Election 2008: An Attempt to Understand Our Options

Some Closure

2009-09-20T10:07:00.017-04:00

So, I'm glad I did this blog. It was a real lesson in writing, politics, policy, and so forth. I miss the writing side of it--though I'm not sure I'd jump back into such an intense election cycle any sooner than necessary.

I hope this post can bring a measure of closure to this effort of mine (I've definitely had pieces of it in mind for a while, and will be happy to have finally put it all to, ah, paper, so to speak). As long as Google's blog platform doesn't kick me off, I'll hope the blog will provide me, and perhaps others over time, with a sense of time and place surrounding this point in history--along with specific reminders of the serious issues that were at hand: tragic health care disparities, gaping income differences, over-dependence on oil, and so on (issues that we'll hopefully only know as history at some point).

As I bring this to a close though, I want to do so by voicing a concern that comes to mind in seeing and participating in the phenomenon Obama brought about (a phenomenon other great leaders also encourage at times). I'll voice the concern in the form of a question: Will the movement Obama built lead us to place too much dependence on him, a single leader, shirking our own, individual responsibility to bring about change?

Over the years, as many who know me can attest, I've been progressively drawn to everything "community." This has led me at once to various community involvement and a related discontent with the state of community in America. In turn, I've developed a growing interest in mechanisms for building more substantive community (incidentally, I've pursued these interests down a variety of paths, recently discovering the area of community psychology, which I intend to go on and study). I bring these interests of mine up though, because they include a similar discontent with the state of civic engagement in America (thus tying into my above concern about placing too much emphasis on a single leader).

There has been a severe decline in civic engagement over the last several decades. One of the most prominent individuals documenting this decline has been social scientist Robert Putnam, author of a number of research-intensive studies on the subject, his 2000 publication Bowling Alone being the best known of the bunch. In it, Putnam methodically lays out evidence of decline in most forms of political participation (along with a litany of other areas of waning community involvement). This plunge in engagement is not lost on our now President; as I've noted in the past, Mr. Obama was part of the Saguaro Seminar, a group of 33 civic leaders who Putnam himself gathered together for a series of sessions in the late 90s, with the goal of discussing this very issue: declining citizen engagement in America.

What does that mean for our present situation then, with a President in office who is apparently aware of this drop in the people's involvement in politics? Only good things? I hope. Certainly it holds great potential, as Putnam and others have pointed out at various times throughout the past election cycle (here, for example). On the other hand, many have opined over whether the impassioned civic activism of Obama's supporters will sputter and die now that he's in office--indeed, Obama himself has rightly zeroed in on the possibility, leading to his Administration's many efforts to avoid that type of fall off. Most visibly, of course, this is manifest in the repurposing of the Obama campaign into Organizing for America (OFA). Other Administration efforts include a consistent push for town hall-type engagement, the utilization of online participation mechanisms like "Open for Questions" and Facebook, and the formation of the White House "Office for Public Engagement" (President Obama referred to the latter as an office meant to "engage as many Americans as possible in the difficult work of changing this country, through meetings and conversations with groups and individuals held in Washington and across the country").

As I said, these efforts are ripe with possibility, for sure. Paradoxically, however, one of the main obstacles to an engaged populace seems to be Obama himself. And, to restate, therein lies my concern: Will the majority role in our country be that of actor, or passive recipient? Do we determine our future, or do we receive it from on high (read: Obama, courtesy of the sometimes messianic lens through which we view him)? I've wondered about this on and off over the last two years or so, as our country has been swept by Obamania (some as participants, some as onlookers, myself as much an Obamamaniac as the next guy).

One evening, back in March of this year, I felt my concerns somewhat vindicated as I watched a commemorative interview with historian and author, John Hope Franklin; the interview, recorded in mid-2006 prior to Obama's announced run for president, was being re-aired on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (just a few days after Franklin's passing). The excerpt below is clear enough, in large part, but a brief preface: Franklin had a view that may sound controversial at first, in terms of his perspective on another prominent African American, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Franklin observed that leadership is needed, but couched that in a broader warning:

"[W]hen you place all of your stock on a particular person or even a group of people, then, I think, you are failing to see what the ordinary person's role is in the transformation of society and the changes that can take place. If we depend on a person, whether it's Martin Luther King or someone else, to lead us out of the wilderness, so to speak, our dependence is going to betray us because somewhere along the line we might lose that leader, as we did in 1968 with the assassination of Martin Luther King."

The context for that excerpt follows:

GWEN IFILL [with the NewsHour]: I want to ask you about something else which you mentioned in your book, which I found just got my attention. You were talking about Martin Luther King, who for so many Americans personifies what the civil rights movement was, beginning, middle and end. But you wrote that you thought that there was an unfortunate cult of personality that was built up around Dr. King.

JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN: Yes.

GWEN IFILL: Tell me about that.

JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN: Well, that view or that practice is a part of American confusion about what brings about change. We do need leadership; I'm not questioning that. But when you place all of your stock on a particular person or even a group of people, then, I think, you are failing to see what the ordinary person's role is in the transformation of society and the changes that can take place. If we depend on a person, whether it's Martin Luther King or someone else, to lead us out of the wilderness, so to speak, our dependence is going to betray us because somewhere along the line we might lose that leader, as we did in 1968 with the assassination of Martin Luther King. Where would we be then? Where are we now without him? We were stumbling around, fumbling around in the wilderness. No, I think that we must not place so much emphasis on a person or a leader and think about the responsibility of all of us. And if we need to keep our counsel and define what our role is, that's all right, but we have a role. Everyone has a role in improving our society and transforming it. And if we depend on one person or even a small number of people, then I think we're gambling on an eventuality that might be unfortunate.

As a quick aside, Franklin did have the chance to witness and comment on the potential and gradual rise of Obama; see this video for a brief interview on the subject.

As a quick follow-up on the above though, I basically think the balance between leadership and individual responsibility is crucial, and that there are, in my view, mechanisms worth exploring to make that balance more realistic for everyday citizens; I also feel these mechanisms will have to come from sources outside of any one party, to a significant degree (though the Administration's efforts seem utterly important, with many exciting ideas surely still to come). These perspectives of mine definitely play into my draw towards community psychology that I mentioned above, as I believe there is some monumental work to be done in this area of civic engagement (among other interests that draw me to the field).

As a sidenote, in terms of these issues in general, they're ones that I was thinking about in a radio piece I was able to do in January; it might give anyone reading a rounder sense of my views on all this, if interested. With all that said, I feel content retiring this somewhat brief run of mine in the blogosphere--hopeful that engagement will end up being more common than apathy, while at the same time intent on finding my own role in that struggle.

Photo credit (love that shot).

In Support of a Public Option for Health Care

2009-06-19T18:20:00.013-04:00

So I have not had time at all to add to this blog recently, and actually started a final post a while ago that I need to finish; but, in the mean time, I had to put something out here about a public option for health care, particularly because health care reform is one of the issues that has meant the most to me. I actually just wanted to call on anyone who feels the same way to sign this online petition about it, via a site put together by Senators Durbin, Leahy and Schumer; additionally, I wanted to encourage anyone out there to write your member of Congress (particularly your Senators), urging them to support a public option. The idea is not to nationalize health care, but rather to force competition into our health care system and to allow Americans to decide what they think will be best.

It's incredibly easy to contact your member of Congress: just write a brief note saying what you are asking them to do and why, and ask them for a response. You can just send it via email through this website: http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/ (or, if you can, fax it in through the fax numbers listed on that same site--many say that faxing your comments in is the best option, as snail mail takes a longer time to get through security checks and they get inundated with email; that said, I have gotten responses back to emails I've sent in, and that's how I sent in my comments below). Here is one of the quick notes I put together and sent in to Senator Jim Webb, one of our Senators from Virginia (I just slightly altered it for our other Senator, Mark Warner, and for my member of the House, Congressman Jim Moran):

Dear Sen. Webb,

I think it's crucial that a public health care option is pushed through as a part of the health care reform efforts that are being negotiated. I think we need nothing less than a public option if we're going to have real competition where Americans can choose the health care they think is best. I have appreciated your integrity thus far in the Senate and would appreciate hearing back from you on this; specifically, I would ask that you tell me why you will or will not support a public option, as I feel that is the intellectually honest thing required from any member of Congress that stands for or against this particular part of health care reform.

Sincerely,

Brendan O'Connor

Update: A quick addendum that came to mind here after someone made a comment to me about how there are tons of plans to choose from already. My response was that the multitude of plans doesn't include a public option. And, when there's a huge philosophical divide in our country on how health care should be provided, it seems only fair to put both public and private plans to the test by letting people freely choose one or the other--they can't do that right now.

Update 2: After about a week and a half I heard back via email from both Rep. Moran and Sen. Warner's offices. Moran appeared to support a public option, and I'm almost positive he does, but oddly didn't state it very clearly in his response; he just described what Obama was calling for in terms of health care, and what a House draft included (a public option, among other things). Warner stated the following at one point in the response I received: "Much of the current controversy surrounding reform efforts has been focused on whether the bill should include a public health insurance option. As evidence that there is room to compromise, several alternatives are being discussed ranging from non-profit regional co-operatives to a delayed public option. I will keep your views in mind as we consider these and other proposals." According to OpenLeft, Warner is a key target for passage of the public option in the Senate. I didn't receive a response yet from Sen. Webb's office, but interestingly he has already come out in support of a public option (more here)--I say "interestingly" because Webb was a Republican before running as a Democrat for the Senate in '06, so he's not the likeliest supporter of a public option; but, he definitely strikes me as an independent thinker, as his support of a public option and his willingness to make a party switch like that suggest.

