Kanye's Impulsivity and Obama's Steady Grace

Kanye West's lack of grace at the VMA last night was sad, but a teachable moment for all of us. The quixotic Kanye rose in defense of a damsel he believed was in distress, battling the racism he perceives within the music industry, and greatly embarrassing both graceful and talented women. In contrast, cornered by media about racism, President Barack Obama and his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs have refused to be distracted w/charges of white supremacy issues within the so-called Tea-bag movement while consistently sending an upbeat message about working with Congress in the face of it all.

Obama's Whistlestop Tour Begins

Song of the Day: Love Train


An Historic Ride Begins After a Speech in Philadelphia (video below)
Photo: Reuters

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

Obama gets on board for his historic Whistlestop Tour
Photo: Reuters


Photo: AP


One of the first (if not THE first) posted photos of the train as it embarks on its jouney to the nation's Capital for the Inauguration.
Photo credit: Jim MacMillan.net


Waving to the crowds

The Delaware Stop

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

Record turnouts of citizens on an extremely cold day in Delaware

The Baltimore Stop


Photo: Reuters

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

Suburban Guerilla has the transcript of the speech

Chuck Hagel Visits "Charlotte Talks" WFAE

Senator Chuck Hagel was a guest of Mike Collins' Charlotte Talks radio show this morning on WFAE [FM]. Here are a few of his statements:



Speaking about the need for the next President to be more open to diplomatic talks:
"Every challenge we face in the world today is connected to our alliances.
We need to engage."

Regarding negativity in this Presidential race:

"It's not new. It's just become more sophisticated."
[Reminding listeners of 19th century political vilification of Abe Lincoln when he was cast as an ape.]







About his wife Lilibet's October 7th endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for POTUS, which was played for the listening audience:

"I'm very proud of her. She wrote it herself. She didn't show it to me.
I think what she says is accurate."
[Explaining that he didn't plan to expend political capital in order to make an endorsement himself.]

Youtube version of Mrs. Hagel's endorsement statement in Alexandria, Virginia:

American Blues Vol. 1 by Pete Yorn

Pete Yorn wrote this song on the 4th of July after reading the morning paper and feeling, as so many of us have been feeling, the persistent emotional weight of negativity as each day in America has unfolded only to have a new crisis revealed. A friend of Pete's with an unwavering faith in America decided to make a video and craft the video as a message for people to get out and vote for a change in the direction of the country.

American Blues Vol. 1
Music and lyrics by Pete Yorn

Even those in The Optimists Club
Have a hard time staying in love
18 members of a dying breed
We know what color we bleed
Book drive for the school children
Independence day flag distribution
The general level of pessimism
the worst in almost 30 years
$4-a-gallon gas as jobs get slashed
You love your house?
Now give it back.

Keep beaming through the pledge of allegiance - you aint dead yet
Just disgusted and scared
Living through this mess
This year we are not so sure
Battered and bruised
Young and old
Stable or stone?
Stable or stoned?

It’s happening everywhere we look
Everything’s rehearsed
Should be better
Life’s getting better while the people feel worse
Everyone needs someone to blame
When things don’t go their way

Life’s getting better while the people feel worse
Everyone’s rehearsed
Something new, someone new
People need someone to blame when things don’t go their way
Maybe the price has to be paid
Model American
Take us by the hand
Live through this depression

An Obama Landslide Victory?

"Should all signs on Tuesday point to an Obama landslide, news directors say they will have no choice but to report the obvious."
- From a Reuters/NYT article "U.S. Media Ready For Possible Early Election Outcome " October 28, 2008

Lava Brothers Dedicate 1st Video to Obama

Jesse, Gabe, and Josh Lava, also known as The Lava Brothers, have dedicated their first music video to a pro-Obama cause. The video set to their song "Today."





The video was edited by Doyle LaCrua. The music was produced by Andy Thompson. The song comes from otheir debut album, "Waking Birds Will Harmonize," available here. I've had the CD for a while now...and love it.

Obama's New Economic Philosophy

Senator Barack Obama did his best this afternoon to reassure the shaken American public that he had not only a new philosophy on the ways government should better guard the public interest, but also an initial plan to calm the troubled waters on Wall Street with a temporary plan to protect working Americans. [see transcript of Obama's remarks].

Senator Obama recognized that most Americans were "hurting long before Wall Street was hurting." One of the most compelling parts of his talk this afternoon was his stated principle regarding "mutual responsibility and reciprocity." Obama expressed, with an air of calm under the pressure of some horrific news on Wall Street this week, that his philosophy and plan would entail creating a "broad-based prosperity" in the U.S. rather than the kind of prosperity that enriched a few who are reckless as they've "walked away with the golden parachutes while taxpayers have been left holding the bag."

Stating that this crisis is "no accident of history," Obama pointed to government's past failures to act promptly to avoid the kind of unethical business practices that have caused more and more inequality in the U.S. He said that government has all too often "looked the other way until it was too late" and that government needs to provide common-sense regulation and oversight in order to best protect the public interest.

I imagined, after hearing him speak this morning, what it would be like to have the "broad-based prosperity" of which Obama offered as a realistic vision. The more you spread the opportunity, the better a reflection of the will of the people; the heart and soul of the people.

At Huffington Post, Steven G. Brant hopes that "at least some of our business and political leaders are in enough of a shock that they will look for new ideas and new answers" to this crisis.

Ten years ago, Mr. Brant wrote about the "fog" is being (and, for years, has been) created by "the tendency to see globalization from a perspective grounded in our history of living in a world of separate, independent nations."

The world's economy has become one interdependent system, yet we continue to view it through independent eyes.

What's really going on, from a systems perspective, is that a new, single, global system is struggling to be seen for what it is--a system that can prosper only if all of its parts prosper. It is a single system, one that innately knows that either all of it will make it or none of it will. That's the way healthy systems work. The business world will prosper beyond its wildest imagination once it cuts through this fog and stops viewing the future through "past-focused eyes."

Hillary and Obama: Unity

I spoke about Hillary Clinton's rise toward unity last March. Despite the mainstream media and blogosphere's hand-wringing for the past four months, I've felt that Hillary Clinton embraced the idea of unity all that time through small signals and gestures... despite her strong will to be top of ticket.

I think the idea came through in a big way today in Unity, N.H.

It's become increasingly obvious that this team of once-rivals should go with the momentum while the mo is the mo that it is.

