love my country – abstract notion that it may be.

It is because I believe in the possibilities of America that I care about ensuring that the principles I support are practiced by our government; it is because I care about the abstraction that is America – not despite it – that I am critical.  Based on Mr. Obama’s comments, this seems to be what he believes as well.

Categories
Election 2008 Liberalism Obama Politics The Clintons

Fuck Hillary’s Big Money Pals


Photo by Joe Crimmings.

[digg-reddit-me]“We are the Democratic party.”

I really hate to use profanity like this on the blog – but I think it is called for under the circumstances. The New York Times is reporting that:

…influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states or holds new primaries there.

According to the Times article, Ms. Clinton’s donors have donated just under $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee – and they are threatening to stop supporting the Democratic party if the DNC doesn’t cave in to their demands. I have some hope that Howard Dean will not give in to Ms. Clinton’s bullying. But he undeniably is being pressured, bullied, strong-armed. And big donors today have an outsize influence in the DNC.

So far, the DNC has been lagging behind the Republican National Committee in fundraising. This is exceptional considering the money advantage both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have had over any of the Republican presidential candidates. I support the DNC – and no matter who the Democratic presidential candidate is, and no matter who wins in November, I want a strong Democratic party.

But today, I am donating to show that Ms. Clinton’s backers do not own the Democratic party. I may not be able to donate $63,500 like Paul Cejas – and I won’t try to hold the Democratic party hostage to my personal views. But I am donating $50.00 right now to make a point. I hope you can show your support as well.

Mr. Dean has not taken sides in the current primary battle – but is trying to enforce the rules that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama explicitly and publicly agreed to last year. Ms. Clinton’s backers are now trying to bully the DNC to break the rules and hand Ms. Clinton the nomination against the will of those people who have voted so far.

This is outrageous. We are the Democratic party. Let’s show Hillary’s big money pals whose party this is.

(If you just want to donate to the DNC without showing support for Mr. Obama’s candidacy, try here. Otherwise, to show support, donate here to “We are the Democratic party.”)

(I am not a big fan of Ms. Clinton – but I don’t hate her. This post is not about Ms. Clinton herself – but about my outrage at the tactics of her supporters. Shame on them.

And Ms. Clinton – if you don’t condemn these anti-democratic and anti-Democratic tactics, shame on you.)

Updated: Let me be clear – I support Barack Obama in the primary – and have since before he won more states, more delegates, and more votes than Ms. Clinton. But if Ms. Clinton were in the position Mr. Obama was in – I would not want Mr. Obama to win by extortion.

2nd Update:

The Drudge Report is highlighting the news – which means that it will likely dominate the news cycle tomorrow. Obviously, most commentators will say that the tactics of the Clinton campaign are wrong. But nothing would prove them wrong more than a donation to the DNC – allowing the Democratic party to ignore the powerful individuals who are trying to hijack the party.

3rd update: NJ Mom over at dKos interprets the story in much the same way:

I’ve been concerned for a while that the Obama/Clinton contest is becoming a surrogate battle between the Dean and McAuliffe wings of the DNC. It is a battle between those that believe in the “important states” vs. “the other 40”, between DLCers and DFAers, between an addiction to corporate/special interest money and those that believe that small donors in vast numbers are democracy at its most powerful.

What I read in the NYT today, makes me concerned that McAuliffe and those that he represents are trying to ambush Dean using Clinton donors.

The NetRoots helped Dean get where he is today. With the DNC coffers very low right now, he is under attack. He needs us.

N.B. This post was written in the midst of an obviously contentious election campaign – one in which I had strongly considered supporting Senator Clinton but after careful evaluation, had come to the conclusion that Barack Obama was the only candidate suited to our current challenges. While I stand by the content of the post, in retrospect, the tone is a bit overheated.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons

The race card and Ferraro

Ta-Nehisi Coates writes in Slate today about the “race card” and Geraldine Ferraro:

The racist card is textbook strawmanship. As opposed to having to address whether her comments were, as Obama said, “wrongheaded” and “absurd,” Ferraro gets to debate something that only she can truly judge—the contents of her heart.

It’s a clever and unassailable move: How would you actually prove that Ferraro is definitively a racist? Furthermore, it appeals to our national distaste for whiners. It’s irrelevant that the Obama campaign never called Ferraro a racist. It’s also irrelevant that Ferraro said the same thing of Jesse Jackson in 1988. And it’s especially irrelevant that Ferraro apparently believes that Obama’s Ivy League education, his experience as an elected official, and his time of service on the South Side of Chicago pale in comparison with the leg-up he’s been given as a black male in America. By positioning herself as a victim of political correctness run amok, Ferraro stakes out the high ground of truth telling.