Update 3: I did end up receiving a reply from Sen. Webb's office, though it did not directly mention the public option (even though he signed onto the above). He did include an interesting note on the overall approach to reform, noting his belief that the President "should have begun the process with a clear proposal that could have been the starting point for the work of the five separate congressional committees charged with responsibility for this issue. Without such a specific format, Congress has had difficulty crafting a bill of such challenging scope and complexity. I am hopeful that the President will remedy this problem in the coming weeks." This is indeed where the President has trended since then (though it seems like it has been a tough road to hoe, given the fact that President Clinton and Hillary Clinton are thought to have been too prescriptive for Congress in their approach to the issue). On another note, the concept of a "trigger" is an interesting one, whereby a public option would go into place if a predetermined level of health care savings are not realized after a set number of years (while this doesn't seem optimal in my view, it may just be realistic, given the politics).

Progress by Union

2009-02-14T15:06:00.010-05:00

Can folks do more when gathered together than they can separately? Might that be more than a gimmicky-sounding idea of "unity" and more a calculation of possibility?

Well, that is the idea I'm left with after hearing our President's speech honoring the attitude and aims of Abraham Lincoln. May the speech be a hearty weekend dose of what's possible in our country, for anyone interested--and one that I would only preface with a quote of Lincoln's that Obama notes in the speech:

"The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Belatedly, GREAT Speech

2009-02-07T12:56:00.043-05:00

In what is likely one of my last posts here, I just want to say what a solid speech now-President Barack Obama made on Inauguration Day. The bar was obviously high, but I think he did a fine job meeting it by simply talking about reality in clear terms. The video and text of the speech is at the bottom of this post for any that didn't see it, but a few favorite lines that stuck out to me are below (with my two absolute favorites in bold, where Obama's voice seemed to quiet, while at the same time rising a note or two, emphasizing the gravity of the points he's making):

" Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met."
"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those that prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long rugged path towards prosperity and freedom."
"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
" For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace. To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy" (emphasis mine).
"Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task."

I especially appreciated his emphasis of values because it confirms my view of Obama as an ethicist, as I sought to emphasize with the little series I did, "The Value, and Values of Barack." Here's the video of the rocking speech below though, and the full text of the remarks is available on the new White House website here (by the way, check out this amazing picture of the Inauguration, you can zoom in on just about everybody within a half-mile radius or so, including all the big wigs sitting up by Obama).

Photo credit: The Boston Globe and the amazing set of shots they have from the Inauguration, both as it happened in DC and as it was watched and celebrated around the world.

On Empathy and Ayn Rand

2009-02-01T12:03:00.304-05:00

First of all, I owe the launch of today's thought process to Ms. Jone Johnson Lewis of the Northern Virginia Ethical Society, and her thought-provoking blog post, "Empathy in the White House." The concept of empathy as a worthy and even central consideration in our world is one I've seen highlighted by President Obama, as noted in past posts of mine, such as this one. But I laud an effort Jone highlighted by an individual to collect a documentary's worth of examples of Obama discussing empathy, titled "Barack Obama and a New Spirit of Empathy" (though it's still only a rough cut, it's viewable here).

After viewing some of the above clips of Barack talking about empathy this morning, I was thrown into reflective mode as I ate my breakfast and started into the day. The clips add up to over an hour, so I didn't get much past 20 minutes or so (though I hope to look at more of it eventually). One particular section that left me thinking was of Obama speaking at a Northwestern University commencement in June of 2006; the whole speech begins at around 9 minutes and 25 seconds into the video, though the particular section I'll quote below starts right around 10:45:

"So there will be those who will tell you that the Americans who sleep in the streets and beg for food got there because they're all lazy and weak in spirit; that the inner-city children who are trapped in dilapidated schools can't learn and won't learn, and so we should give up on them entirely; that the innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes on the other side of the globe, are somebody else's problem to care for.

I hope you don't listen to this. I hope you choose to broaden and not contract the ambit of your concern. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation; not just because you have a debt to pay for those who helped to get you where you are, although I do think you have the debt; but rather because you have an obligation to yourself.

Because, what I've found in my life is that my individual salvation depends on our collective salvation. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you'll realize your true potential, that you'll become full grown."

I'm not sure what I think about this, quite honestly. I think I may disagree in part--though it may just be that he used the word "rather" instead of "also," meaning essentially the same thing. But this leads me to Ayn Rand. I've been surprised at how much Rand, author of books such as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, has come up in various conversations and settings recently. I must admit right off, I haven't read any of her books, and so I come to this without a fully informed view. However, I think that is fine in this case, because I am not looking to speak in depth about her views, but rather just to raise a question in relation to what appears to be her perspective--both as I've heard others speak of it, and as I've read in brief in summaries such as this one on the site of the Ayn Rand Institute (a non-profit aimed at promoting Ayn Rand and her views).

I find that some of Obama's comments above hint at Rand in a way I'm not entirely comfortable with--though I post this with the hope that it might lead to some conversations with others that might help inform, and possibly change my view about Rand and/or Obama's comments (I'm feeling pretty committed right now, though that could undoubtedly change if I'm convinced that my view is imbalanced). I won't go on for long here, but will simply post a short summary from Rand's own words of her philosophy, known as "objectivism," and briefly comment on it in relation to the excerpt from Obama's speech that I pasted above. As Rand herself wrote (with the Rand Institute's links included and the primary section I will comment on in bold):

"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

To repeat again the section I marked in bold above, "The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." I find this imbalanced, and that is my primary objection to the above. Now Rand does seek to provide some balance in the previous sentence, noting that we should not sacrifice others to ourself, but I'm not sure that is sufficient. I believe, as a much-admired social scientist of mine, Robert Putnam, noted here, that "We need to connect with one another. We've got to move a little more in the direction of community in the balance between community and the individual."

And that's wherein the issue lies for me. I think we'll always have to aim for balance, making that the end game--as opposed to making a philosophy of, and forgive me if I offend anyone, pursuing one's "own happiness [as] the highest moral purpose of his life." Yet I hesitate here, and note that Rand may have been speaking at a time when individuals were sacrificing themselves too much for the sake of others; at a time such as that, emphasizing individualism may have been necessary--that comes to mind because I realize that now I think emphasizing community, as Putnam noted above, seems critically important.

There is much more to write and think about in regard to this, so forgive me if this ends up being too cursory of a post. But I will, for the moment, end by noting how all this relates to Obama's thoughts from that above speech. Again, he said that we needed to expand "the ambit of our concern" to include the larger good, not only because we have an obligation to others ("you do" he said),

"[B]ut rather because you have an obligation to yourself. Because, what I've found in my life is that my individual salvation depends on our collective salvation. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you'll realize your true potential, that you'll become full grown" (emphasis mine).

I just worry that this way of emphasizing individual over other, as I said above, tips the scale; but again, he may have in essence meant "But also..." That is what I would have wanted him to say; that is, that we should expand our concern to others because "a, b, and c": a) we have an obligation to others; b) we have a debt to pay those who helped us get where we are; and c) because we have an obligation to ourselves. He clearly emphasizes "c," though perhaps that was unintentional.

I think the three (though cumulatively it's probably only two: self and others), need to be seen as a sacred balance. When in balance, we can have a healthy equilibrium; when out of balance, it's just that, tilted too much towards either individual benefit at the cost of communal health (which some see as the state of affairs in America), or towards communal benefit at the cost of individual health (which some see as the result, in the past at least, of communal approaches in countries such as Japan).

I'll end with a line from sociologist David Popenoe, in a piece titled "The Family Condition of America: Cultural Change and Public Policy" (part of this book). In that piece, he notes that some countries, such as Norway and Switzerland, "combine individualism with a moderate collectivism," referring to that balance as "communitarian individualism." He continues: "Individual goals are important, but they are blended with strong communal concerns and feelings of national solidarity. Self and community are in better balance than in other highly developed nations, especially the United States" (emphasis mine). He does note that these countries have some characteristics that make this balance easier, such as more homogeneous societies, relative geographic isolation, and cultures less affected by various qualities of modernization (such as commercialism and the individualism it often encourages). (As a sidenote, I am thankful for our diversity, though some such as Robert Putnam have pointed out that that same diversity gives us a steeper challenge; read this article about his recent research on the subject, or the full paper he wrote on it (PDF) in 2007--both are well worth the read).

As I said, there is clearly more to think about with all of this, but I wanted to put some of my thoughts down on it all. And, for my part, I hope that Obama does understand and aim for a balance of individualism and communalism--I think he may very well, but that this may just not have been articulated exactly in his above speech; also, I don't want to confuse any into thinking that I'm not ecstatic--I am--about Obama's rise and current position; I think it's monumental for our future in so, so many ways (and will still throw up a quick post with a few favorite lines from his inaugural speech here soon!).

Update: I just remembered this neat TV piece Bill Moyers, of PBS, did a few months ago on Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987-2006). Greenspan had just testified before Congress about the financial crises of recent. Moyers talks about how Greenspan was a big admirer of Ayn Rand, going on to basically suggests that Greenspan reflected her view of government in his own approach to it. The piece then goes into how Greenspan admitted to some extent during his testimony that his philosophy didn't work, at least in terms of the financial crisis and the inability of the financial industry to self-regulate--worth a watch, and the video isn't super-long.