I've been making this case for a long time at Daily Kos and have gotten the kind of reception you'd expect from people who were hoping passionately for an Obama nomination.But that time is good and gone and now it's time to realize that these two strong candidates not only get along just fine and appeal to disparate groups of voters, but that Bill Clinton is no threat (a fear-mongering talking point of the parrots of cable news), but is rather a very good politician to have on your side.

Rev Wright Message is Lost in Style of Delivery

On Fox News Sunday, this is what Barack Obama said about his spiritual mentor and pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

“He is somebody who has obviously been the subject of some pretty sharp attacks. It's understandable that somebody, after an entire career of service, would want to defend themselves."

Reverend Wright made it very clear this morning in his talk to the National Press Club that his belief is that it's not himself that is being targeted by the media, but instead it's the black church that's being targeted. He came out fighting, with the gloves off in defense of the black church, despite media pundits insisting that he was doing it merely to defend his own legacy. [transcript of Reverend Wright's remarks provided by WaPo]



Reverend Wright, to me, appeared to be ready for a fight before one question was asked of him. Curiously, he mocked the term "spiritual mentor". His frustration and anger with the American mainstream media was obvious. In the Q&A session following his speech he sometimes appeared condescending by turning the question back toward the character of the person who'd asked the question rather than showing, as a leader should show in the toughest of grillings, that magnanimous kindness and solemnity of purpose are key to educating others in a way that helps them spiritually understand and connect with the message of respect for differences that I think he'd like to convey. He tended to proverbially bang others about the head with his theological intellect rather than to teach by what I think most people would consider to be a more humble example of the more ideal spiritual teacher. Humility, when all is said and done, must transcend all matters of race and politics if you're going to make 'the connect' with someone's heart and mind.



I felt sorry for Reverend Wright. I came out liking him more and understanding him better after seeing him speak strongly about his faith. He's got a great sense of humor and timing. It's no wonder he's so well-liked in his church. I also think it's brave of him to have stood up at this time and proclaim what's been his heart and soul's constant mission while he walks the Earth. That mission isn't to get Barack Obama elected to be President of the government that Reverend Wright already so obviously disapproves. No, sir, that's not his mission. He made that clear. He showed that his mission involves his allegiance to Jesus Christ over any government and his dedication to what Reverend Wright believes he was called to do for his own local community. As a Christian, I have to ask myself: How can I disagree with that, when all truth be known? If I stood before God today and He required me to choose between defending a vote in Washington D.C. and standing by what I've personally learned to be the Truth and the Word, there would be no question as to how I'd reply.



I have studied religion and I understand where Reverend Wright's heart lies. I've embraced a good part of what has encompassed traditional liberation theology taught to me by mentors within my own Catholic faith..on issues like Immigration...and War. I'm from the city where Rev. Daniel Berrigan and his brother Philip (who'd entered the Josephite order, which was dedicated to pastoral work with African-Americans) took over the pulpit during the 1960s at the city's Cathedral, protesting the U.S. presence in Vietnam. Controversial men. These were men of God. Men who recognized the times when politicians couldn't say what needed to be said our of fear of losing office. These men (and women) took the heavy social responsibilty to be the leaders that no one else had the courage to be. They aren't particularly popular among secularists on the Left of American politics or those who insist upon a form of patriotism that makes no excuses for sheer ignorance on the Right.




I'm not in either of these groups. I'm a Progressive Christian with an eye on progressive issues. I am, however, personally sorry that, as Obama's pastor, that I haven't heard Reverend Wright, who tends to focus on the African-nature of his ministry, reaching out far enough to give white society enough credit when credit has been long due. His failure to be bigger than the division he labels as the culprit has had a perverse way of making him look like the divider.



The emphasis in liberation theology seems to have shifted, over time, from a focus on the poor (and "poor" transcends all color and ethnicity barriers) to a focus on those marginalized by race and ethnicity .. and I think that we have become a more divided society because of that evolution. I supported candidate John Edwards, in good part, because of my personal faith and the extent to which I believe in traditional liberation theology which is focused on ending Poverty - race, gender,and ethnicity notwithstanding. Edwards' color and gender didn't matter. It was his firm stand and leadership on the issue of Economic Justice that I (and people like Martin Luther King III) respected and support to this day.




I heard Reverend Wright tell Bill Moyers in his recent interview, based on a statement by theologian Martin Marty, that white churches were living in a bit of a fantasy, the evidence being a church bulletin announcing a social tea while there was so much suffering all around. I have to say that I was really turned off by that sentiment. If there's anything we need today in the religious world, it's tolerance for all cultures, even if you feel like "the oppressed." We also need a clear sense that our spiritual leaders are reaching out over the hard lines of organized faith and race-focused theology, embracing and projecting an aura of inter-religious harmony. If race and politics mean less to or leaders than God's word, then spiritual leaders should bend over backward to show it. Reverend Wright is only human, and his greatest shortcoming is that he really doesn't forward the inviting spirit of integration and tolerance, focusing instead on race/ethincity-based liberation theology. He tends to project more of a segregated and defensive tone than a courageously humble call to understanding. Because of this, I believe that the best of his message to the larger American society is unfortunately lost.



Government isn't always as evil and antithetical to faith concepts as Reverend Wright has painted in the soundbites we've heard. His emphasis on what's worst about the American people's government surely couldn't have helped young Barack Obama to aspire to appreciate or to work in national government. Reverend Wright shouldn't need reminding that it was former American President John Quincy Adams who argued, and the U.S. courts agreed, that all human beings were naturally free people and entitled to that freedom under American law. My own direct(and very white) ancestor was a deacon in the same (very white) church that supported the Mende people (of the ship known as Amistad) and showed them that freedom meant more than a show-trial, housing and educating them in Farmington, Connecticut and raising $1,300 in pledges at a church service to help defray the travel expense because the U.S. government had refused to provide for their return to Sierra Leone following the Amistad trial. Those Farmington citizens spoke a new language that men and women of all colors could hear and embrace



It has never been a sin or cause of guilt to be born white. It was only a sin to feel you were more important than a fellow human being who wasn't. Reverend Wright plays into white guilt. I'm white and I can feel him doing it. In this day and age, it isn't a spiritually healthy concept. I belong to a multi-racial family myself and I just don't appreciate the message. I can't imagine that more-segregated whites will take kindly to hearing it.




I think the problem, politically, will be that Reverend Wright, while saying that racial differences shouldn't reduce social respect for the integrity of each and every human being, is communicating something altogether different from racial reconciliation by his own demeanor. He will likely never be an appropriate or relevant national leader/representative for racial reconciliation because he comes off sounding divisive while insisting he's not. He tends to talk down to and insult the intelligence of almost anyone who may beg to differ with him. I couldn't imagine Archbishop Desmond Tutu speaking quite that way while attempting to achieve social and political reconcilation within his own nation during its own time of turmoil. I suspect Barack Obama knew how the public would react to Reverend Wright's gruff and anti-political demeanor when he consciously decided to keep him out of the spotlight at the time that Obama announced his candidacy.





