I've been posting Robert Reich's essays (usually on matters having to do with the economy) to Guernica Magazine's blog since before Obama was president, and rarely has he had a negative thing to say about the President. Never has he torn the administration apart like he does in his post today at Guernica.
I tend to stand along with Mr. Reich on financial matters; I like what he has to say and usually agree with him. That being said, his post today worries me immensely. It seems that President Obama has lost sight of who is important in these matters (while some may argue that his sight was never on anyone but Wall Street).
Read Robert Reich's latest (and scathing) piece at Guernica, here.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Approaches of John McCain and Barack Obama
As we saw so often during the presidential race, the approaches to foreign policy by John McCain and Barack Obama couldn't be farther apart. On the elections in Iran and the subsequent protests we see the same old, same old from Senator McCain: American tough talk that has only served to turn more people in the world against us, than it has rallied them to our interests.
In a New York Times article today (as well as many other places reporting on this story) we see what will surely come of U.S. officials taking a hard line on this issue:
There's no sense in making it seem like we are attempting to plant a pro-Western politician, as we have been known to do so often. Let the Iranian people take up the fight. When will those of John McCain's ilk realize that tough talk isn't always the best way to go about things? As John Kerry put it in a recent Times op-ed:
In a New York Times article today (as well as many other places reporting on this story) we see what will surely come of U.S. officials taking a hard line on this issue:
"The [Iranian] Foreign Ministry, meantime, summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents American interests in Tehran, in protest of what it called “meddling” by the United States into its affairs because of statements by American officials on Iran’s elections."
There's no sense in making it seem like we are attempting to plant a pro-Western politician, as we have been known to do so often. Let the Iranian people take up the fight. When will those of John McCain's ilk realize that tough talk isn't always the best way to go about things? As John Kerry put it in a recent Times op-ed:
"If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch...
[I]f the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one...
What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a “dialogue among civilizations” and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel."
Labels:
Barack Obama,
iran,
john kerry,
John McCain
Monday, June 8, 2009
Norman Solomon on Guernica Magazine
"And henceforth," Albert Camus wrote, "the only honorable course will be to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions."
Read Norman Solomon's article about war, and how words are used to further our military state and mask the human costs of war.
Read Norman Solomon's article about war, and how words are used to further our military state and mask the human costs of war.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Guernica Magazine,
GuernicaMag,
military,
Norman Solomon,
pentagon
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Profits For Some or Health Care For All?
People like Rick Scott, and physicians and surgeons who are in bed with Big Pharma and Big Insurance are trying to scare the public out of a public option for health care, for one reason and one reason only: profit. And while it's despicable and shameful, it's anything but new. Remember when somehow George W. came out looking like the patriotic soldier and John Kerry was painted a coward? The swiftboating is in full force again. Luckily (maybe) in today's interconnected world it's getting harder and harder for these people's true intentions to be masked, and easier and easier for people to spread the word.
So, who is Rick Scott?
From Bill Moyers Journal last night:
From Robert Reich on Guernica Magazine:
From "The Cost Conundrum" by Atul Gawande (the New Yorker, June 1)
Contact your Representative and Senators today and tell them we need a public health option. The days of such greed in our health care system must become a thing of the past now:
Write your Representative here.
Contact the Senate here.
So, who is Rick Scott?
From Bill Moyers Journal last night:
BILL MOYERS: CPRights.org is sponsored by Richard Scott, who had to leave his company. The largest health care chain in the world, Columbia/HCA. After the company was caught ripping off the feds and state governments for hundreds of millions dollars in bogus Medicare and Medicaid payments. He waltzed away with a $10 million severance deal. And $300 million worth of stock. And here he is telling us that his way of health reform is the way the public should go. Now, how does the public get the facts about an ad like that. And a guy like Rick Scott?
BROOKE GLADSTONE: How did you get the facts? The fact is that I've seen Scott being identified, more or less, as you did, in every single story about this campaign. You know, I think that there is now a willingness, as there wasn't even during the Kerry swiftboating earlier on, and certainly not during the sinking of the Clinton health care plan, to acknowledge the source of these ads. I think that all of us, as news consumers, as the American people, are becoming more and more aware that just because you see it on TV doesn't mean that it's true.
JAY ROSEN: I think that an ad like that is assuming that the receiver of it is an isolated person, who hearing these scary tales of government-run health care will therefore pick up the phone and pressure Congress. And the way the ad imagines the viewer is in social isolation. Where no other messages will get through. And I think that is what's changing. Is that people are not isolated anymore. They're not sitting on the end of their television sets and receiving messages from the center only.