Update 2: In having all this come to back to mind, I took another look at the section I quoted from Obama above...I think I may see more of where he is coming from now. It seems that it could be read as encouraging more full grown people in general, not necessarily as looking out for oneself at the expense of others...though perhaps becoming "full grown," and simply being an individual in charge of keeping oneself alive, we necessarily end up looking out for ourselves somewhat more than others. Yeah, this all brings up some substantive considerations, though some healthy ones I think...

Looking Back to Move Forward

2009-01-28T13:31:00.007-05:00

I wanted to write a post highlighting parts of President Obama's kicking inauguration speech that resonated with me, but will have to throw that up in a few days (and will then have to try to get out of the habit of putting stuff up here (possibly)--too much going on these days!). But I just read a crucial piece in The American Prospect, sent my way by my wonderful Aunt in Greece--she often has a better pulse on life a la American politics than many of us here at home thanks to ubiquitous news availability. The point of the article is summed up in its last, simple sentence, as it relates to various grievances with the Bush Administration and the financial industry:

"Sometimes, a rearview mirror is just what's needed to help see the road
forward."

The article is called "Truth, Reconciliation, and Obama: How should Obama deal with Bush's legacy?" and it's by Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect. The two paragraphs below, taken from the article, cut to the quick of the issue (the first dealing with constitutional Bush Administration abuses and the second with the financial industry):

"...[I]t is not quite enough for President Obama to simply reverse a series
of Bush executive orders. The abuse of constitutional powers under Bush was so
extreme that some kind of high-profile reckoning is required. It may even
require trial and punishment of some high-level offenders, so that we are not
left with a legacy of officially sanctioned torture in which only the lowest
level G.I.'s were left to take the fall. At the very least, a public accounting
of constitutionally dubious uses of executive power by some kind of prestigious
commission that recommends safeguards for the future would help put closure on
the era and prevent a repetition...

Before the financial reforms of the New Deal could proceed, it took the
masterful investigations of what came to be known as the Pecora Committee
(actually the Senate Banking and Currency Committee) in 1933 and 1934. By laying
bare the abuses and educating the public as to what had occurred (and this was
before live TV coverage), Pecora laid the political groundwork for enactment of
what had previously been considered impossibly radical reforms. These included
bringing securities markets under strict federal regulation for the first time
-- an achievement largely undone by the regulatory default of recent
decades...What Congress needs is a select committee with wide ranging powers to
investigate just what occurred, so that reforms will be strong enough to prevent
a repetition. Radical reform always requires public education and mobilization.
Sometimes, a rearview mirror is just what's needed to help see the road
forward."

Hear, hear--and as Kuttner also notes, "This process should not be undertaken lightly. The Whitewater persecution and the impeachment of Bill Clinton was political farce. Yet the Watergate investigations of Richard Nixon culminating in an impeachment and a presidential resignation were not divisive; they were clarifying and unifying. So it is not simple 'recrimination' to come to terms with historical abominations." I'm personally not sure if I think Obama will take a strong, while balanced approach to this--I hope so, and think there's indication in some of his thoughts and action that he may.

On a related note, I saw that this post on The Nation's website mentions an attempt to address some issues with the handling of the US Attorney firings under the Bush Administration:

"Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. issued a
subpoena to Karl Rove requiring him to testify regarding his role in the Bush
Administration's politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US
Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
The subpoena was issued pursuant to authority granted in H.R. 5 (111th
Congress), and calls for Mr. Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2,
2009. Mr. Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary
Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be
compelled to testify before Congress. That 'absolute immunity' position was
supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District
Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as
'completely misguided.'

'I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to
its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an
important step along the way,' said Mr. Conyers. Noting that the change in
administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this
long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added 'Change has come to Washington, and I
hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for
him to talk.' "

Rated in top ten Obama blogs by Blogged.com, I'll take it!

2009-01-17T12:10:00.006-05:00

So I'm about to (likely) retire this blog (though I'll leave it up here for posterity still), and was doing a quick search on it--Google and other search engines have this neat tool where you can search for any pages that link to yours. For Google, you type "link:www.fillintheblank.com." So, I did a little search to see what links to my website there might be, and though there wasn't much out there, I was pretty excited to find this (click to enlarge):

Yeah, that's me down there circled in green. The website is "Blogged.com," and it's basically a big 'ol database that sorts and rates blogs--pretty interesting to wander around in. If you can make it out in the picture, they did a list of top ten Obama and top ten Hillary blogs back in May. Who knows what their analysis level, it was fun to find though, and some of the others looked decent in clicking on them. They've still got the website up for it here if you're interested. I'm not sure how press releases end up on newspaper sites, but was kind of fun to see that the press release Blogged.com sent out also showed up in my Google search for some like Reuters.

My radio debut, yo

2009-01-07T20:21:00.008-05:00

Yeah, so at the suggestion of my good mother, I sent off a version of one of my blog posts here to a number of places--and they actually let me on the radio. It was cool, sitting in front of the professional mike with a crazy computer screen showing the audio recording, all that stuff. It was for the local NPR station where my parents live, in Harrisonburg, VA; what's also neat is that it was the same radio station that plays in my hometown, Staunton, VA (along with Charlottesville and some other areas), so I was able to speak pretty frankly about my political perspective to some of the people in the region I grew up. It was for a little something WMRA, the local radio station, calls "Civic Soapbox," where they air short pieces from listeners; on the main webpage for the program they explain some of what they're aiming for with it (and being one who thinks that civic engagement has, as I actually mention in the piece, sadly declined, I love the concept):

"Is there a subject about which you feel strongly? Would you like to add your voice to the other voices heard on public radio? If so, how about writing three and a half minutes worth of your thoughts on that subject and sending them to us? Civil, community-based discourse is an important aspect of the democratic process."

You can actually check out the two pieces my mom has done for the program over the last year or so here and here--they rock, just like my motha. I wrote about her more recent one in this post at the time. With mine though, here you go, it's just a quick piece, but anyone interested can listen to the final audio of me reading it, as it was aired, here. I also pasted the text below. The piece is called "First Principles":

At 27, and having had an unfortunately late entrance into civic life (around three years ago), it's been healthy to feel out my thoughts this past year on politics and politicians, government in general and the issues in particular. As I now weigh my thoughts at the beginning of a new year, I find myself coming back to first principles.

One, I believe, is that a society has a fundamental duty to help the most vulnerable—to "promote the general welfare," as our Constitution puts it. Our general welfare has declined―through unregulated mortgages, a preemptive war that drew in many of our most vulnerable, an economy and tax system tilted towards the wealthy, and a health care system that multiplies in cost, seemingly without end.

Why??

The people allowed it. So many of us allowed it. As Plato put it, albeit slightly harsher than I would in this case, "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Finally, with this election, we have once again shown that it is appropriate to gather together to promote the general welfare through sensible governance and civic engagement.

It didn't happen magically though—our coming President drew it out of us. While many of us know too well where we are not, either personally or as a country, Barack Obama talked to us about where we can be. "Yes we can," he spoke into our collective memory—not just as a vision of how to win an election, but of something much more lasting: of how to make a people realize they can rebuild their country if they decide to.

So, in my view, our President-Elect has brought to us first principles: simple, even modest ideas of returning this country to the many hands of its people; prodding us to get our hands dirty as we build and develop; calling us to reach down for the most vulnerable and balance out the playing field. It’s all very sensible, down to the specifics–a health care system that anyone can afford; infrastructure and alternative energy projects for new jobs and a more stable country; diplomacy for a more humane foreign policy.

Everyone will stand deceived though, including Mr. Obama, if we put this on his shoulders alone. He is singular, one American, and appears to realize how important it is that we start thinking about things in the plural—to "enlarge our sense of we,” as social scientist Robert Putnam puts it.

And does that not bring us full circle? That is, if we the citizenry have allowed our country to turn bleak, as it has, mustn’t we be the ones to right it? The President-Elect seems to think so. Beyond the campaign he ran, nowhere is this more apparent than in his concentrated focus on national service—from his bold agenda to expand it, down to the tab it gets on his website, under “America Serves.”

All this adds up to a visionary paradigm shift from President Bush, who infamously squandered American’s post-9-11 desire to serve by calling on us to, of all things, shop. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has shown he sees service and citizen engagement as integral, at all times, to the maintenance of a balanced world and a healthy democracy. And so the choice becomes ours, not only to hope—as Mr. Obama has so rightly encouraged—but also to work for that more just, more communal world that he’s helped so many believe is possible.

These Pictures Rock the Party

2008-12-13T16:15:00.000-05:00

These pictures from election night are awesome--man, I can't imagine waiting to hear whether you'd be announced the next president of the United States, what a freaking night (for McCain and Obama). The pictures are all from backstage as O waited with family and others for the results:

Best Political Cartoon Ever

2008-12-09T21:40:00.001-05:00

I saw this cartoon up on a coworker's cubicle at work--it's definitely one of the best I've seen, though thankfully I think it'll lose its pop after January 20th.

(click here to view)

Gary Varvel
Indianapolis Star
Oct 3, 2008

EditorialCartoonists.com

On a related note, I just realized recently my "Someone Else for President" bumper sticker will lose it's pop soon too; it would especially be funny on my car alongside my Obama '08 sticker after O gets sworn in, so I suppose I'll have to pull 'er down around then. Man I love that sticker though...