TYPICAL VOTERS WON'T UNDERSTAND OR EMBRACE
RACE/ETHNICITY-FOCUSED LIBERATION THEOLOGY ..
BECAUSE THE MEDIA WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY UPON
THE LEFT-WING POLITICAL ASPECTS


I can understand why Barack Obama genuinely likes and stands by Reverend Wright, if not Reverend Wright's blunt and politically dangerous statements. Obama's between a rock and a very hard place here. As a response to a statement regarding Obama's whole campaign having been designed to "prove Reverend Wright's jaded older generation wrong," I said on Jim Buie's blog the other day,

"It is the job of each generation to move away from the last in a hopeful and positive progression...with many hard lessons having been learned from those who came before us. It's my opinion, as far as the November election is concerned, that many non-black American voters will simply not understand and certainly won't embrace black liberation theology after hearing, through their own personal filters of life experience, the decidedly race-conscious fire that Rev. Wright has preached to his congregation. I believe that voters who aren't educated in theology and who hear the Wright soundbites will continue to be taken aback by what will sound to them like anti-American statements. (And we just know that voters are going to hear Rev. Wright's comments again and again in 527 ads and from mainstream media if Senator Obama becomes the Democratic nominee.) I don't think it's at all reasonable to think, especially after his speech on race, that Obama feels as Reverend Wright feels about the government. Yet, someone on the other side of politics will continue to try to connect him with that sentiment. This is something I will admit that I hate about politics....yet I don't anticipate that politics will change anytime soon."

REVEREND WRIGHT'S EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BLACK CHURCH AND CHRISTIANITY OVER GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS


Reverend Wright showed at the Press Club today that he's just doing his job .. while he knows that Senator Obama's interviewing with the Americsn public for another very important job. Reverend Wright unapologetically told us that doing God's work in this world, for African Americans and for the people of his community (he calls it the black church), is more important than Barack Obama or politics. How it will play out in the world of politics is anyone's guess.



KAIROS

'Kairos' refers to the "timeless realm" of God, a space in time where measurable time does not apply. We pause upon the brink of the unknown; we are each a part of the same phantom corps moving about the earth. The book of history remains empty and blank out ahead of us.


We're living in a moment of time which I believe will prove itself to be a great turning point in the history of not only America, but all of mankind. In order to have this moment in history be a reflection of purpose and principle in our lives, we simply must learn to speak a different language than those who are seeking to control the political agenda today in America. Reverend Wright knows it, though he may not be the best messenger.

We must learn not only to avoid speaking in the tongue of right wing or left wing talking points, but to create a new language for all men and women - regardless of their race and religious beliefs - to recognize and understand.

It must be a language which would be the basis of new and inspired conversations.

The book of history awaits. We each need to give substance to our reality, but we can only do it in concert with one another. I believe the good of mankind depends upon it.

So, here is our kairos time. We're pebbles in a great sea. Our language, uttered at the right time and with the right intonation, could make all the difference.


I wish Jeremiah Wright had the skills to better communicate what I believe to be his righteous message to a waiting society. Unfortunately, his public reliance on what many will politically detect as left-wing political statements will likely pigeonhole Obama as left-wing because of his spiritual association with Reverend Wright, despite his campaign's protests.



LINKS:

Starting Gate: The Wright Stuff by Vaughn Ververs [CBS]

Rev. Wright Strikes Back by Jack White and Melissa Harris-Lacewell [WaPo]

The Sin of the Reverend by Jack White [TheRoot.com]

The Wright Question by Jimi Izrael[TheRoot.com]

Barack Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright resurfaces to reignite race row by Alex Spillius [Telegraph/UK]

Wright Says Criticism Is Attack on Black Church by John Holusha [NYTimes]

Wright Defends Church, Blasts Media by Kate Phillips [The Caucus blog/NYTimes]

Rev Wright Fires Back, Hits Cheney by Cristi Prsons, Frank James [The Swamp, ChiTrib]

Rev. Wright lashes out at media, U.S. government by Aaron Blake [The Hill]

Rush on Wright vs Obama by Andrew Sullivan [Atlantic/Andrew Sullivan]

Jiminy Pelosi Says to Superdelegates...

Clinton is ahead with just the superdelegates, but about 40% of them have yet to announce their choice. That means that the superdelegates -- office-holders and party officials -- will likely cast the deciding votes in the nominating process. - Michael Muskal, LA Times

Obama Condemns Rev Wright Anti-American Statements

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright situation isn't breaking news to many progressive Christian bloggers, myself included. Some have warned of the danger of Sen Obama being too slow to take a pre-emptive defense on the issue. In January I posted this comment in response to a diary at the Daily Kos website:

There is a good blogpost by progressive Christian A-lister Chuck Currie explaining the swift-boating of Trinity UCC.

Last March [2007], Mr. Currie said:

If Obama is going to let right-wing blogs define for the world the theology of his church and dictate who is and isn't aboard his campaign he might as well pack-up now. The right is "Swift Boating" his church. How he ultimately responds will offer voters insight into how principled his presidency might be.

link

Barack Obama, after all these months, has spoken. At a Huffington Post blog today, he says,

"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

Better late than never.

And Another Campaigner Resigns

The AP's political quote of the day reads,

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

'"It's not going to be the Barack and Hillary people who bring the factions together. It's going to be those of us who are still seen as neutral and have some standing in the party."

— Rep. Mike Doyle, a Democrat who represents Pittsburgh and has not endorsed either of his party's presidential candidates, Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.'

As an ordinary citizen who is neutral, I feel the same kind of responsibility to guide my fellow Democrats (and the two campaigns) to come together or risk losing not only the Presidential race, but the integrity of the party. On this blog I keep telling the campaigns that, if the candidates care more for party and country than they care for their own ego and ambition, then we'll need to see two adults seeking fairness and urging supporters to stay positive and patient while they both (rightly) remain in this primary race. Heaven knows where the support they'd normally see from party luminaries to keep the party peaceful has gone! It almost seems that they've been left alone..perhaps purposely... to show their eventual capacity for unity when neither, after the voting's over and done, winds up with the number of delegates it'll take to snag the nomination.