And in a way you could see these kinds of campaigns where you raise money from rich people to scare less educated people. Or low information voters, as they call them in the political trade. As a sign of weakness. The rhetoric might be more furious, the ads might be more outrageous. But it's because this kind of communication is actually weaker and it's working less.
From Robert Reich on Guernica Magazine:
"I'ved poked around Washington [yesterday], talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.
You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits."
More at Guernica Magazine...
From "The Cost Conundrum" by Atul Gawande (the New Yorker, June 1)
"Health-care costs ultimately arise from the accumulation of individual decisions doctors make about which services and treatments to write an order for. The most expensive piece of medical equipment, as the saying goes, is a doctor’s pen. And, as a rule, hospital executives don’t own the pen caps. Doctors do...
Other [physicians] think of the money as a means of improving what they do. They think about how to use the insurance money to maybe install electronic health records with colleagues, or provide easier phone and e-mail access, or offer expanded hours. They hire an extra nurse to monitor diabetic patients more closely, and to make sure that patients don’t miss their mammograms and pap smears and colonoscopies.
Then there are the physicians who see their practice primarily as a revenue stream. They instruct their secretary to have patients who call with follow-up questions schedule an appointment, because insurers don’t pay for phone calls, only office visits. They consider providing Botox injections for cash. They take a Doppler ultrasound course, buy a machine, and start doing their patients’ scans themselves, so that the insurance payments go to them rather than to the hospital. They figure out ways to increase their high-margin work and decrease their low-margin work. This is a business, after all."
Contact your Representative and Senators today and tell them we need a public health option. The days of such greed in our health care system must become a thing of the past now:
Write your Representative here.
Contact the Senate here.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
bill moyers,
congress,
healthcare,
rick scott,
Robert Reich
Friday, June 5, 2009
Public Health Care
Sign MoveOn's petition showing Congress your support for President Obama's health care reform.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The 44th President of the United States

My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land -- a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and 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.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
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 shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted -- for those who 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 toward prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
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. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
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 nonbelievers. 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. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment -- a moment that will define a generation -- it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- hard work and honesty, 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.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed -- why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
My Response to "Drinking the Kool-Aid"
The joke, and possibly the actual concern of the day seems to be that too many Obama supporters are just "drinking the Kool-Aid,"* or in other words, we believe too strongly in this one man's ability to bring about change. It's silly, really, and those who will fall prey to this are destined for heartbreak. More importantly, they are missing the message, the point of this whole campaign: it has never been about this one man, no matter what "cult of personality" labels some have tried to pin on him. Yes, Obama has certain attributes that have allowed him an unlikely and ridiculously fast ascension, but many of these can be found in any great leader. Again, what has led him to the presidency is not so much him, as his ability to make the rest of us believe, and further still, to want to do something about what we believe in. The difference, therefore, will come from us, not him. Let there be no mistake, as I told my father over all these months, the man who told me (and with whom I wholeheartedly agreed) on those occasions when my fervor for Obama started boiling, "Obama is no savior," the real work began on November 5.
That being said, here are my two initial responses to people who are joking or are genuinely concerned about succumbing to "Drinking the Kool-Aid":
1) Don't. It simple. Just don't. Don't believe that Obama can do everything all by himself or even with his staff. That--to use a tired expression--is politics as usual. The change that is being called for is not just a change of president. The change is in the citizenry's apathy, in our indifference. Don't be apathetic and don't be indifferent and you won't have drunk anything. Here's one way those of you in St. Paul can get involved: The Lab, a program through the St. Paul Public Schools that offers a small group experience where youth are inspired, encouraged and empowered to discover, understand and share their voices and the truth of their lives, is always looking for volunteers. If you're not in St. Paul, 826 National is another organization always looking for volunteers to work with kids. There are seven 826 chapters across the country, from Seattle to LA to New York. Their goal is to assist students ages six to eighteen with their writing skills, and to help teachers get their classes excited about writing.
Volunteering some of your time to your community is one concrete way you can have an impact. These are just two places that need volunteers. The list is endless (if you know of others, please leave suggestions in the "comments" portion of this post). Don't let others decide how things will be different. Change them yourself.