Our Man's Got Get-Up and Go

2008-12-07T11:00:00.003-05:00

I have to say, in starting to watch our almost-President Obama give his weekly address this week, I thought it sounded, well, like a bit much. But then, as he got into it, I realized, "He's going to be president, he can do these things!" It's enough to get someone excited--check it out:

A Service-Oriented President, Finally

2008-11-30T21:10:00.007-05:00

In a time of big Thanksgiving meals for many of us, Barack, our coming President (I can't get over saying that yet, it's great), focused on those without much to eat--it's exactly the service-oriented leadership our leader-hungry country needs. From here on his Change.gov website:

Saying he wanted his two daughters "to learn the importance of how fortunate they are and make sure they are giving back," President-elect Obama and his family volunteered at a food pantry near their home on the South Side of Chicago this afternoon.

St. Columbanus Church, where President-elect Obama has volunteered before, feeds nearly 500 people a week. But he pointed out that times are particularly tough.

"The number of people who are getting food this year is up 33 percent," he said. "It gives a sense times are tough -- and I think that on Thanksgiving it's important for us to remember there's a need for support."

When a group of children appeared in the window of the church's school, President-elect Obama decided to visit the school's auditorium, where hundreds of the school's students quickly assembled.

I love that this also shows his understanding of the need for parents to really teach their children about some of the many, many issues affecting so many in our country and world. Here are some pictures of the event.

Beyond that though, as you can see in this screenshot, one of the nine main categories on his website is titled "America Serves"--they don't just give those categories away to any old subject, it's got to have some heavy merit to get in there with ones like "Agenda", "Jobs" and "About." Good stuff President-Elect, good stuff. From the "America Serves" part of his website (where it also has a place, mentioned below, to fill in your information to stay informed about coming service initiatives):

" 'When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream.'

As the new administration takes shape, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will call on Americans from every walk of life to serve. President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and will create new service organizations to meet the nation's challenges head on:

* a Classroom Corps to help underserved schools
* a Health Corps to serve in the nation's clinics and hospitals
* a Clean Energy Corps to achieve the goal of energy independence
* a Veterans Corps to support the Americans who serve by standing in harm's way

Obama and Biden will call on citizens of all ages to serve. They'll set a goal that all middle school and high school students engage in 50 hours of community service a year, and develop a plan for all college students who engage in 100 hours of community service to receive a fully-refundable tax credit of $4,000 for their education. Obama and Biden will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

The Obama-Biden administration's volunteer initiatives are still taking shape, but take a moment now to let us know that you're interested, and we'll keep you posted on all the latest developments.

Enter your information below [link here] to let us know you're interested in serving the nation -- and contributing your energy and efforts to confronting the problems we face together."

Update: Now President Barack Obama signified his seriousness about this issue when he pushed MLK Day into the spotlight January 19th, the day before his inauguration, as a day of nationwide service--hell, they even started a website for it: www.usaservice.org. He noted that this should set the tone for a return to service in our country as a value, stating the following in this set of brief remarks he gave on that day:

"So today, I am asking you to roll up your sleeves and join in the work of remaking this nation. I pledge to you that government will do its part to open up more opportunities for citizens to participate. And in return, I ask you to play your part – to not just pitch in today, but to make an ongoing commitment that lasts far beyond one day, or even one presidency.

And to those who are skeptical about whether this will happen – to anyone who thinks that the American people are selfish or apathetic – I invite them to come here to Coolidge High School and to the more than 11,000 other places across this country where people have spent today fixing up schools and renovating homes and organizing food drives and blood drives and so much more. I see what the American people are doing today and every day. So don’t tell me that we can’t usher in a new spirit of service in this country.
I know we can do this."

Keep the Gas Prices Up

2008-11-22T10:36:00.001-05:00

Off the bat, an editorial called "Raise the Gas Tax," from last Sunday's Washington Post, has my vote. I'm wondering if there would be any backlash to consider from it...it seems to me that if it was explained to the American people, and done in conjunction with a mammoth surge in alternative energy support, that it could be well worth it--if some of the pay-off could be realized by the end of Obama's first term that is, otherwise it could work against his re-election bid. Thoughts? Here's the article:

The price of crude oil closed at $57.04 a barrel on Friday. That's about $90 cheaper than it was in July. The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline Friday was $2.15, nearly $2 less than it was in July. This is definitely good news for the battered American consumer. But we fear that the temptation to return to gas-guzzling vehicles, to drive more and to forget the painful lessons learned last summer will be too great to resist.

Our concern is hardly unfounded. As Post-Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in his Oct. 29 column, "We've seen this movie before." A gas crisis leads to widespread calls for conservation, fuel-efficient cars and greater reliance on alternative sources of energy to help slip the yoke of imported oil. Then, as happened after the 1970s gas crunch, amnesia sets in the moment prices fall. One of the best ways to prevent a rerun is to raise the federal tax per gallon of gasoline. Mr. Samuelson made a worthy suggestion: Raise the gas tax a penny a month for 48 months.

In a perfect world, we'd like to see a gas tax that was the equivalent of oil at $100 per barrel. This would send a loud-and-clear signal to drivers to continue eschewing gas guzzlers for fuel sippers and mass transit. Automakers would get the message to speed up production of motor vehicles that meet or exceed the 35 miles per gallon by 2020 mandated by Congress last year. Instead of the money going to countries that have U.S. interests at heart in the same way a dealer cares about a junkie, the revenue would stay here -- and it could all be returned to the American people in the form of tax rebates.

Okay, we know that the world isn't perfect and a lame-duck Congress and president aren't going to make the tough but necessary decisions on energy independence: That will fall to President-elect Barack Obama. As he puts his administration together and considers his priorities, he faces the choice of playing it safe with incremental steps or going bold with dramatic action when he assumes office on Jan. 20. We urge Mr. Obama to take the latter course. The United States cannot afford to backslide to its voracious, polluting ways as it did in the 1970s.

Our President (almost)

2008-11-17T21:18:00.001-05:00

O and Lady O on 60 Minutes last night, well worth the watch--his temperament, their temperament, his serious mind and vision, their relationship, their history, their honesty, their humor, it's all very encouraging and quite endearing:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Unsettling Times for Jihadists

2008-11-16T22:59:00.002-05:00

This article in today's Washington Post by David Ignatius, one of their columnists, is worth the read--all about what things look like for al-Qaeda and those of a similar mind now that Obama is coming into the presidency. Here's the first part of it:

Let's try for a moment to read the mind of an al-Qaeda operative in the remote mountains of Waziristan as he listens to the news on the radio. His worldview has been roiled recently by two events -- one confounding his image of the West and the other confirming it.

The upsetting news for our imaginary jihadist is the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States. This wasn't supposed to happen, in al-Qaeda's playbook. Its aim was to draw the "far enemy" (meaning America) ever deeper onto the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Instead, the jihadists must cope with a president-elect who promises to get out of Iraq and whose advisers are talking about negotiating with the Taliban. And to top it off, the guy's middle name is Hussein.

Before the election, the radical Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradhawi even issued a fatwa supporting John McCain: "Personally, I would prefer for the Republican candidate, McCain, to be elected. This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you . . . to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]."

Obama makes the jihadists nervous because he is an appealing new face whose ascension undermines the belief that Islam and the West are locked in an inescapable clash of civilizations. "The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it. . . . They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body," observes Qaradhawi.
ad_icon

"Even in the Arab world, Obama is very popular," explains Jean-Pierre Filiu, a French scholar of Islam. "The global jihadists leaned toward McCain because they hoped the confrontation would get worse..."

Finish off the piece here if interested, as it's just a few more paragraphs and is worth read.

Obama Meets With Dangerous World Leader Without Preconditions

2008-11-13T21:41:00.002-05:00

I got this and the caption in an email, so I can't claim it as my own, but great stuff, ay?

In Only We Could Vote Out the Devastating Effects of Bush

2008-11-11T19:00:00.002-05:00

As seen in this 15-minute or so PBS NewsHour piece, the effects of Bush and his crew's war in Iraq will not soon diminish (as unfortunately is the case with too many of the problems they put into place while in office--the destructive, unregulated financial industry; inhumane budget priorities; unjust tax policy; etc., etc.). The focus of the piece is on suicide rates among war veterans, and in it James Peake, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (V.A.), has the gall to claim that the increase in suicide rates may not be due to the effects of war (I sent in a question to the V.A. through an online forum the NewsHour is hosting on the subject, so I'll be interested to see if they respond; answers are supposed to be posted here this Friday the 14th of Nov.).

A veteran who committed suicide, along with his family, are spotlighted in the piece (he's pictured above); the V.A. actually turned him down for the full extent of support he could have received because he could not remember "dates and names" of the casualties in Iraq that were haunting him. His wife says at one point in the piece, something to the effect of how her now-dead husband didn't remember names and dates, he just would just have faces and horrible scenes flash through his mind from his time in Iraq. He had been "fun and caring and giving" beforehand she said, but came home angry--consistently angry to the point that his children became scared of him; this is what war can do to men and women, and woe unto anyone who would so cavalierly send our people into it--and then on top of that, not provide proper benefits afterwards. I could see myself changing in the same ways if I was sent into war, particularly with the multiple deployments that have now become commonplace (the piece notes that those who have gone on three or more deployments have over double the risk of suicide as those who don't). The video of the piece and the transcript are available here.