Why does it seem that some newspaper editorials are setting wiser guidlines and promoting better ideas than some of the party elders? [See this one from today's Oakland Press].

I don't know where the party's wise elders and cooler heads are. I'm not the only one who's wondering. I think of Sen Ted Kennedy who admitted he made the endorsement that he made [for Obama] when he did because, in good part, he was angry with Bill Clinton's comments in South Carolina.

The exploitation of anger bleeds over on to almost every Democratic issue in the MSM coverage of the primary race now. I honestly think, with a woman and an African-American running so close a race, that the "party bosses" are afraid to side with either candidate for the fear of looking politically incorrect. They know they run the risk of being reviled by half the total number of Democratic voters if they make what they think might be the "wrong decision"...or ANY decision at all.

It's pitiful to even begin to suspect that should-be-leaders in the Democratic party who had a preference for one candidate or the other could've been responsible and guiding...but decided instead to hold back in a state of fear and/or muddled confusion.

The emotion and anger of yet another Democratic campaigner (this time Maxim Thorne, a well-educated and dedicated supporter of Obama) has gotten the better of him. Mr. Thorne's out of the campaign for sending out an email that looked more like something from the Ken Starr-inquisition era than a 2008 campaign commentary. I consider him, like others who've had to resign from these two campaigns recently, to be another all-too-human victim of a Democratic primary campaign with an all-too easy fallback on race/gender/personal issues; improper, slow, missing, and/or uncertain leadership from the party; unnecessary rage; and high emotion.

Until this thing works itself out [or until a Democratic Yoda appears], here's a recommendation from a fellow blogger with the screen-name wmthetriallawyer that says,

"Don't let the main stream media or the whackjobs out there distract you from certain realities. [..]..the host of people who have lined up to support or otherwise be media-defined surrogates of the Obama and Clinton campaigns. [..] People say really stupid stuff sometimes. And it is dissected ad nauseum [..] But I only really care about what the two candidates themselves say"

Speaker Pelosi Can't Say "Unity" Now, But....

Some Obama supporters in my party are hanging their proverbial hats against the idea of a party unity ticket based on what they read from Politico's Ben Smith, who, at the end of the day, is not participating in his professional endeavours in order to create arguments that will win for Democrats .. and is making a living in a business that showcases the most controversial issues of the day for an optimal amount of eyeballs looking at a money-making website. I think it's wrong to hang your hat on just one temporal quote from Speaker Pelosi bluntly dismissing a unity Democratic ticket [sparked by her current displeasure with a compliment Clinton paid to McCain at the expense of Obama].

At Real Clear Politics there's a brief analysis by Blake Dvorak that I found to be astute:

I'm going to call Pelosi on inconsistency here. She says the differences between Obama and Clinton are nothing compared to the chasm between Democrats and Republicans. But later on she dismisses a "dream ticket" as impossible because the Clinton campaign has said McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama. Well, assuming the need to beat the Republicans in November outweighs the differences between Obama and Hillary, which is what I think Pelosi is getting at, then a dream ticket is not only possible, but preferable.

But we also know why Pelosi is being inconsistent. Endorsing in any way a joint ticket is a nod to Clinton right now, given the campaigns' difference of opinion on the idea. And Pelosi needs to appear "uncommitted."

Speaker Pelosi's playing the part she imagines she needs to play while remaining uncommitted to either candidate. Perhaps she knows what time can do, if both candidates' campaigns are listening, to erase the memory of bold albeit temporal statements like this one.

But everyone knows there's no such thing as "impossible". Using the word creates an easily-breakable frame. A worry for me, though, is created by such an unimaginative and hopeless-sounding statement from a party leader. Absent of vision at a difficult time for the party, it emits a sad signal to already-conflicted Democratic voters who, unlike some party extremists defending Obama or Clinton, genuinely like both Obama and Clinton. I can't blame Nancy Pelosi, though.I blame the lack of harmonious spirit betwen two extremely (and equally) popular party luminaries who are running for the highest office of the land.

It will soon be time for them both to grow up and start coming together for the sake of their party and for the change they both say they wish to bring to our country.

It's no wonder Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards have remained uncommitted.

Obama Slams Hillary's Cracked-Open VP Door

I don't want to see one currently-interested and enthused Democrat sitting home on their ass [or their hands] on Election Day 2008 because they're pissed off about who got top-of-the-ticket. Hillary Clinton already sees this and has acknowledged to voters that she understands how they're feeling.

It's time for Barack Obama to do the same.

When confronted about the possibility of a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket, Barack Obama said:

"..what I'm really focused on right now .. is winning this nomination and changing the country. And I think that's what people here are concerned about." - ABC News

I'm here to tell Barack Obama that he's absolutely wrong if he's thinking that the entire body of Democratic voters believe it's all about him. It isn't all about him and him alone. He's not the sole Savior of the Democratic party even though he's convinced half of the Democratic electorate that he might be. He won't increase the size of the hardened hearts of Republicans as did Dr. Seuss' tiny heroine Cindy-Lou Who, who succeeded in pumping up the Grinch's ticker three sizes in one day.

George W. Bush made the fatal error, throughout much of his Presidency, of allowing his ego to convince him that he was beloved by all when at least half the nation saw that he was deluded by self-vision. I hope I'm not seeing this character trait in Obama.

In case he's missing something, let me remind Senator Obama that Democrats are looking to both him and to Senator Clinton for maturity and leadership during what we all can see is a contentious, historic, and incredibly close primary race. They need to agree to remain open to coming together on one 2008 ticket and stop pretending they don't need one another.

They need one another.

We need THEM to show us that they both get it.

Neither candidate can close this deal. We aren't stupid. We can see it. It's so obvious!

There will be anger among 50% of Democratic voters regardless of who winds up winning this hot primary contest ... the anger won't only apply if Barack loses it.

There's no reason for either contestant to drop out. Neither one has convincingly beaten the other.

Some will question Hillary's sincerity about floating the idea of Obama-as-VP and then, days later, exposing the weakness of her primary rival with an air of uncertainty about his preparedness for the task. I think it's not to say that Hillary's ruling out the possibility of Obama-as-VP. It's still a possibility and an invitation to what could be. It serves to confuse, though.

Voters have tired of confusion and uncertainty.

The outcome of the Florida and Michigan controversy could be the fork in the road that will make or break the Democrats this November, depending on the cooperation and attitude of the two candidates and their campaigns.