2) I just picked up the book Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency by Robert Kuttner. (Please also leave book recommendations on this topic in the comments portion of the post.) Though I'm only about 20 pages into it, it seems like a book that will show how Obama must stay true to progressive ideas while convincing those on the other side of the aisle to come closer to those (progressive) ideas, rather than the reverse: the president moving toward the center. On page seven, Mr. Kuttner makes it clear that he hasn't drunk anything:
Those are scary, but true words. I, for one, don't want this presidency to be a failed one. So, again, if you don't want to "drink the Kool-Aide," then don't. Stay involved. Volunteer. Keep reading about policy issues and decisions (just because David Plouffe doesn't send you an email about it, doesn't mean you can't find the information for yourself). Keep following Obama like you have over the last year (or two). Just don't rely on him to do everything. I'm telling you, you will be heartbroken if you do.
*From Wiki: "Having 'drunk the Kool-Aid' also refers to being a strong or fervent believer in a particular philosophy or mission — wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues."
**Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
That being said, here are my two initial responses to people who are joking or are genuinely concerned about succumbing to "Drinking the Kool-Aid":
1) Don't. It simple. Just don't. Don't believe that Obama can do everything all by himself or even with his staff. That--to use a tired expression--is politics as usual. The change that is being called for is not just a change of president. The change is in the citizenry's apathy, in our indifference. Don't be apathetic and don't be indifferent and you won't have drunk anything. Here's one way those of you in St. Paul can get involved: The Lab, a program through the St. Paul Public Schools that offers a small group experience where youth are inspired, encouraged and empowered to discover, understand and share their voices and the truth of their lives, is always looking for volunteers. If you're not in St. Paul, 826 National is another organization always looking for volunteers to work with kids. There are seven 826 chapters across the country, from Seattle to LA to New York. Their goal is to assist students ages six to eighteen with their writing skills, and to help teachers get their classes excited about writing.
Volunteering some of your time to your community is one concrete way you can have an impact. These are just two places that need volunteers. The list is endless (if you know of others, please leave suggestions in the "comments" portion of this post). Don't let others decide how things will be different. Change them yourself.
2) I just picked up the book Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency by Robert Kuttner. (Please also leave book recommendations on this topic in the comments portion of the post.) Though I'm only about 20 pages into it, it seems like a book that will show how Obama must stay true to progressive ideas while convincing those on the other side of the aisle to come closer to those (progressive) ideas, rather than the reverse: the president moving toward the center. On page seven, Mr. Kuttner makes it clear that he hasn't drunk anything:
So either Barack Obama will be a transformative president, or the bad economic circumstances that he inherits will sink his promise and America's, and the moment will have been lost. He will be a great president--or a failed one, his presidency grounded "in shallows and miseries."**
Those are scary, but true words. I, for one, don't want this presidency to be a failed one. So, again, if you don't want to "drink the Kool-Aide," then don't. Stay involved. Volunteer. Keep reading about policy issues and decisions (just because David Plouffe doesn't send you an email about it, doesn't mean you can't find the information for yourself). Keep following Obama like you have over the last year (or two). Just don't rely on him to do everything. I'm telling you, you will be heartbroken if you do.
*From Wiki: "Having 'drunk the Kool-Aid' also refers to being a strong or fervent believer in a particular philosophy or mission — wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues."
**Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Dear Mr. President
Dear Mr. President,
I have had tears in my eyes on and off since last night when you took the stage in Grant Park, Chicago. When you implored us to fully believe that mantra "Yes we can," repeating it calmly and humbly, I knew it was finally true.
Your face, as you walked onto that stage last night held something often shadowed by your confidence (though your confidence is of a different sort than we have come to know, so refreshingly lacking in arrogance). You were humbled and in your humility, you cemented your humanity. And it was all there on your face, before you spoke one word. People have praised and attacked your oration these past several months. But there, standing before tens of thousands in Chicago and millions more watching across the world, you did not need to say a word. Your face held more eloquence than any speech you have ever given.
When you did finally speak, your modesty did not allow you to run away to some perch of hyperbole and expectation, too lofty to reach. Even in this moment of jubilation, you were realistic. And you showed great respect for your listeners by not making grand promises that would leave us disheartened in the end. Instead you did what you have done until now. You told us the truth. You told us that the road ahead will be long. The road ahead will be difficult. And you reminded us once again that it was not you that allowed for your standing there in Grant Park (though our praise may outweigh your modesty today), but us. As you have called on us before, you asked us to believe not just in your ability to bring change, but to believe in ours as well.
This last point is what will make you a great leader, Mr. President. No matter how many times it is repeated, let this fact never lose the weight it carries: You have inspired millions of people across the world to believe that their voices matter. Where before they had none, today they have one. And it is loud. And it is clear. And it is spoken through you, Mr. President.