Reflections on Tuesday

2008-11-09T15:39:00.005-05:00

Charity, my wonderful and passionate aunt, living in Greece right now, recently forwarded some in my family a great reflection on the election from The New York Times--it's such a good piece. She also included a few of her own thoughts though, so I wanted to start with those; her reflections, along with the article, provide a neat perspective for those of us too young to realize some of the work and struggle that made this election possible--in terms of civil rights, but also in terms of resisting the unfortunate Reaganesque view of the world that defined too many of the past twenty-five plus years in America.

My aunt wrote:

"I read this piece below, and found that it speaks to me of wounds healed, moving ahead, of once longed for dreams becoming possible, of a Democracy that I grew up in. In all of that somehow I find myself very emotional, as if all that my parents and others in the 60s worked for in the Civil Rights movement and what we have survived and struggled against during the last eight years has come to an end. Of course, this is not so, but I believe that the page has been turned and we are beginning a new walk. This is my hope. We will see. "

And below is the article by Judith Warner, from here on The New York Times website, called "Tears to Remember":

"On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.”

“Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of a whole new era.”

And it was. An era of unbridled deregulation, wealth-enhancing perks for the already well-off, and miserly indifference to the poor and middle class; of the recasting of greed as goodness, the equation of bellicose provincialism with patriotism, the reframing of bigotry as small-town decency.

In short, it was the start of our current era. The Reagan Revolution was the formative political experience of my generation’s lifetime, like the Great Depression, the Second World War or Vietnam for those before us. And in its intellectual and moral paucity, in its eventual hegemony, these years shut down, for some of us, the ability to fully imagine another way.

I will admit that back in January, when Barack Obama, in his post-Iowa victory speech, spoke about the “cynics,” the “they” who said “this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” he was talking about me.

I will admit that the call of “change” did not speak to me as an achievable goal.

Until it actually came.

On Wednesday, there was a run on newspapers, as voters rushed to grab a tangible piece of the history they’d made. My husband Max and I, unable to find extra copies, brought our own worn papers home to 8- and 11-year-old Emilie and Julia.

Sept. 11, the seismic event that we’d feared would forever form their political consciousness, shaping their world and constricting the boundaries of the possible, had actually been eclipsed, light blotting out darkness, the best of America at long last driving away the demons of fear. We wanted them to see that it was the end of an era.

“Look,” we said, pointing to the headline “Racial Barrier Falls.” “This is huge.”

We labored to make them understand that their world — art that day, and orchestra, and Baked Potato Bar at lunch — had irrevocably changed.

But how can you understand change when you’ve only known one way of being?

They were happy because we were happy. They rose to the occasion in that bemused way children do when adults tell them what they should feel. They were glad to be rid of George W. Bush and to be saved – for now – from the specter of Sarah Palin. (“It is not O.K. to say she’s an ‘idiot,’” I had snapped when they came home from school stoked by the mob. “Prove your case. Show, don’t tell.”)

They’d had, like many D.C. children, more than their share of politics. After first following the country into battle against the all-purpose boogeyman Saddam Hussein, they’d become antiwar. They had opinions on tax policy and spoke angrily about the “wealth gap.” In the past election year, they’d been fired up about the woman thing, in all its pretty girl versus smart girl iterations; in fact, they and their friends had remained hard-core Hillaryites long after their moms had moved on.

But the race thing? The groundbreaking immensity of the election of our country’s first African-American president?

“You’re being racist,” Emilie had said when I made a comment about how particularly earth-moving this election was for black voters. “Why should it matter if people are black or white?”

Theirs has often looked to me like a world drained of meaning. Girl power put to the service of selling Hannah Montana. Feel-good inclusiveness that occulted the very real conflicts, crimes and hatreds of history.

It isn’t easy to let go of the past to embrace something new, to risk heartbreak on the chance of the world’s actually having changed.

Or at least, it hasn’t been easy for me. But it comes naturally to some. Like the hundreds of George Washington University students who gathered in front of the White House on Tuesday night, cheering and screaming and shouting their goodbyes to the political era of their youth.

“Bliss it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven,” Max emailed me, paraphrasing William Wordsworth on the French Revolution, at 11:30 p.m. on election night, after leaving his desk to walk among the revelers downtown. I, home with the kids, was in bed, sleeping the drugged sleep of an alcohol-abstaining migraineuse after drinking half a glass of celebratory champagne.

Colin Powell did not dance for joy over Obama’s victory; he wept.

“Look what we did. Look what we did,” he said, puffy-faced, red-eyed, fighting back more tears on CNN. “He’s won. It’s over.”

David Dinkins was similarly solemn. “Things do change. There is a God. They do get better,” said the mayor who presided over New York City at a time of toxic racial tensions.

Obama, too, resisted giddy gladness on Tuesday night. But he did proclaim an end to the world as we’ve known it for far too long.

“To those who would tear the world down: we will defeat you,” he promised. “This is our moment. This is our time.”

The glory of Barack Obama is that there are so many different kinds of us who can claim a piece of that “our.” African-Americans, Democrats, post-boomers, progressives, people who rose from essentially nowhere and through hard work and determination succeeded beyond their parents’ wildest dreams are the most obvious.

But there are also people who respect intelligence and good grammar. People who see their spouse as their “best friend,” as Barack called Michelle on Tuesday night. People whose children have the same knowing look as Sasha and Malia, who are probably more excited about their puppy than about their father’s presidency.

Two images will forever stay in my mind to mark this epoch-breaking Election Day. One is that of Jesse Jackson’s face, drenched in tears, in Chicago’s Grant Park on Tuesday evening.

And the other is a photo that ran in The Times on Wednesday. In it, a black mother and daughter sit on the floor of a church in Harlem. The mother, Latrice Barnes, having heard of Obama’s victory, is doubled up in tears; her daughter, Jasmine, is reaching a tentative hand up to soothe her. To me, she looks like the future, reaching out to heal the past.

It is, I suppose, in part a matter of temperament, whether one shouts or weeps at happy transformative moments. But I also think it’s a matter of what has come before. The young people joyfully frolicking in front of the Bush White House never knew the universe whose passing was marked by Obama’s victory and Jackson’s tears.

This moment of triumph marks the end of such a long period of pain, of indignity and injustice for African-Americans. And for so many others of us, of the trampling and debasing of our most basic ideals, beliefs that we cherished every bit as deeply and passionately as those of the “values voters” around whose sensibilities we’ve had to tiptoe for the past 28 years.

The election brought the return of a country we’d lost for so long that it was almost forgotten under the accumulated scar tissue of accommodation and acceptance.

For me, this will be the enduring memory of election night 2008: One generation released its grief. The next looked up confusedly, eager to please and yet unable to comprehend just what the tears were about."

Update: More great thoughts from Bill Moyers on the significance of this election with this TV piece here, followed by some other neat assessments of what the next four years might involve here and here.

WOW

2008-11-05T00:50:00.004-05:00

Yep, that's it, wow.

New York Times photo credit.

Update: I love this picture of Obama and his family on the front of The Washington Post (PDF) as they came out last night for their first appearance after winning:

In Closing, First Principles

2008-11-03T23:54:00.007-05:00

*Note: I turned some of this post into a little radio piece you can read about and listen to here.

It's a mixed bag seeing this election finally--we hope--ending tomorrow. It's been neat to feel out my own perceptions of politics and politicians, government in general and the specific issues of import in particular. What an election cycle. I wrote my first post here on December, 3rd, 2007, and appreciate everyone who has taken a chance to read some here and there, as well as those who have offered comments and engaged with me on some critical issues.

Now that things are finally, finally coming to a close (and again, I do hope it ends by at least Wednesday AM), I wanted to offer some final thoughts. Though I may throw up a post here or there over the next few weeks or months, I am looking forward to backing away somewhat from all things political (as much as I can with the vigor that will undoubtedly surround a new president, and the related drive I will have to watch who I hope will be in there as he begins to rebuild our country).

My final thoughts are simple, and thus "first principles," as I noted in my title. One of the first principles in a society, I believe, is for the less vulnerable to help the more vulnerable. Under George W. Bush, the most vulnerable have been preyed on--with unregulated mortgage lending, a war of preemption, an economy and tax system tilted towards the wealthiest among us, and a health care system that multiplies in cost, again and again, year after year. Why??

We can certainly allow it, as we have. But are we not more than animals to fight for what we can get and call it survival of the fittest? Surely we are. But it takes gumption to change this system of greed, of self-interest, of warrior mentalities and individualism.

The reason Barack Obama won out over Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and the other Democrats, is because, in my view, he called more of us out of ourselves than did the others. If he had simply called us out of ourselves without calling us into something, that would have been the end of it. But he called us into something exponentially larger--that is, into interdependence. That's a good thing, it is. Because again, the alternative is some version of survival of the fittest, and I’m not okay with that, because we’re not all operating from an equal playing field.

Our tax code can be fair, taking into account the most vulnerable with deliberate compassion--weighed by sensible understanding of personal responsibility. And you will hear that in Obama, as he said in his 30-minute TV piece this last week, and in his stirring call in Manassas, VA tonight (available here); he's repeated the theme throughout his campaign, saying we have a "crisis in responsibility." He went on to say tonight that we have a crisis in "civility." The speech was probably the most moving I have heard him deliver. Perhaps it was due to the unimaginable timing of the death of his grandmother today (she helped raise him, as he talks about here); in fact, I imagine it is that, in combination with this, the final day of his campaign. The tenor in his voice reaches that of a leader though, even as he spoke more softly at one time or another during the speech. I finished watching it encouraged about what this man can do for our country.