The voters of the two now-orphaned states of Florida and Michigan stand to be reassured that they'll be represented .. and fairly represented at the DNCC in Denver. It's going to get tougher from here. When it comes to the end results of Florida and Michigan, my forecast is calling for a certain hurricane of anger to blow away 50% of Democratic voters unless both candidates start showing that they'll respect the choice of the other half of voters by casting a welcoming eye and warm heart to their opponent for the VP slot.

Our party cannot afford (and by all means should not tolerate) the palpable negativity and division that currently hangs over both campaigns and campaigns' supporters. I'm glad to see that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has spoken out on the matter.

Cynical media pundits [who I believe have given the easy-pass treatment to Obama while perpetually crucifying Clinton] and even the media-pampered Obama himself are making it sound as if Clinton's a conniving she-devil for suggesting that she and Obama might run on the same ticket.

Wasn't it just three days ago that a valued campaign advisor had to resign for casting Hillary as a monster? When will the Obama campaign start getting the fact that the Democratic voting public is getting sick to death of their negativity after she's shown she's been capable of getting nearly the same amount of popular votes as their candidate .. and in key November states?

It seems like such a no-brainer that the two would be unbeatable if they could both show the ability to campaign together in a forward-thinking, mature, responsible, and committed fashion .. and agree to do so before August. Most cynics would (and do) say "fat chance" and perhaps they're right .. and perhaps the campaigns will listen to the cynics as usual ... and perhaps the Democrats will blow yet another great chance to win the Oval Office.

Marty Kaplan's conflicted and in turmoil over the idea of Clinton and Obama running together [and I say that jokingly .. read his hilarious and home-hitting piece today at Huffington Post].

Despite Rush Limbaugh's mocking threat about a lady and a black guy never being able to win on the same ticket, we aren't just talking about just any lady...or just any black guy. We know that these two will blow past McCain and rise and inspire progress for years to come. Rush is talking about a society in which we no longer live, and the numbers of voters coming out on the Democratic side compared to the Republicans are proving it.

We can only lose this if we destroy ourselves.

Right now I'm seeing Hillary Clinton as the wiser leader because, even while behind on delegates, she's welcomed Obama [and the voting public] to begin to consider the two candidates as part of an unstoppable team. Is she sincere? One commenter at the Chicago Tribune Swamp has said, "Good gracious, Hillary is just too much. She's losing, and yet is willing to dole out the VP award to the guy in first. How on earth does that make ANY sense?" The only way it makes sense is just the fact that the idea, to so many voters, makes sense .. plain and simple. That Hillary was first to suggest it is neither here nor there, but it does show a transcendence of ego and a positive attitude toward the Democratic party's electoral success that I haven't yet detected in Obama.

Obama doesn't help nor does he offer hope to those who'd wish they'd both cut the ego-crap and agree to run together:

"I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don’t know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now."

Once again, [after what sounds to me like a statement from a haughty third-grader] he's denying just how close this race is and how neither candidate will meet the required delegates for securing the nomination by August. Worse, his attitude leaves this squarely in the hands of super-delegates which increases the likelihood that the election will be removed from the hands and hearts of the average voter. A very undemocratic thought .. especially after voters' still-lingering pain from Florida 2000.


If you build it, they will come. Field of Dreams. Remember that line?

I think Hillary's trying to build it. We want 'em to come out in droves to vote Democratic this November ..

..don't we??

Obama has already rejected the prospect of running as Hillary’s running mate, and has gone so far as to accuse Clinton of attempting “to deceive the American people just so that they can win this election” — not the kind of statement that a candidate makes when preparing to accept his rival’s ‘offer’ of the number two spot on the ticket. - [VisibleVote08]

Let's hope Obama joins her instead of putting out the negative vibes that damage the party's unity and serve to give animated reality to the Obama rookie-ambition narrative that has been pumped out by Hillary-supporters.

This can no longer be about ambition and ego. If it continues, there will be anger from either camp's supporters and I think we might well kiss the winds that should've been at our backs in November a fond 'Goodbye'.

And please - to Democratic voters who are whining that they'll refuse to vote for either candidate should they make top-of-ticket - try to think rationally even if your candidate may not be responsibly leading you to think outside your individual boxes at a perilous time for the party. Losing emotion can be useful in these trying times. Ask James Wolcott.

David Brooks Flip-Flops on Cultural Integration

In the most recent David Brooks column at the NYT website, I see a distinct flip-flop on the cultural integration that Mr. Brooks has exalted and even supported in the past.

Brooks compares the Poverty platforms of Barack Obama and John Edwards and frames the difference this way (and I won't even go into the ways that he short-shrifts both candidates' overall ideas):

As Alec MacGillis of The Washington Post observed, Edwards emphasizes programs that help people escape from concentrated poverty. Obama emphasizes programs that fix inner-city neighborhoods. One helps people find better environments, the other seeks to strengthen the environment they are already in.

Note that Brooks references Alec MacGillis' poorly informed May Washington Post column as if it was a fair and balanced article. In this forementioned article, Mr. MacGillis had hyperfocused on the portion of John Edwards' Poverty platform involving the use of housing vouchers.

Brooks says he's swayed by Barack Obama's platform on poverty reduction because he thinks that "Obama seems to have a more developed view of social capital." Brooks says,

Edwards offers vouchers, job training and vows to create a million temporary public-sector jobs. Obama agrees, but takes fuller advantage of home visits, parental counseling, mentoring programs and other relationship-building efforts....The Obama policy provides more face-to-face contact with people who can offer praise or disapproval.

Brooks categorizes a neighborhood as a "moral ecosystem". What he distinctly moves away from are his own opinions of the past about the ways that he believed the "moral ecosystem" in these neighborhoods (the ones he now apparently prefers the poor to be locked into) are not progressing because of a failure to break up zones of concentrated poverty.


Go back to September 25, 2005 when Mr. Brooks begins to bemoan social stratification that he claims is due to economic stratification. He chooses to point to education as the reason for the default line:

....economic stratification is translating into social stratification. Only 28 percent of American adults have a college degree, but most of us in this group find ourselves in workplaces in social milieus where almost everybody has been to college. A social chasm is opening up between those in educated society and those in noneducated society, and you are beginning to see vast behavioral differences between the two groups.......Educated parents not only pass down economic resources to their children, they pass down expectations, habits, knowledge and cognitive abilities. Pretty soon you end up with a hereditary meritocratic class that reinforces itself generation after generation....

We realize that inner-city schools, to this day and despite all the lip service, are producing horrific results and do not provide the average inner-city student with an adequate education. Is it any coincidence that wealthier school districts are producing better results? Brooks is quick to blame "the educational system" and loathe to seek other answers as to why these neighborhoods aren't progressing.