As the world celebrates--and it is truly a world celebration--we recognize that there is so much work to be done. You would not let us forget this, even in your proudest moment. Today the real work begins. Having taken a giant leap for man, we are still great leaps and bounds from where we wish to be. You know this, Mr. President, as well as anyone. Still, today, facing in this new direction, the sun shining brightly on my face, I join the world in this celebration. And I say with more fervor than I have ever said before: I am proud to be an American. Because being an American today once again feels as though I am a part of the world.
Thank you for that, Mr. President.
Yours sincerely,
David Doody
I have had tears in my eyes on and off since last night when you took the stage in Grant Park, Chicago. When you implored us to fully believe that mantra "Yes we can," repeating it calmly and humbly, I knew it was finally true.
Your face, as you walked onto that stage last night held something often shadowed by your confidence (though your confidence is of a different sort than we have come to know, so refreshingly lacking in arrogance). You were humbled and in your humility, you cemented your humanity. And it was all there on your face, before you spoke one word. People have praised and attacked your oration these past several months. But there, standing before tens of thousands in Chicago and millions more watching across the world, you did not need to say a word. Your face held more eloquence than any speech you have ever given.
When you did finally speak, your modesty did not allow you to run away to some perch of hyperbole and expectation, too lofty to reach. Even in this moment of jubilation, you were realistic. And you showed great respect for your listeners by not making grand promises that would leave us disheartened in the end. Instead you did what you have done until now. You told us the truth. You told us that the road ahead will be long. The road ahead will be difficult. And you reminded us once again that it was not you that allowed for your standing there in Grant Park (though our praise may outweigh your modesty today), but us. As you have called on us before, you asked us to believe not just in your ability to bring change, but to believe in ours as well.
This last point is what will make you a great leader, Mr. President. No matter how many times it is repeated, let this fact never lose the weight it carries: You have inspired millions of people across the world to believe that their voices matter. Where before they had none, today they have one. And it is loud. And it is clear. And it is spoken through you, Mr. President.
As the world celebrates--and it is truly a world celebration--we recognize that there is so much work to be done. You would not let us forget this, even in your proudest moment. Today the real work begins. Having taken a giant leap for man, we are still great leaps and bounds from where we wish to be. You know this, Mr. President, as well as anyone. Still, today, facing in this new direction, the sun shining brightly on my face, I join the world in this celebration. And I say with more fervor than I have ever said before: I am proud to be an American. Because being an American today once again feels as though I am a part of the world.
Thank you for that, Mr. President.
Yours sincerely,
David Doody
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The RNC That Should Have Been
I love the editing in this clip. Just how confused and sort of pissed off McCain looks. (Thanks for sending, Molly.)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Pictures of Obama
A while back MoveOn had a contest called "Manifest Hope Gallery Contest...to help spread the word about Barack Obama and the inspirational themes of his candidacy." Some of the finalists' artwork is pretty great, like this one from Larissa Brown Marantz from Orange, CA.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Blaming Bill Clinton for the Bush Years? Really?
I don't usually respond to articles I read online, but his one kind of pissed me off, so I wrote this. Turns out the Huffington Post doesn't let you post more than 250 words. Probably for the best, some people (ahem) can go on and on.
Here's the story from Paul Slansky at the HP about how Bill Clinton is to blame for the Bush years and how it will "be on" him if Obama loses. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?
And here's my (extended) response (I can't even find my truncated version in the comment section of the article. Shows how much I do this. If anyone finds it--under dluke--let me know what page it's on.):
I'm assuming someone already would have mentioned all of this, but I it's important enough to state again. First, it's not Bill's job to do anything for Obama. It's just not. Second, blaming Bill Clinton and the blowjobs he received while in office for the Bush years is absolutely absurd. I, as a Democrat, am offended by such an accusation. Let's not lose sight of who is actually to blame for the Bush year, namely, Bush and his cronies. To suggest it was in some way Clinton's fault is a joke. If you want to look to some Democrats for blame, why not look at the complete ineptitude of both the Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns. But certainly not Bill Clinton. If a campaign needs one person to put them over the top (as Mr. Slansky is suggesting for the Obama campaign, and I'm sure would be his explanation for the Gore "loss.") then some serious retooling of that campaign needs to be done. Third, having Bill campaign as rigorously as Mr. Slansky is calling for could easily do as much damage as good. I know many independent voters who can't stand Hillary or Bill and their praise for Obama does nothing for these voters if not make them think twice about voting for him. So, if you want to be as black and white as this piece is, one could say that if, for the last month of this campaign Bill does what Mr. Slansky is suggesting and campaigns so rigorously, and Obama loses one of the states where, had Bill not been such a strong supporter, Obama would have won that state, then Mr. Slansky and this whole article is to blame for the WarFest that would be McCain/Palin. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Of course it does. As does blaming Bill Clinton for any of the past eight years or the next four. Lastly, "We forgave you for Monica, Bill..."? Who's "We"? You are definitely not talking about me. I have never felt a need to "forgive" Bill for anything he did with Monica. His response to the issue can be called into question, but that is not what is being suggested here. What is being suggested here is that "we" need to forgive Bill for the unholy act of an extramarital affair. As though "we" are in some righteous place to do so. That kind of speak sounds far too similar to things that come out of Sarah Palin's mouth, and I for one don't associate with the "we" referred to here.
