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
Politics Scandal-mongering

Friday Night Specials

For those of you who might have missed this Star Ledger exclusive, a former aide to New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey is claiming he engaged in threesomes with the Mr. Greevey and Mrs. McGreevey over the course of several years. The couple called the regular encounters “Friday Night Specials.”

Mr. McGreevey of course is famous for having to resign as governor after being outed and having employed his lover – not the aide in question, but another – in national security jobs for the state. This latest revelation is newsworthy because Mrs. McGreevey has filed a divorce action against her husband alleging that he deceived her into marriage and that she did not find out about his proclivities until it was made public in 2004. She is using this alleged deception as her grounds to demand sole custody of the couple’s daughter and $600,000.

Really though, this is only news because it means statements like this make it into print:

Pedersen did not say if he was gay or bisexual and only described having contact with Matos McGreevey during the trysts…

And:

…the weekly romps, from 1999 to 2001, …typically began with dinner at T.G.I. Friday’s and ended with a threesome at McGreevey’s condo in Woodbridge.

Categories
Domestic issues Politics Scandal-mongering

The Prosecution of Governor Siegelman

This 60 Minutes piece from a few weeks ago was astounding. I had heard about it because of the temporary station outage at CBS’s Alabama affiliate conveniently lasting the length of the piece. Of course, in its defense, the Alabama affiliate did re-broadcast the piece a week later. Timing it for maximum attention, they broadcast it during prime time on a Sunday.

In an odd turn of events, the re-broadcast of the short segment – as well as the rest of CBS’s lineup had extremely low ratings that night because of the brand-new phenom of February TV, the Superbowl.

Categories
Election 2008 Politics The Clintons The Web and Technology

Wikipedian recognition

2parse was on Wikipedia on March 13.  Someone cited my article calling on Ms. Clinton to withdraw from the race.

It was written:

From February 20th and then on, more and more insistent calls came from Democrats for Hillary, at one point assumed to be the defacto nominee, to withdraw.

My site was the first citation for this post.  Awesome.

Then someone deleted the citation – saying: “three random blog entries don’t pass WP:V or make a trend”.  I’m pretty sure I disagree with Fovean Author on this point – any argument that ends with deleting a link to my blog is just plain wrong.

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.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics Scandal-mongering The Clintons

Suspicious activities…

Last November, Geraldine Ferraro made some headlines by trying to defend Senator Hillary Clinton against accusations that she was playing the gender card by…playing the gender card. I wrote about this back then. In a post dated November 5, 2007, I wrote:

Geraldine Ferraro, former vice presidential candidate in 1984, spoke to the New York Times attempting to defend Hillary against accusations that Hillary’s campaign was “playing the gender card” in responding to the quote politics of pile-on unquote. Judge for yourself how well she did:

“We can’t let them do this in a presidential race,” [Ferraro] said. “They say we’re playing the gender card. We are not. We are not. We have got to stand up. It’s discrimination against her as a candidate because she is a woman.”

Is it just me, or does Ferraro play the woman’s card as she says she’s not? It seems that Hillary isn’t the only member of her campaign who can contradict herself within a two minute time limit. I think this type of verbal feat – taking two opposing positions within two minutes – should be called a “pulling a Hillary”.

Now that Ms. Ferraro is in the news again, this post has started getting some search engine traffic. What I find odd is that since March 11, the post has gotten about 100 hits from Google and other search engines – and of those hundred hits, 8 people have left comments – an unusually high percentage for this blog. Additionally, most of the comments are pro-Hillary – also unusual. None of this would be exceptional if:

a. the blog post were new;
b. the blog post were about Ms. Ferraro’s most recent comments, or comments significantly similar;
c. the blog post discussed race in any way;
d. the comments were not so similar-sounding, and all by women (except one);
e. any of the comments had responded to the post in any manner.

Clearly – none of the commentors read the post they were commenting on. The comments they are referring to were about race. Not a single comment mentions anything about the post – or in fact mentions that the post is over four months old. ((I should also mention that two of the comments were defending Mr. Obama.)) Recently, two sites linked to this post: a commenter on BarackObama.com and MyNewswire.

I don’t know quite what to make of this. Has anyone else noticed anything similar? Does anyone have a plausible explanation for this?

Update: Ten more people “viewed” the post, and I received one more comment. I’m also noticing that two of the commentors – Catherine Fadden and Eileen Lewis – have:

  1. Requested to “follow” the post; and
  2. Given fake email addresses – or at least, email addresses for which I am getting this error: “A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error”

That means that my email box is getting errors for every comment posted.

Categories
Excerpts from my Journals Politics Prose Reflections The Clintons

“Cynicism”

Excerpts from my Journals

[Dated July 29, 2001, 11:09 pm.]

[My father] has become a social and economic conservative, but remains a liberal with regards to class and wealth; he keeps talking about my “cynicism” – but my “cynicism” was born out of the stories of Nixon’s law-breaking and tales of papal corruption he told me when I was younger, and nourished by facts I came onto myself. My “cynicism” is mislabeled as such. I have great pride in my country – at the same time, I cannot in good conscience toast to either, “My country, may she always be right; but my country, right or wrong.” The power of denial is strong – and in everyone’s life, there is the choice between truth and repose. Which is how my father can construe my defenses of Clinton as naive, but my dislike of Bush as cynicism.