Forward just a bit to October 6, 2005, when Brooks again attacks the education establishment as the chief blame for inequality.

...The main problem is not that poor students can't afford college....Nor is the main problem that these poorer students don't have access to college....The problem is that students who enter college often find they are unable to thrive there....The new inequality is different from the old inequality. Today, the rich don't exploit the poor, they just outcompete them. Their crucial advantage is not that they possess financial capital, it's that they possess more cultural capital....The forces driving cultural inequality are powerful, and maybe insurmountable. But each generation of Americans seems to be challenged in its own way to provide its children with an open field and a fair chance.....

This time it's an inequality of opportunity to compete and, again, it's the educational system to blame. So how do these neo-underpriveleged people gain cultural capital?


Forward to October 9, 2005, when Brooks exuberantly offers his solutions,

I believe that social mobility is the core of the American experience. I believe that society should be structured so that as many boys and girls as possible can work, and rise the way young Hamilton and Lincoln did....If something is going to make American society more fluid and dynamic, then I am for that thing. That's why I love globalization, even while I am aware of its costs.....I can't believe people want to shield America behind the walls of "fair trade agreements."....I hated the old welfare system, which pushed its victims away from work. I love welfare reform, which encourages work. I hate government that directs ever more money to the affluent elderly, but I would love a government that gave poor children savings accounts at birth, which would encourage them to think about the future and understand that their destiny is in their own hands.....I love the charter schools and the forces of reform.........

Wow. So Brooks is gung-ho for outsourcing jobs so that poor people in foreign lands can compete, but try to get him to support John Edwards' idea to have our nation - the richest on the face of the earth - create temporary opportunities for the poor to make work work for them and the community of their reasonable choosing....to get themselves and their own American children out of neighborhoods that are clearly not woking as a "moral ecosystem" should? What's good for the developing world is not good for the poor of Mr. Brooks' own nation.

In the same October 9 piece, Mr. Brooks chose to heap more blame on America's educational establishment for inequality in our communities.

I hate the forces of the education establishment, which protects its system even though after years and billions spent, African-American students still graduate from high schools at academic levels four years behind their white peers.

Wow. He really hates the educational establishment. To him, it seems like education in America is the root of all evil. Trouble is, I don't believe that for a minute. Do you?


I saved the best and oldest reference for last.


September 8, 2005, just after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans.

Katrina was a natural disaster that interrupted a social disaster. It separated tens of thousands of poor people from the run-down, isolated neighborhoods in which they were trapped. It disrupted the patterns that have led one generation to follow another into poverty.

It has created as close to a blank slate as we get in human affairs, and given us a chance to rebuild a city that wasn't working. We need to be realistic about how much we can actually change human behavior, but it would be a double tragedy if we didn't take advantage of these unique circumstances to do something that could serve as a spur to antipoverty programs nationwide.

The first rule of the rebuilding effort should be: Nothing Like Before. Most of the ambitious and organized people abandoned the inner-city areas of New Orleans long ago, leaving neighborhoods where roughly three-quarters of the people were poor.

In those cultural zones, many people dropped out of high school, so it seemed normal to drop out of high school. Many teenage girls had babies, so it seemed normal to become a teenage mother. It was hard for men to get stable jobs, so it was not abnormal for them to commit crimes and hop from one relationship to another. Many people lacked marketable social skills, so it was hard for young people to learn these skills from parents, neighbors and peers.

If we just put up new buildings and allow the same people to move back into their old neighborhoods, then urban New Orleans will become just as rundown and dysfunctional as before.

That's why the second rule of rebuilding should be: Culturally Integrate. Culturally Integrate. Culturally Integrate. The only chance we have to break the cycle of poverty is to integrate people who lack middle-class skills into neighborhoods with people who possess these skills and who insist on certain standards of behavior.

The most famous example of cultural integration is the Gautreaux program, in which poor families from Chicago were given the chance to move into suburban middle-class areas. The adults in these families did only slightly better than the adults left behind, but the children in the relocated families did much better.

These kids suddenly found themselves surrounded by peers who expected to graduate from high school and go to college. After the shock of adapting to the more demanding suburban schools, they were more likely to go to college, too.

The Clinton administration built on Gautreaux by creating the Moving to Opportunity program, dispersing poor families to middle-class neighborhoods in five other metropolitan areas. This time the results weren't as striking, but were still generally positive. The relocated parents weren't more likely to have jobs or increase their earnings (being close to job opportunities is not enough -- you need the skills and habits to get the jobs and do the work), but their children did better, especially the girls.

The lesson is that you can't expect miracles, but if you break up zones of concentrated poverty, you can see progress over time.

In the post-Katrina world, that means we ought to give people who don't want to move back to New Orleans the means to disperse into middle-class areas nationwide. (That's the kind of thing Houston is beginning to do right now.)

There may be local resistance to the new arrivals -- in Baton Rouge there were three-hour lines at gun shops as locals armed themselves against the hurricane victims moving to their area -- but if there has ever been a moment when people may open their hearts, this is it.

For New Orleans, the key will be luring middle-class families into the rebuilt city, making it so attractive to them that they will move in, even knowing that their blocks will include a certain number of poor people.

As people move in, the rebuilding effort could provide jobs for those able to work. Churches, the police, charter schools and social welfare agencies could be mobilized to weave the social networks vital to resurgent communities. The feds could increase earned-income tax credits so people who are working can rise out of poverty. Tax laws could encourage business development.

We can't win a grandiose war on poverty. But after the tragedy comes the opportunity. This is the post-Katrina moment. Let's not blow it.

Now it seems that Mr. Brooks chooses to turn away from that post-Katrina moment and prefer to keep the poor with limits as to choices about where their children will live and be educated - even after all of his exuberant talk about how education is key to opportunity and how cultural integration is such a worthy idea and how he values work over welfare.

He is seemingly convinced by the older, more romantic notion that big federal government will accomodate the social policy funding with wide bipartisan support, as in the 1960s-era War on Poverty. The federal government significantly retrenched from its prior position of dominance in funding and directing community development activities decades ago. I cannot imagine hearing David Brooks advocating for bigger government when Obama would actually come looking for the dollars for failing inner city neighborhoods. Who is he trying to kid?

The fellow is all over the place on his philiosophy.
It sounds like a lot of flip-flop to me.