Here's the story from Paul Slansky at the HP about how Bill Clinton is to blame for the Bush years and how it will "be on" him if Obama loses. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?
And here's my (extended) response (I can't even find my truncated version in the comment section of the article. Shows how much I do this. If anyone finds it--under dluke--let me know what page it's on.):
I'm assuming someone already would have mentioned all of this, but I it's important enough to state again. First, it's not Bill's job to do anything for Obama. It's just not. Second, blaming Bill Clinton and the blowjobs he received while in office for the Bush years is absolutely absurd. I, as a Democrat, am offended by such an accusation. Let's not lose sight of who is actually to blame for the Bush year, namely, Bush and his cronies. To suggest it was in some way Clinton's fault is a joke. If you want to look to some Democrats for blame, why not look at the complete ineptitude of both the Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns. But certainly not Bill Clinton. If a campaign needs one person to put them over the top (as Mr. Slansky is suggesting for the Obama campaign, and I'm sure would be his explanation for the Gore "loss.") then some serious retooling of that campaign needs to be done. Third, having Bill campaign as rigorously as Mr. Slansky is calling for could easily do as much damage as good. I know many independent voters who can't stand Hillary or Bill and their praise for Obama does nothing for these voters if not make them think twice about voting for him. So, if you want to be as black and white as this piece is, one could say that if, for the last month of this campaign Bill does what Mr. Slansky is suggesting and campaigns so rigorously, and Obama loses one of the states where, had Bill not been such a strong supporter, Obama would have won that state, then Mr. Slansky and this whole article is to blame for the WarFest that would be McCain/Palin. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Of course it does. As does blaming Bill Clinton for any of the past eight years or the next four. Lastly, "We forgave you for Monica, Bill..."? Who's "We"? You are definitely not talking about me. I have never felt a need to "forgive" Bill for anything he did with Monica. His response to the issue can be called into question, but that is not what is being suggested here. What is being suggested here is that "we" need to forgive Bill for the unholy act of an extramarital affair. As though "we" are in some righteous place to do so. That kind of speak sounds far too similar to things that come out of Sarah Palin's mouth, and I for one don't associate with the "we" referred to here.
What to do About the Finacial Crisis: Some Ideas From Great Minds
I have been posting all of Robert Reich's blog posts about the issues on Wall Street lately at Guernica Mag. He was the secretary of labor under President Clinton and gives very clear explanations and solutions to the current woes. Read those here, here, here, here, and here.
And then there's this from Barack Obama late last night:
And then there's this from Barack Obama late last night:
The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.
Congress and the President are debating a bailout of our financial institutions with a price tag of $700 billion or more in taxpayer dollars. We cannot underestimate our responsibility in taking such an enormous step.
Whatever shape our recovery plan takes, it must be guided by core principles of fairness, balance, and responsibility to one another.
Please sign on to show your support for an economic recovery plan based on the following:
• No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.
• Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.
• Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight.
Show your support and encourage your friends and family to join you:
http://my.barackobama.com/ourplan
The failed economic policies and the same corrupt culture that led us into this mess will not help get us out of it. We need to get to work immediately on reforming the broken government -- and the broken politics -- that allowed this crisis to happen in the first place.
And we have to understand that a recovery package is just the beginning. We have a plan that will guarantee our long-term prosperity -- including tax cuts for 95 percent of families, an economic stimulus package that creates millions of new jobs and leads us towards energy independence, and health care that is affordable to every American.
It won't be easy. The kind of change we're looking for never is.
But if we work together and stand by these principles, we can get through this crisis and emerge a stronger nation.