Barack speaks to where we are and where we aren't. And while many of us can quickly name where we aren't, personally or as a country, he doesn't stop there--he talks about where we can be. He did that with his broad look at our country, as he ventured--or fought, perhaps I should say--his way into Republican state after Republican state.

What do we have now? An electrified country, where I can hear stories, as I did last week, of a 57-year old from Arlington, Virginia who had never voted before, but was planning to do so for Obama on Tuesday. Wow. We have a presidential candidate who dared to trek into areas like central Virginia, where no presidential candidate had gone since Nixon in '68--forty years ago; no Democrat had gone there since Abraham Lincoln's challenger, Stephen Douglas, a hundred years earlier, in 1860. This is vision--but not just vision of how to win an election, but how to mobilize people for something bigger than themselves.

You see, Obama doesn't have some delusions of grandeur, in my view, but rather simple, even modest ideas of returning the country to the many hands of our people--prodding us to get our hands dirty as we build and develop, calling us to reach down for those most vulnerable and balance out the playing field. He's brought many people along in the ways he's reasoned through how we need health care within financial reach of all Americans, bridges and roads rebuilt, alternative energies pursued and conservation championed. Everyone would be deceived, including Obama, if they thought he could do it himself. No, this is a world he has helped paint before the eyes of Americans, offering the chance to grab it if we would. And no doubt, he is standing on the shoulders of many who have come before him, echoing their calls--yet he has brought so many into the game that he stands unique among political leaders. And so the choice is ours to hope, as it were, in that more just, more communal world that he has helped so many believe is possible.

Woe is McCain: Bad Temper, Bad Foreign Policy

2008-11-02T21:29:00.001-05:00

I couldn't help but be disturbed by this recent ten-page article in Rolling Stone called "Make Believe Maverick." It goes into John McCain's policy stances, but also his character, tracing forward from when he was young. It highlights the ways he has skated by because of his family name, from getting into college to keeping his Navy "wings" after multiple crashes. I'd encourage anyone who's thinking of voting his way Tuesday to read the entire article (you can also view a short video Rolling Stone did in conjunction with the article here). I wanted to paste the section on his foreign policy from the article below, but before I do, here are a few quick lines on his infamous temper:

"Over the years, John McCain has demonstrated a streak of anger so nasty that even his former flacks make no effort to spin it away. 'If I tried to convince you he does not have a temper, you should hang up on me and ridicule me in print,' says Dan Schnur, who served as McCain's press man during the 2000 campaign. Even McCain admits to an 'immature and unprofessional reaction to slights' that is 'little changed from the reactions to such provocations I had as a schoolboy.'...

At least three of McCain's GOP colleagues have gone on record to say that they consider him temperamentally unsuited to be commander in chief. Smith, the former senator from New Hampshire, has said that McCain's 'temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.' Sen. Domenici of New Mexico has said he doesn't 'want this guy anywhere near a trigger.' And Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi weighed in that 'the thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded.' "

Now, here's the pretty damning section on McCain's foreign policy stances over the years, though I believe it fairly discusses how he was more moderate in the past:

"The myth of John McCain hinges on two transformations — from pampered flyboy to selfless patriot, and from Keating crony to incorruptible reformer — that simply never happened. But there is one serious conversion that has taken root in McCain: his transformation from a cautious realist on foreign policy into a reckless cheerleader of neoconservatism.

'He's going to be Bush on steroids,' says Johns, the retired brigadier general who has known McCain since their days at the National War College. 'His hawkish views now are very dangerous. He puts military at the top of foreign policy rather than diplomacy, just like George Bush does. He and other neoconservatives are dedicated to converting the world to democracy and free markets, and they want to do it through the barrel of a gun.'

McCain used to believe passionately in the limits of American military power. In 1993, he railed against Clinton's involvement in Somalia, sponsoring an amendment to cut off funds for the troops. The following year he blasted the idealistic aims of sending U.S. troops to Haiti, taking to the Senate floor to propose an immediate withdrawal. He even started out a fierce opponent of NATO air strikes on Serbia during the war in the Balkans.

But such concerns went out the window when McCain began gearing up to run for president. In 1998, he formed a political alliance with William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, who became one of his closest advisers. Randy Scheunemann — a hard-right lobbyist who was promoting Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi — came aboard as McCain's top foreign-policy adviser. Before long, the senator who once cautioned against 'trading American blood for Iraqi blood' had been reborn as a fire-breathing neoconservative who believes in using American military might to spread American ideals — a belief he describes as a 'sacred duty to suffer hardship and risk danger to protect the values of our civilization and impart them to humanity.' By 1999, McCain was championing what he called 'rogue state rollback.' First on the hit list: Iraq.

Privately, McCain brags that he was the 'original neocon.' And after 9/11, he took the lead in agitating for war with Iraq, outpacing even Dick Cheney in the dissemination of bogus intelligence about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. 'There's other organizations besides Mr. bin Laden who are bent on the destruction of the United States,' he warned in an appearance on Hardball on September 12th. 'It isn't just Afghanistan. We're talking about Syria, Iraq, Iran, perhaps North Korea, Libya and others.' A few days later, he told Jay Leno's audience that 'some other countries' — possibly Iraq, Iran and Syria — had aided bin Laden.

A month after 9/11, with the U.S. bombing Kabul and reeling from the anthrax scare, McCain assured David Letterman that 'we'll do fine' in Afghanistan. He then added, unbidden, 'The second phase is Iraq. Some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.'

Later that month on Larry King, McCain raised the specter of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before he peddled what became Dick Cheney's favorite lie: 'The Czech government has revealed meetings, contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mohamed Atta. The evidence is very clear. . . . So we will have to act.' On Nightline, he again flogged the Czech story and cited Iraqi defectors to claim that 'there is no doubt as to [Saddam's] avid pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. That, coupled with his relations with terrorist organizations, I think, is a case that the administration will be making as we move step by step down this road.'

That December, just as U.S. forces were bearing down on Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora, McCain joined with five senators in an open letter to the White House. 'In the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power,' they insisted, claiming that there was 'no doubt' that Hussein intended to use weapons of mass destruction 'against the United States and its allies.'

In January 2002, McCain made a fact-finding mission to the Middle East. While he was there, he dropped by a supercarrier stationed in the Arabian Sea that was dear to his heart: the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the giant floating pork project that he had driven through over President Carter's veto. On board the carrier, McCain called Iraq a 'clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America.' Standing on the flight bridge, he watched as fighter planes roared off, en route to Afghanistan — where Osama bin Laden had already slipped away. 'Next up, Baghdad!' McCain whooped.

Over the next 15 months leading up to the invasion, McCain continued to lead the rush to war. In November 2002, Scheunemann set up a group called the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq at the same address as Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. The groups worked in such close concert that at one point they got their Websites crossed. The CLI was established with explicit White House backing to sell the public on the war. The honorary co-chair of the committee: John Sidney McCain III.

In September 2002, McCain assured Americans that the war would be 'fairly easy' with an 'overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.' On the eve of the invasion, Hardball host Chris Matthews asked McCain, 'Are you one of those who holds up an optimistic view of the postwar scene? Do you believe that the people of Iraq, or at least a large number of them, will treat us as liberators?'

McCain was emphatic: 'Absolutely. Absolutely.'

Today, however, McCain insists that he predicted a protracted struggle from the outset. 'The American people were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach,' he said in August 2006, 'which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.' McCain also claims he urged Bush to dump Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. 'I'm the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go,' he said in a January primary debate. Except that he didn't. Not once. As late as May 2004, in fact, McCain praised Rumsfeld for doing 'a fine job.'

Indeed, McCain's neocon makeover is so extreme that Republican generals like Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft have refused to endorse their party's nominee [After this article was written, Powell endorsed Obama]. 'The fact of the matter is his judgment about what to do in Iraq was wrong,' says Richard Clarke, who served as Bush's counterterrorism czar until 2003. 'He hung out with people like Ahmad Chalabi. He said Iraq was going to be easy, and he said we were going to war because of terrorism. We should have been fighting in Afghanistan with more troops to go after Al Qaeda. Instead we're at risk because of the mistaken judgment of people like John McCain.' "

Again, the full ten-page article can be read here.

Pro-Life and Pro-Obama?

2008-11-02T14:45:00.005-05:00

That's right, some folks fall into the pro-life, pro-Obama category, and rightly so in my view. I have been pro-choice for the most part, though I can't say that I've thought about it as comprehensively as I would like to--it's a tough issue. As many say, in an ideal world, there would not be any unintended pregnancies. But given that our world is far from ideal, I can understand the circumstances that lead to abortions--indeed, I can see how I could end up choosing an abortion if I were in similar circumstances.

Regardless though, I can come down on the side of Obama as he talks about ideas such as "strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption," which "will make help drastically reduce the numbers of abortions [according to studies]" (that quote is taken from ProLifeProObama.com, a site dedicated to this whole issue). There's more info about Obama's stance on these issues on his website, and there's more on the views of conservative supporters of Obama on this and other issues at ConservativesForChange.com.