What we've lost in the course of two generations

From a post where Open Left's Chris Bowers worries because he says that the Clinton camp has "twice, in the last week, inaccurately gauged public opinion on a topic as being further to the right than it actually is":

Perhaps I would feel differently if I was from a different generation, but my formative political experiences have largely been about the failure of Democratic and progressive elites in stopping the conservative movement from continuing to rise. We never seem to win, even when we are in elected office. As such, one of the things I am looking for in the Democratic primaries is not only a candidate who can win, but who can reverse that pattern of defeat in governance.

I am from a generation that saw the rise of prominent social figures and political luminaries such as JFK, Rev.MLK Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. And I saw what happened to them and how far their idealism carried them in a hateful, divided nation. Later, I watched my mother as she exuberantly supported Hubert H. Humphrey and how she cried when he lost to Nixon. Still too young to join them, I saw the intelligence, the heart, and the nerve of the flower children in their generation's cause to end another unjust war. I saw college students at Kent State gunned down by our own countrymen for their idealism. I remember the awful images of Vietnam in black and white on my parents' television screen. I remember watching the Watergate hearings with my grandfather during the summer I was about to become a senior in high school and how he, while disgusted yet too intrigued to turn his head away, took the time to explain what was happening to me. In 1976, at the age of 18, I voted for Jimmy Carter in my first election. I saw Ronald Reagan come to power with a new Conservative movement with misled neo-idealists and their leaders who kissed, corrupted, and co-opted Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.

Where Bobby Kennedy and MLK Jr. were remembered for their risk-filled fight for equality and civil rights of all Men and Women, Ronald Reagan is remembered for smaller government... being at the helm at the end of crumbling communism (with JFK, Carter, and others who set up the whole fall getting little to no credit). Sitting in the Oval Office on a Sunday morning, October 23, 1983 when 241 Americans, most of them U.S. Marines, were killed by a terrorist truck bomb. Still President when Pan Am flight 103 went down because of a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 35 Syracuse University students whose families never saw justice for the deaths of their children - and later were horrified to see George W. Bush make nice with devious Lybian leader Moammer Gahdafhi.


For all of this they wanted to put Reagan's likeness on the American dime.
Go figure.


You know the story from the post-Reagan years. Not too many brilliant profiles in courage-in-leadership, especially not from the Right. I think idealism and vision - the kind of vision that brings real, lasting, and necessary progress and not the kind lobbyists prefer to make - began to die off when they (whoever they may have been if you're a conspiracy theorist) began to literally kill off our most promising visionaries in this nation.


What passed for greatness after that was far from the vision of inspired men and women of the 60s Liberal era. What happened to the vision? Did it die with the murder-tainted innocence of a hopeful era? Do we teach our children to assimilate and not rock the boat because we're afraid for their well-being - - perhaps their very lives?

We think division in this country's something new, but it's not. I just think it's a lot more apparent today because of the expanded news media and the blogosphere.

What I think is particularly damaging is the people who complain about partisanship and label it as the disease that ails America. I believe the pattern of defeat in the Democratic party (pre 2006) was the tendency of Democrats to fall into the false framing of bipartisanship, traditional collegiality, and MSM-pleasing "centrism" (in parentheses because the media hasn't been shooting toward true American center on Iraq if you believe the polls). I use Senator Joe Lieberman's rise, thanks to being voted in by a majority of Connecticut Republicans and who now pushes the Iraq surge and gives lip service to a war in Iran that the majority of Americans say they do not want, as an example of how bipartisanship, by name alone, can be assigned a totally false value over common sense. I regret to see that our leaders (and the MSM who cover the horserace) seem to be regressing after winning a promising 2006 election. They have been far less than visionary and generally get a poor grade on action on ways they've chosen to try to end the Iraq war. "Going right", the direction that Glen Greenwald has caught Hillary Clinton's camp going (and they're not the only ones), is not going to help us bloggers, when MSM gets a hold of it, to convince anyone that our position is not heading toward the left fringe. This gives mouthpieces for the Right like Bill O'Reilly an opportunity to take so many undue potshots at us.

Hunter at Daily Kos can hardly wrap his mind around the audacity of O'Reilly and Fox News calling themselves a news network. I believe that the failure of our own Democrats to be strong in their vision these past five years have emboldened the owners of this new breed of media to think they can "destroy" real people out here on the blogs (like me):

Can you imagine any other news network mounting a multi-pundit jihad against a group of grassroots Americans, merely because they have the audacity to not support the Republicans? Can you imagine any other news network getting themselves into a bitter televised fight with a political community website?

Of course not. Because Fox News isn't "news" at all, and this is yet another example of why they should not be considered a legitimate news network, or even an "opinionated" news network. Actual news networks do not fabricate stories -- Fox News does. Actual news networks do not send pundits out in attempts to punish and/or sabotage grassroots political events of the opposing party -- it would be absurd. Only at Fox News, where a spectacular lack of ethics is after all the cornerstone of the efforts to manipulate the very news itself in order to prop up Republicans, would such things not get you immediately fired.

- Hunter

Nothing will change until our leaders change the tone and stop worrying about MSM's version of "partisanship" and "division".

In this country, it seems that we've always been divided on the things that matter. We're supposed to be a country that can withstand division and diversity of opinion and, out of it, create something that's actually healthy for our democracy. All we've seen these past twenty years are toxic results, a decided lack of vision, and unsatisfactory progress.

I came from a different generation, the one just before Chris Bowers' generation. After all I've seen, I have to ask many of our leaders: Why are we afraid of idealism and leading with bold vision these days? Why is our media money-jaded and controlled by private owners to the point where investigation is cut off in the editors' service of political bedfellows? Why are we made to see so often that they're working against us bloggers? Why do our leaders seem to be afraid? Who are they afraid of? What are they afraid of losing? An election? For all my eyes have seen, I'm afraid the country's losing its very soul.



The man in this video, John Edwards, has the kind of courage and vision I saw in JFK's time and the media is being complicit in framing him as a rich phony with only power in mind.

He says he won't let them shut him up.

I say good!

It's time for courage again.

Is this a returning breed?

Have we finally seen enough of the worthlessness from the empty promise of new conservatism from fat-faced hate-talk radio blatherers..and are we so sick of its vacuous political nature that we are returning to leaders who are looking well past the trees to see what could be possible beyond the forest?

This week at Daily Kos, my Idea Consultant colleague and fellow Spiritual Progressive David Beckwith said it well:

John Edwards is not promising you the world...he is delivering it. What needs being done...he is doing it. People in need cannot wait for him to be president, they need his help right now. And he is getting it to them.

I know of no one who is more deserving of the presidency, since we know he is not serving up empty promises. He is doing the heavy uplifting, and getting many other good and caring souls to help with this Herculean task.