Thank you,
Barack
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Guernica Magazine,
Politics,
Robert Reich
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Another Conservative for Obama
Any rationally thinking person can see the game John McCain is playing. If I were a conservative (especially one with strong religious beliefs) or a woman I would be offended by his attacks on my intelligence. That is apparently how this guy, Wick Allison, feels. He has a column in his magazine, D, that addresses why he feels Obama is the better presidential candidate. The article is titled "A Conservative for Obama." Read it here>>>
It's refreshing to hear from conservatives who aren't buying McCains BS, especially from one who used to be on the board of directors of the National Review, a magazine that I am not all that familiar with, but in which today this idiotic story was published as the main feature on its home page. Really? If that's the type of nonsense you lead with, I don't feel much of a need to go any deeper.
(Thanks for sending the article, Molly)
It's refreshing to hear from conservatives who aren't buying McCains BS, especially from one who used to be on the board of directors of the National Review, a magazine that I am not all that familiar with, but in which today this idiotic story was published as the main feature on its home page. Really? If that's the type of nonsense you lead with, I don't feel much of a need to go any deeper.
(Thanks for sending the article, Molly)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
In Case You Haven't Seen It
I can't say it better than my friend Paul, so:
The most important part of that quote is, "Whether you agree with it or not, a vice president should have some semblance of an idea what it means." It hearkens back to John Stewart's comments on the Obama/elitist issue: These people should be a whole lot smarter than us. So smart, in fact, that if we were to ever walk into a room with them, we should immediately feel embarrassed by just how stupid we are. I don't want someone in power who I think I might possibly be smarter than. I have enough friends; I don't give a fuck if I think it might be a good time to have a beer with one of them.
And a clue to Palin: It ain't no "worldview," it's an approach to foreign policy that took us preemptively into Iraq, and it could take us preemptively into Iran, North Korea, or Syria. Whether you agree with it or not, a vice president should have some semblance of an idea what it means. A lot is at stake folks.
The most important part of that quote is, "Whether you agree with it or not, a vice president should have some semblance of an idea what it means." It hearkens back to John Stewart's comments on the Obama/elitist issue: These people should be a whole lot smarter than us. So smart, in fact, that if we were to ever walk into a room with them, we should immediately feel embarrassed by just how stupid we are. I don't want someone in power who I think I might possibly be smarter than. I have enough friends; I don't give a fuck if I think it might be a good time to have a beer with one of them.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Facts About John McCain's "Education" Ad
Here is everything you need to know about that obscene ad that John McCain put out a couple of days ago. From FactCheck.org.
My favorite parts:
Even if we wanted to argue about the merits of the bill, which I would be more than happy to do, as would Obama (which he did against Alan Keyes' same accusations in 2004), it's not even something that he could take credit for!
And this:
They continue to just make things up. It's unbelievable.
My favorite parts:
The bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
Even if we wanted to argue about the merits of the bill, which I would be more than happy to do, as would Obama (which he did against Alan Keyes' same accusations in 2004), it's not even something that he could take credit for!
And this:
The last quote used in McCain's ad is attributed to the Chicago Tribune and says that Obama is "a 'staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' " This is actually from a piece by Steve Chapman, former associate editor of The New Republic and contributing writer to Slate and the conservative publications The Weekly Standard and The National Review. The piece isn't a Chicago Tribune editorial at all, though it's made to appear that way in the ad. And Chapman, none too pleased about how his opinion piece was featured in the ad, responded in a Sept. 10 Tribune blog entry with this:
Chapman: ... the ad itself doesn't bother explaining how the candidates differ on school vouchers, the subject of my column. Instead, it insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe that Obama thinks kindergarteners should be taught how to use condoms before they're taught to read. Right. And Joe Biden eats puppies for breakfast.
They continue to just make things up. It's unbelievable.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
616 Votes to Win the 1996 Mayor's Election in Wasilla, Alaska. I Bet Obama Talked to That Many People In a Couple of Days Back in the Windy City
I have to admit that I have not finished watching Palin's speech from last night; I was simply too pissed off by what I was watching to take it all in one shot. I did, however, listen long enough to hear her joke about Obama's experience as a community organizer, which pissed me off more than anything up to that point.
Here's a response sent out from the Obama camp today that I agree strongly with.
From David Plouffe, Campaign Manager, Obama for America:
And check out this story breaking down all the lies Palin and McCain and their cronies are passing off as their talking points.
Here's a response sent out from the Obama camp today that I agree strongly with.
From David Plouffe, Campaign Manager, Obama for America:
Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed.
Let's clarify something for them right now.
Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.
And it's no surprise that, after eight years of George Bush, millions of people have found that by coming together in their local communities they can change the course of history. That promise is what our campaign has been about from the beginning.
Throughout our history, ordinary people have made good on America's promise by organizing for change from the bottom up. Community organizing is the foundation of the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, labor rights, and the 40-hour workweek. And it's happening today in church basements and community centers and living rooms across America.