I wrote this some time ago; and since this time, my father has come to change his mind on President George W. Bush. But I especially liked this passage because I see similar sentiments to those my father held in 2001 in the anti-Obama backlash.  Perhaps it would be better labeled the anti-Obama-supporters backlash.  From the right and left, Obama supporters are labeled naive; and from the left, Obama supporters are called out as cynics for allowing their candidate to benefit from attacks on Ms. Clinton – and for attacking Ms. Clinton themselves.  Although I am sure that Obama supporters include their share of cynics and their share of the naive, I do not think either group is dominant.

The problem I see is with the critics who assume that you cannot be critical of America and proud of it; who assume that you cannot be hopeful for change and also clear-eyed about power; who assume that a candidate cannot both criticize his opponents and represent a “new politics”.  All of us recognize within ourselves the complexity that allows us to be both proud and critical, hopeful and pragmatic – yet we do not acknowledge that complexity within our opponents.

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy McCain Obama Politics The Clintons

Top McCain aide: Thanks for softening Obama up for us.

[digg-reddit-me]I was listening to a podcast this morning and came across some comments that I am surprised haven’t gotten more attention.

Last Friday, March 7, the Council on Foreign Relations hosted a discussion among top foreign policy advisors to Mr. Obama (Susan Rice), Ms. Clinton (Mara Rudman), and Mr. McCain (Randy Scheunemann). There’s audio of the whole event here. The event wasn’t insightful, but the tensions between the campaigns kept it from being boring. As you can imagine there were a few testy exchanges, including one where after Ms. Rudman told a rather large fib about Mr. Obama and NAFTA. More on that later.

The most revealing comment was not on foreign policy – a matter on which all of the advisors remained rather bland – but on the Democratic primaries. Mr. Scheunemann addressed Ms. Rudman:

Well, let me first address what Mara said about the experience and judgment. Can I just say, please keep running those 3 a.m. phone call ads about who you want to answer the phone – (laughter) – because we like those.

That’s right – a top McCain advisor was thanking a top Clinton advisor for softening up the likely Democratic nominee. At this point, everyone paying close attention to the Democratic primaries has noticed that short of a huge stumble by Mr. Obama, he will be the Democratic nominee. His leads in delegates, states, and the popular vote look insurmountable – and in the event he wins all of these categories, it seems extremely unlikely that the superdelegates will impose a different choice on the party. Even after Ms. Clinton’s best week in the campaign so far, she lost ground on Mr. Obama.

Yet Ms. Clinton has decided on a strategy which severely undercuts her party’s nominee against his Republican opponent – and seems extremely unlikely to win her the nomination.

I’m sure John McCain will call her to thank her after she concedes.

NAFTA

Less exciting, but still interesting is the other exchange I mentioned above was between Ms. Rice and Ms. Rudman. (Although many people missed it, Ms. Rice refers to this story which broke last week indicating that the comments supposedly made by an Obama aide to the Canadian government were actually made by a Clinton aide. Of course, Ms. Clinton’s surrogates have continued to use this story to attack Mr. Obama’s campaign as disingenuous, despite the fact that the Canadian government now reports that the campaign at fault was the Clinton’s.)

Rudman:
To me, the bigger question is, again, in how you approach tough situations, how you approach tough issues, how you approach challenging discussions with both friends and adversaries. And not only how you do it but how, frankly, the people who are working with and for you do it. And that’s where, I think, we are particularly dismayed to see what happened within the Obama campaign with their economic adviser because that was an example of just, you know, in however it played out, a perhaps lack of experience and how you communicated with a foreign government on a particularly delicate and sensitive issue….

(Cross talk.)

Jim Hoagland(moderator):
I’m going to stop an argument that you two have already had or your candidates have had – (laughter) –

I’m going to go to a questioner right here.

Life is not fair. (Laughter.)

Questioner:
Well, sometimes it is, and I’d really love to –

Hoagland:
If you’d state your name and any affiliation.

Questioner:
My name is Rebecca Barnard, Goldman Sachs, formerly of Senator Biden’s office.

I would just be very interested in hearing Senator Obama’s response to that last point, because it has – (laughter and applause) –

Hoagland:
The deck was stacked!

Rice:
Thank you, Rebecca. (Laughter.)

As the Canadian government has repeatedly acknowledged and has now been amply reported in the press, Austan Goolsbee said nothing to the Canadian government that he or Senator Obama have not said many times in public. And Mara, I think, in all fairness and with due respect, that needs to be clarified and acknowledged.

What he said is exactly what I just said, which is that when we revisit NAFTA, it is with the aim of putting binding labor and environmental standards into the core agreement. Anybody who wants to see the memo that the Canadian government wrote reporting on their meeting can find it on the Internet. You will find that that is exactly what Austan Goolsbee said.

You will also find that he made a general statement which was then taken out of context in the press reporting, which was that neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton nor the Democratic Party in general is protectionist. We want to fix certain specific agreements.

What happened was the summary paragraph of the memo is – those of you who have seen cables know – was not reflective of the body of the conversation and indeed, the quotations or the statements, the characterizations of Goolsbee’s statement in the body of the cable. So the summary was distorted. That was what was leaked to the press. And the Canadian government has said it wasn’t accurate and apologized.

And by the way, while we’re talking about this, now the press is reporting that indeed not only was there a contact which we have now acknowledged and explained from Senator Obama’s campaign that actually began with the Canadian government, not us, but in fact the Clinton campaign, at least that’s what the reports are suggesting, initiated a contact with the Canadian embassy or government for the same purpose. I have no idea if that’s true. There’s been a lot of false reporting on this.

Hoagland:
Well, maybe Mara can respond to that.

Rice:
But let’s be accurate.

Rudman:
No, I think that’s been completely denied by the campaign. There’s no name –

Rice:
Well, then, it can’t be true. Okay. (Laughter.)