What the above websites suggest is, not to rule out abortion stances as a consideration, but to view it as one issue among many. Why? Because issues of "life" deal with many areas beyond simply abortion. How about war? Or health care, or poverty, or destitute, third-world countries without the basic opportunities so many of us take for granted? Many of those who we pass by on the street, or hear about in the news, are losing their lives or tragically suffering in life because of the stances taken by politicians--and yes, most recently and most prominently, in my view, the stances by so-called "conservative" politicians.

As is noted in the article I'll paste below:

"Regardless of the official position of the Supreme Court on abortion, a country in which all Americans are offered some sort of dignity and hopeful future would be a place conducive to the kind of optimism each of us must hold in our hearts if we are to welcome children into this world. But if our highest aspiration is to be a consumer with no thought or care for our neighbor, we will remain a culture in which abortion is not only inevitable but logical."

That sort of ethical, empathetic view of the world around us is one that I embrace, above and beyond any religious affiliation or political viewpoint; it is the type of perspective that really guided my thinking throughout the last year-and-a-half or so as I wrote this blog and sifted through candidates' stances (as I particularly attempted to highlight with the series I put together on Obama's ethics, titled "The Value, and Values, of Barack").

As a sidenote, this naturally goes into the realm of faith-related considerations for some; as I've previously mentioned, having come from a religious background, I can relate. (I don't consider myself religious now, though I intend to come full-circle and consider questions of faith again at some point.) Because of that background of mine though, I naturally have friends and family who still consider themselves religious or spiritual, and I fully respect that; I would say though, that it is devastating to me how much of the Christian camp specifically has been convinced to vote unquestioningly for the Republican party from one election to the next. Much of that has to do with folks being convinced that their vote is no more complicated than one or two issues--a perspective I would respectfully take issue with, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Additionally, I would encourage any people of faith out there to take a look at Obama's stances on the full spectrum of issues. Most, if not all, are governed by the simple principle he has repeated in one capacity or another throughout his campaign: "We have an individual responsibility to be our brother's keeper and our sister's keeper" (that line is taken from here (PDF), which provides an overview of his stance on many faith-related issues; more details are also available on his website). He and John McCain both talked about faith and values at a recent forum in September; you can read my quick thoughts on that and watch videos of it here. I would also strongly urge any interested in his faith perspective to listen to the below, in-depth speech he gave two years ago; it's on faith across religions, though Christianity receives a good part of the focus (it was given at a "Call to Renewal" conference):

Lastly, here is the first part of an article from Huffington Post called "Why I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Obama":

"I am an Obama supporter. I am also pro-life. In fact, without my family's involvement in the pro-life movement it would not exist as we know it. Evangelicals weren't politicized until after my late father and evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer, Dr. Koop (Reagan's soon-to-be Surgeon General) and I stirred them up over the issue of abortion in the mid-1970s. Our Whatever Happened to the Human Race? book, movie series and seminars brought the evangelicals into the pro-life movement.

(Dad's political influence persists. Last week one of my father's followers -- Mike Huckabee -- was interviewed by Katie Couric, along with all the other presidential candidates. Couric asked the candidates if they were to be sent to a desert island and could only take one book besides the Bible, what would that that book be? Huckabee answered that he'd take my father's book Whatever Happened To The Human Race?)

Fast forward...

In 2000, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as president, put car manufacturers and oil company's interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a pro-life Republican Congress that did nothing to actually care for pregnant women and babies. And they took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played them for suckers.

The so-called evangelical leadership -- Dobson, Robertson et al. also played the pro-life community for suckers. While thousands of men and women in the crisis pregnancy movement gave of themselves to help women and babies, their evangelical "leaders" did little more than cash in on fundraising opportunities and represent themselves as power-brokers to the craven politicians willing to kowtow to them.

Fast forward...

Today when I listen to Obama speak (and to his remarkable wife, Michelle) what I hear is a world view that actually nurtures life. Obama is trying to lead this country to a place where the intrinsic worth of each individual is celebrated. A leader who believes in hope, the future, trying to save our planet and providing a just and good life for everyone is someone who is actually pro-life.

Conversely the "pro-life" ethic of George W. Bush manifested itself in a series of squandered opportunities to call us to our better natures. After 9/11, Bush told most Americans to go shopping while saddling the few who volunteered for military service with endless tours of duty (something I know a little about since my son was a Marine and deployed several times). The Bush doctrine of life was expressed by starting an unnecessary war in Iraq that has killed thousands of Americans and wounded tens of thousands more.

The society that Obama is calling us to sacrifice for is a place wherein life would be valued not just talked about. As he said in his speech delivered on February 6 in New Orleans, "Too often, we lose our sense of common destiny; that understanding that we are all tied together; that when a woman has less than nothing in this country, that makes us all poorer." Obama was talking about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but his words also apply to our overall view of ourselves..."

Read the rest of the article here.

A Call to Do Anything You Can

2008-11-01T13:43:00.005-04:00

Hi all,

I just felt compelled to write a brief note to encourage anyone out there to do what you can with this election. Since i'm posting this email on my blog too, i have to say that folks supporting McCain have just as tall of an order to actually support him through sound arguments, volunteering, etc., as certainly that's what democracy is about--basic citizen-to-citizen discussion of what our country needs, how those needs can be met, and by whom.

So with that said, i'd just urge those on the side of Obama particularly to realize that the issues are not going to change for the better unless we vote him in, and no one can say they know it will happen; so, in thinking about doing something, anything in these last days (whether you're in a battleground state or not, you can still talk to battleground voters), i'd just say that it's important to remember what i had come back to mind this morning--all of those issues that NEED to change in our country, if it's to be fair, equitable, and a sensible force in the world, really hang in the balance with this election (in my opinion).

The issues that i think of most are as follows--may they help put a jump in your step, as they do for me, in making something happen with this election (and i list some ideas farther down of how), opposed to just hoping something will. Here's a quick list of things that matter and are pushing me to push as much as i can these last few days:

-the basic idea that the 35 million or so Americans who can't afford health insurance should be able to through a fair, balanced system that covers exactly what should be covered, health--whether it's pre-existing problems with health or not, those problems need addressing no less; and simply put, i don't think McCain's plan is well thought out or the thorough reform that we need;
-the fact that Iraq was a huge mistake that McCain supported and Obama, as recalled (and expanded upon) in speeches like this one, showed such judgement in opposing;
-that McCain's single most-trumpeted strength in foreign policy is undercut not only by his misjudgement on our invasion of Iraq, but by his jokes about bombing Iran, his bellicose perspectives on Russia, the numerous times he mistakingly said the central group in this so-called war on terrorism (al Qaeda) was in Iran, and his overall proclivity towards war;
-and of course on top of all of that, the economy's in shambles and McCain will continue to favor the wealthiest at the expense of the most vulnerable, and will likely circle back to the deregulation that played such a hand in the economic problems we've now run into;
-lastly, in a too-short list of the very real reasons we need a different country, Obama will have a healing effect for us in so many ways, whether in the ways hinted at in his speech on racism, or the drive he plans for national civic engagement through expanded volunteering opportunities for people of all ages.

It's hard to know how our country could get much more unfair or bent towards injustice without reaching some tipping point, quite honestly. So those are the reasons that immediately come to mind for me in why everyone should push these last days to make something happen, and they're also the main reasons i bring up when talking to voters.

SO, the thrust of this note is that i hope anyone out there will deliberately plan to talk to voters in one way or another. If you're not in a battleground state, then go to Obama's website and you can call people who are (check here and here on his website, and you can likely find groups getting together to call in your area). You can go door-to-door in important areas, and if you're not in one you can drive to battleground locations too (info here on his site for both), as some of us are doing this afternoon at 3 and tomorrow at 3 if anyone in the area's interested (we're meeting at Murky Coffee in Arlington to drive to some more Republican-leaning parts of Northern VA). And i'll tell you, you may be reticent about talking to people because you don't think you have what it takes to be that frank with people, but if you can agree to issues like the above, then you do. All you have to do is talk from your perspective, and what you'll find, in my honest opinion, is that the issues are on our side. Many, understandably, are open to considering the fact that many simply can't afford health care, or that this Iraq war was a disaster, or that the economic approaches of the Republicans is at fault for much of what has happened, and is tilted towards the wealthy at the expense of the lower/middle class.

As a last push here, i'll tell you that some people just need someone to talk to about this decision. I've talked to, just to name a few:

-a woman who works at a local jail in Staunton, VA who had a pre-existing condition that wasn't covered by her last employer and wanted to know the basics of Obama's health care plan (which you can quickly few here);
-a Chinese-American in Arlington, VA who was voting Republican simply because her family would hold it against her if she didn't, in her own words; but particularly since she said she though Obama was right in so many ways, i put an argument to her about the issues at stake, and believe she may have been moved by it;
-a woman who was voting for McCain in Manassas, VA simply because of abortion, so i was able to talk to her for 20 minutes or so about the other issues, particularly emphasizing the fact that SO many other issues out there having to do with "life" are neglected by the Republicans--the loss of life of Americans, Iraqis and Afghans because of war; the way in which basic health in life is compromised by the lack of health care for many (or through unfair health insurance practices); the lack of basic necessities in life because our economic and tax systems are tilted towards the wealthy; etc.
-a young 20-something middle school teacher in Manassas, VA who was undecided and thinking most specifically about national security in his vote; i talked to him about the things mentioned above and why a sensible, informed, and judicious approach to foreign policy is a lot safer and more humane than McCain's impulsive decision-making, inhumane joking of bombing a country, and insistence on winning wars in a world where stabilizing countries should be more of the focus.