Meanwhile, we still haven't gotten a single idea during the entire Republican convention about the economy and how to lift a middle class so harmed by the Bush-McCain policies.
It's now clear that John McCain's campaign has decided that desperate lies and personal attacks -- on Barack Obama and on you -- are the only way they can earn a third term for the Bush policies that McCain has supported more than 90 percent of the time.
But you can send a crystal clear message.
Enough is enough. Make your voice heard loud and clear by making a $25 donation right now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/fightback
Thank you for joining more than 2 million ordinary Americans who refuse to be silenced.
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
And check out this story breaking down all the lies Palin and McCain and their cronies are passing off as their talking points.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
David Plouffe,
John McCain,
Sarah Palin
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
John McCain's Disingenuous Years
The other day I was discussing my thoughts about John McCain (as I find myself doing often these days) with someone who is still on the fence and who has obviously been affected by the smear tactics used by Republicans against Barack Obama (read a fantastic short piece about this matter from Robert Reich that recently went up on Guernica). This person is one of the many who doesn't necessarily vote Republican or Democrat; he believes that neither party--or anyone in politics for that matter--has his best interest in mind. He groups them all together as one lump of disingenuous, to use his word, assholes. I can't necessarily disagree with that sentiment. I do think there is a tremendous amount of self-interest in any political endeavor. And this won't ever drastically change while we are under a strictly two-party system. There are just too many political moves one must make when adhering to a certain dogma, to which a number of other people have hitched their wagons. That being said, on this point I argued that in this particular election we at least have an option who is drastically different than any other in recent memory. I do not need to give Barack Obama's life story here, since he has done so already in a book and many others have given shortened versions elsewhere. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that that story is radically different than the upbringing--and in some cases it's more like breeding--of many of our current politicians. He is not a Clinton, a Kennedy, or a Bush (Full disclosure: I will count myself among the camp that now considers John McCain a third Bush). I told my discussion partner that if he actually wanted to cast a vote in November for someone different than what he has seen, then there is really only one choice. (To this person's credit, in my eyes anyway, he does put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, having voted for both Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura. An attempt anyway to jettison the two-party system.)
But this whole discussion isn't why I am writing this. What I have been pondering lately more than how Obama is different than those who have come before is just how far John McCain has come to being exactly the same, or worse, than those who have come before. What sparked my interest most in this discussion I was having was my discussion partner's statement that at least John McCain was "genuine," to which I replied, "I may have said the same thing eight years ago." Now, eight years ago I was a junior in college and maybe more worried about a creative writing class, the lacrosse club, and which party I was going to attend on a Friday night than about the senator from Arizona. That is to say, my political interests didn't get fully piqued until the nominees for both parties were already in place, so I wasn't fully aware of all the skullduggery that led to G.W. being awarded that nomination. But it does seem to me that at least back then John McCain stood for something. Even if what he stood for wouldn't always have fallen in line with my beliefs, he seemed to stand behind his own thoughts and opinions. His indictments of Bush in those days were scathing, to no political gain. But these last years have been nothing but a political ploy on the AZ Senator's part. Once McCain knew he could not beat Bush he started, slowly at first and now full steam ahead, to put his ducks in a row for this very moment, for the chance to be President of the United States. Beliefs be damned, the man only wants one thing. That title is his only desire, and apparently his only reason for anything he does right now. I see no other way to explain how someone who was courted by the Democrats four years ago to jump ship and run as Vice President with John Kerry could fall so in line with the Right's agenda, other than, as Robert Reich puts it, the ends justify the means. What I have seen from John McCain over the last eight years does not strike me as actions I would attribute to a "genuine" person.
Crossposted at Guernica
But this whole discussion isn't why I am writing this. What I have been pondering lately more than how Obama is different than those who have come before is just how far John McCain has come to being exactly the same, or worse, than those who have come before. What sparked my interest most in this discussion I was having was my discussion partner's statement that at least John McCain was "genuine," to which I replied, "I may have said the same thing eight years ago." Now, eight years ago I was a junior in college and maybe more worried about a creative writing class, the lacrosse club, and which party I was going to attend on a Friday night than about the senator from Arizona. That is to say, my political interests didn't get fully piqued until the nominees for both parties were already in place, so I wasn't fully aware of all the skullduggery that led to G.W. being awarded that nomination. But it does seem to me that at least back then John McCain stood for something. Even if what he stood for wouldn't always have fallen in line with my beliefs, he seemed to stand behind his own thoughts and opinions. His indictments of Bush in those days were scathing, to no political gain. But these last years have been nothing but a political ploy on the AZ Senator's part. Once McCain knew he could not beat Bush he started, slowly at first and now full steam ahead, to put his ducks in a row for this very moment, for the chance to be President of the United States. Beliefs be damned, the man only wants one thing. That title is his only desire, and apparently his only reason for anything he does right now. I see no other way to explain how someone who was courted by the Democrats four years ago to jump ship and run as Vice President with John Kerry could fall so in line with the Right's agenda, other than, as Robert Reich puts it, the ends justify the means. What I have seen from John McCain over the last eight years does not strike me as actions I would attribute to a "genuine" person.
Crossposted at Guernica
Thursday, July 24, 2008
He Said What?
In the same interview with Katie Couric that I posted about yesterday, John McCain actually said the following:
Correction, sir: If Sen. Obama had had his way, we'd actually never had this war. And we'd never have been in Iraq. If we're going to talk about issues of the past rather than looking at how the hell to fix what's going on, when will these people realize the right Past to look at?
If Sen. Obama had had his way, we'd of never had the surge. And we'd of been out of there last March.
Correction, sir: If Sen. Obama had had his way, we'd actually never had this war. And we'd never have been in Iraq. If we're going to talk about issues of the past rather than looking at how the hell to fix what's going on, when will these people realize the right Past to look at?
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Delusional
I'm reading about General Wesley Clark's comments about John McCain's service in Vietnam and how it doesn't necessarily translate to the capability to be president. Seems to make sense, right? Someone can certainly be highly praised in one aspect of life that does not translate into success in other aspects, right?
Well, the mainstream media have been quoting everything out of context and performing all of the usual tricks that make them mainstream. I've read a couple of articles where, instead of giving the whole context of one of General Clark's comments, the "news" sources have chosen just to print this: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." It does sound like an attack like that. But here's the whole exchange:
Clark was simply responding to the fact that, yes, you're right, Obama has not ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. But is that how we are to choose our presidents? How many presidents have ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down? Seriously, I want the numbers.
When is the media going to stop pandering like this? Why can't people just accept that certain things, even if you don't want to hear them, may just be true. Being a POW does not qualify you to be president. It's just a fact. Maybe community organizing in Chicago doesn't either, but I'd rather put my stock in that kind of experience.
Now, before I forget why I even started this post: Delusional. In my reading about this story I came across this quote from Senator Joseph Lieberman on Yahoo News:
Then I remembered something I read today in the June 30th issue of the New Yorker. Dorothy Wickenden quotes from a speech that Obama gave back in 2002:
How about if we did what Barack Obama suggested six years ago, Mr. Lieberman? Where might we be then?
These people re-write history as they go.
Well, the mainstream media have been quoting everything out of context and performing all of the usual tricks that make them mainstream. I've read a couple of articles where, instead of giving the whole context of one of General Clark's comments, the "news" sources have chosen just to print this: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." It does sound like an attack like that. But here's the whole exchange:
[BOB] SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Clark was simply responding to the fact that, yes, you're right, Obama has not ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. But is that how we are to choose our presidents? How many presidents have ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down? Seriously, I want the numbers.
When is the media going to stop pandering like this? Why can't people just accept that certain things, even if you don't want to hear them, may just be true. Being a POW does not qualify you to be president. It's just a fact. Maybe community organizing in Chicago doesn't either, but I'd rather put my stock in that kind of experience.
Now, before I forget why I even started this post: Delusional. In my reading about this story I came across this quote from Senator Joseph Lieberman on Yahoo News:
``I hope Barack Obama goes to Iraq,'' Joseph Lieberman, an independent U.S. senator from Connecticut, said on the CBS program today. ``And frankly I hope he changes his position. Because if we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do, for the last couple of years, today Iran and al-Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world.''
Then I remembered something I read today in the June 30th issue of the New Yorker. Dorothy Wickenden quotes from a speech that Obama gave back in 2002:
“I don’t oppose all wars,” Barack Obama told a few hundred Chicago protesters, adding:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
How about if we did what Barack Obama suggested six years ago, Mr. Lieberman? Where might we be then?
These people re-write history as they go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
When You Get Bored Here, Go Here:
About Me
- David Luke Doody
- David Luke Doody is a freelance writer and editor. He is a founding editor of InDigest Magazine (www.indigestmag.com), an online literary magazine and the blog editor for Guernica Magazine (www.guernicamag.com). His writing and interviews have appeared in those magazines as well as in The Huffington Post, mnartists.org, The Minnesota Twins Yearbook, and Intentionally Urban Magazine, among others.
This is how my nephew loves me