Those are just a handful of those i've talked to, but so many of those i talked to are similar, bringing up this or that point that they heard along the way, with a real willingness to hear someone speak with conviction about the overall picture of the issues out there--especially in these, the last few days before the election, where people feel compelled to honestly think about things (on a whole). We're all capable of sharing our opinion of why we're supporting someone, and that's what i always emphasize. I basically say to people, just to give any uncertain folks out there a sense of what exactly can be said (in person or via phone, though they also provide scripts if people want to go by those):

"Hi, i'm Brendan O'Connor, a local volunteer with the Obama campaign. We're going around talking to potential voters, seeing if they have any questions about Obama, if they're definitely planning to vote on Nov. 4th, and if they've made up their mind between McCain and Obama."

Usually they interject here and answer one or more of those questions. If they don't, then i usually ask more forthrightly if they've decided between one of the candidates; then, if you sense they're undecided, i usually ask "Is there a particular issue you want to look into that will likely determine your vote, or a couple of issues?" Of course you dialogue with them about what any of those issues might be, and go from there (honestly admitting if you don't know much about one). If you sense they want to hear more, or if they don't name any particular issues, i usually go into: "Well i know it's helpful for me to hear an individual's perspective on why they're supporting one candidate or another, so for me there are a few particular issues." Then i usually talk about three things: health care, foreign policy, and the above point about how Obama can be a healing force in our country through his ethics and expansion of things like national service. But those are just a few reasons that i support Obama, the punch comes when someone talks about things that matter most to them, as those are the issues anyone can usually talk more passionately and honestly about. But it can be helpful to think ahead of three reasons you support him before talking to voters, and then even practice a few times going over what you'd say--just be open to making your three reasons a quick list or slightly more in-depth if the person seems willing to hear a little more detail.

All that said, i think it's just about what i heard Joe Biden mentioning on the radio the other day--and no, i don't drink the kool-aid and hear or believe everything these guys say, but this was good; he said, basically, that what allows us to help people is the basic reality that we can make change happen if the current set up of things is not allowing for things to work as they should or could. So here's hoping that this note on my personal perspectives offers some encouragement to go push for affordable health care, fair taxes, sensible, rational foreign policy, and overall, a deliberately more humane, ethical, and reason-based approach to governance and life in general.

All the best,

Brendan

PS--If anyone wants to see some fun pictures of VA election activities around my way, and get a sense of election stuff in VA, check out these shots i have up on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=44600&l=01ec9&id=642878169

Update: I couldn't make up a better example than this video of someone making something happen for Obama:

Update 2: Handy video pushing the same points about VA, while showing people getting out all over the state:

Obama Meets the Shenandoah Valley

2008-10-29T22:32:00.035-04:00

"I am so grateful to be in this gorgeous Shenandoah Valley. I am so grateful to be with all the people of Harrisonburg and the Valley as a whole, and here at JMU."

-Barack Obama, addressing 8,000-person crowd at JMU

So yeah, that's definitely a shot of Obama's plane at the Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport on Tuesday, in none other than Weyers Cave, VA (a wee little town 15 minutes from where I grew up, with an airport just as small); and yeah, those are also our boo-yow Blue Ridge Mountains in the background--aren't they beautiful? Obama was coming in for a rally at JMU, in Harrisonburg, VA, but he was, believe it or not (for you fellow Stauntonians out there), planning a stop in Staunton before that!! Unfortunately he got in late, as this piece in our Staunton paper talks about (fun piece by the way, gives a good sense of the hubbub of having a candidate in the area). The Daily News Leader there in Staunton also has a good collection of online pics they took of the whole episode of Obama landing, the security folks running all over the place, etc. You can also see some of the dichotomy of folks in the area with the comments they left on the paper's website for the various articles they did on the visit (like this one here).

As far as the JMU rally though, my mom, one of my little sisters, my grandmother, and some family friends started standing in line at 1:45 or so Tuesday to see Obama, and got in about two hours later--that's cause there were 20,000 people who showed up. Only 8,000 got in, with the other 12 left apparently hanging outside. Here's a pic to the right that our family friend took of Obama inside, though hopefully there are some more I can post in an update later. I'll also post some other shots from the area and a video of some parts of the speech a little farther down.

But I'll tell you, my grandmother is a rock star, making the trek down from DC to see him speak. She's also a real pragmatist though, and so I was surprised to hear her mention how she found herself stirred when she heard Obama in person talk about the idea of motivating people by hope instead of fear (and believe me, she's a politico to the heart, living in DC most of her life, so she's heard tons of his speeches, read about him throughout the year-and-a-half of the campaign, etc.). I know I've told people who have shirked at the idea of Obama's hope-talk that hope can mean everything or it can mean nothing, depending on whether there is any substance behind it.

In my view there is with Obama. In talking to my grandmother tonight about the rally, it made me think about the seemingly-eternal comparison presidential candidates will have to our goliath US presidents, such as FDR. Some would say Roosevelt did some bad, but many say he did much more good (I actually watched an interesting news piece tonight on PBS' NewsHour about FDR's handling of the economy in a financial crisis, with a comparison to today's economic situation; for anyone interested you can listen to the audio here). But if a presidential candidate were to ever reproduce some of the successes of FDR, and/or the related public approval that won him four terms in office, then it would most certainly be through bold propositions of what might be, not by scaring people into what's "safe." Obama is comfortable in the realm of what might be, but, as with anything new, it takes an openness to change, an energy to work towards what might be (which many would call "hope"), and, as my grandmother pointed out, an innovative spirit.

FDR is known for having said "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something" (emphasis added). I have no fear that Obama would try things--but I at the same time think he will balance innovation with the methodical approach he's become known for. In that respect, he may even, if I can dare to say it, surpass FDR in ways; for FDR, according to the above piece I watched tonight, would aribtrarily raise and lower the price of gold to see what happened (though they noted that most else he did was much more pointed and purposeful). Perhaps the ever-increasing respect and related ubiquity of science and research will also allow an Obama administration the opportunity to do some precision governing that wasn't as possible during FDR's time (to certain extents; though I'm sad to say that Bush doesn't appear to have that same excuse for some things).

Enough said in that respect though, now for some random Shenandoah Valley-related stuff--here's a few front page shots from newspapers in Harrisonburg (at left) and Staunton (which again, is where I grew up, half-an-hour South of Harrisonburg, where Obama spoke; you can click on the pictures to enlarge, where you'll see a 78-year old woman in tears in the Harrisonburg paper as she listens to Obama speak; you can also read about how "Daily swim keeps man fit"--I love it):

Check it out though, we even got a piece on a New York Times blog post about the huge event it was to have a presidential candidate come to the Valley--after all, as Obama points out in his speech, "the last time a Democratic presidential nominee visited the city was 148 years ago when Stephen Douglas, another Illinois senator...came through en route to losing the election to Abraham Lincoln."

Lastly, here's some video clips from the JMU rally that the Daily News Leader put together:

Photo credit of plane above: The Daily News Leader

The Value, and Values, of Barack: Why He Gave That Speech On Race

2008-10-27T20:46:00.003-04:00

As a part of PBS' Frontline piece "The Choice 2008" (which I hear is a good look at the candidates), they interviewed Obama's chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod. At one point they asked him: "When the Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright comments came out and the whole hubbub happened, what were your thoughts? How did you decide to deal with it?" This is how he responded, and it blows me away to see the depth of value in Obama that it reflects:

"The Rev. Wright episode was one of those episodes in which I began to see a president in real stark terms, because the stories broke; it was a feeding frenzy in the media. He was in Washington voting until 1:00 in the morning. We had set up some editorial board interviews the next day in Chicago on a different, also challenging subject. So he flew back into the city in the middle of the day on Friday, and he issued a statement on Rev. Wright -- we had written one; he rewrote it. Went off to his editorial boards for three hours, went on television, sat for three or four different interviews on Rev. Wright, and then said that night, 'I want to do a speech on race; I want to put this in context.'

He had mentioned the desire to make a speech like this before, but this seemed like the right time. And he said, 'And I want to do it on Monday or Tuesday.' He said, 'But I have to write it.'

So he went off campaigning on Saturday and came home. At 9:30 Saturday night he dictated an outline to one of his speechwriters, who shot it back to him on Sunday. Sunday night at 10:00, he started working on it again, and worked until 3:00 in the morning. We took off at 8:00 in the morning the next day, on Monday. The speech was Tuesday. Campaigned all day in Pennsylvania, and then from 9:30 till 2:00 in the morning on Monday, he finished the speech.

Knowing his habits, I just went to sleep, thinking I'd wake up in the middle of the night because the speech would be there in the middle of the night. And that's what happened. And I read that speech, and I just e-mailed him back and said, "This is why you should be president," because it was so filled with wisdom and so profound in many ways that it just blew me away that a guy in the midst of all this chaos, with no sleep and in the middle of the night, could produce that kind of thought and that kind of work." (emphasis added)

Take a look at the speech he came up with, below, that offers a glimpse of the hopeful--yes hopeful--perspective that Obama has to offer our country on this issue (in addition to the undoubtedly important approaches he has to foreign policy, energy, civic engagement, health care, etc., etc.). By the way, I wrote a piece on this speech when he gave it back in March that highlights some of the parts that struck me the most. Here's the speech (with 5,056,568 views on You Tube so far, and that's only for this version of it):