We need an exemplar...especially after punishing the world with Bushworld Inc. Obama and Hillary are great and good people, but John is leading by example, and should be commended, not pejorated and smeared.

It has been said that when someone cares for another person, God cares for them too. Both of them. The caregiver and the recipient. I think most Americans realize that something of the sort is at play, and that caritas is indeed one of the sweetest and noblest acts a person can do.

There are people suffering today...this minute. We cannot wait for an election. Help us help John help people who need it.

While I'm Away.....Debates!

I'll be away for a few days.

I hope you'll take some time to read through my many posts and leave me your comments.

Don't forget to watch the South Carolina Democratic Party's debate on MSNBC Thursday night, April 26 at 7pm, moderated by NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams and coming to you from South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, S.C. The debate will feature Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

If you have a question for the debaters, go HERE to ask.

UPDATE:
Cross Country: Who Won the Democrats' First Debate? - WaPo

John Edwards: The Question I Wasn't Asked

April 28 - John Edwards discusses questions he wasn't asked in the debates

MSNBC's national affairs writer Tom Curry asks,What kind of battle will this be for Democrats in 2008? Will it be a referendum on the future of the party, or will it be a magnifying of minor differences?


Also, read about the exciting online debates to be engineered by the Huffington Post and Web magazine Slate. PBS host Charlie Rose has signed on to moderate the debates, and invitations have gone out to the announced candidates in both parties. The Democratic debate will occur after Labor Day, with the GOP edition at a later date.

In New Hampshire, the debate dates have finally been set. Democrats will take the stage at Saint Anselm College on June 3, Republicans on June 5. The debates will be televised statewide on WMUR and nationally on CNN. In a surprising turn of events, Senators Clinton and Obama have opted out of this debate. Needless to say, New Hampshire citizens aren't appreciative.

While I'm away, I'd also like you to see a post at The Executioner's Thong about the different ways the "faithful" approach their faith, the dangers of being on the extreme fringes of what some call faith, as well as the danger of mixing religion and politics in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Peace,
Jude

Thank You, Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman has reassured my faith in sanity today by admitting that he sees something I've also been seeing for quite some time.

..a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party’s base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party’s leaders.

Let me ask you, why should it be, as Mr. Krugman puts it, that "reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions?"

It seems as if we're living in a society (and a political atmosphere) where the flow of public information made most easily available over the airwaves (by leaders and media)and the information that we get from the carefully-edited newspapers is set up to be off-base and misleading first - and the challenge is left to the least powerful (least corporate-sponsored) voices to fight the misleadings with what most of us have naturally (and long ago) come to a consensus as seeing as "true."

That is so twisted.

It's hard to believe that "Beltway insiders .. still don’t seem to realize how overwhelmingly the public has turned against President Bush." Yet, Mr. Krugman gives solid examples of those who are still lost in the alabaster castle-world of Washington D.C.

Mr. Krugman is correct. We were (and should have been) infuriated when Barack Obama (the "rock star") seemed to say that he would support an Iraq war funding bill without a timeline while only the few Freeper-type supporters of the Bush war say they believe Congress should allow war funding without a time limit. For someone who's bragging that he didn't support the Iraq war, I'm not bowled over by Senator Obama's hesitancy to put an end to the farce now that he has great power in his hands.

Mr. Krugman is coreect in saying that John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who's offered a real-world, solid plan and path for universal healthcare. Where are the others? (nyceve asked the question today at Daily Kos).

Krugman ends his column is advising against the odd (anti-center) caution being displayed by Democrats in the halls of Congress.

Republicans will, for a while at least, be trapped in unpopular positions by a base that’s living in the past. Rudy Giuliani’s surge into front-runner status for the Republican nomination says more about the party than about the candidate. As The Onion put it with deadly accuracy, Mr. Giuliani is running for “President of 9/11.”

Democrats don’t have the same problem. There’s no conflict between catering to the Democratic base and staking out positions that can win in the 2008 election, because the things the base wants — an end to the Iraq war, a guarantee of health insurance for all — are also things that the country as a whole supports. The only risk the party now faces is excessive caution on the part of its politicians. Or, to coin a phrase, the only thing Democrats have to fear is fear itself.

I want to thank Mr. Krugman for causing me to feel - what is the word - Justified? Vindicated? Correct? ... for simply stating on a daily basis what my conscience has told me is the right thing to do and say.

Don Rose Bangs on Wrong Door for Iraq War

To commemorate the ghastly 4th anniversary of the Iraq War, Chicago-based political consultant Don Rose would rather have us look back at Democrats who voted for the Iraq War Resolution rather than to review the horrendous errors and lies of the Bush administration and every rubber-stamping Republican that has willingly prolonged the disaster since the war began. I wonder why? Could it be because Chicago's own Barack Obama can't be blamed for his vote because he wasn't in a position to have to have voted at the time because he wasn't yet a Senator? How politically convenient. What about things as they stand here and now?

Shouldn't we be opening our eyes and ears (widely) to what the Democratic leaders are saying and doing today about Iraq rather than hyperfocusing on political atmosphere four years ago? Notice that Mr. Rose says absolutely nothing about what the Democratic candidates are doing/saying today. Why isn't that more important?

With a clear eye, I don't trust Mr. Rose's judgment. He isn't a forgiving sort on this matter, and I realize his heart may be in the right place since he is a founding member of Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq. I went through similar feelings myself a couple years ago, but I realized that if we cannot learn to forgive when our leaders tell us they regret having trusted Bush with any authority, we will only have more cynicism and doubt - - and more leaders like George W. Bush.

I think a much better reminder of how we must change, as a nation on the fourth anniversary of this mess, is well-witnessed and written by Juan Cole, who points out the true source of the tragic war mistakes.

Bush's Top Ten Mistakes in Iraq during the Past 4 Years

10. Refusing to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when his incompetence and maliciousness became apparent in the growing guerrilla war and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

9. Declining to intervene in the collapsed economy or help put Iraqi state industries back on a good footing, on the grounds that the "market" would magically produce prosperity effortlessly.

8. Invading and destroying the Sunni Arab city of Fallujah in November, 2004, thus pushing the Sunni Arabs into the arms of the insurgency in protest and ensuring that they would boycott the January, 2005, parliamentary elections, a boycott that excluded them from power and from a significant voice in crafting the new constitution, which they then rejected.

7. Suddenly announcing that the US would "kill or capture" young nationalist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in spring, 2004, throwing the country into massive turmoil for months.

6. Replying to Baathist guerrilla provocations with harsh search and destroy missions that humiliated and angered ever more Sunni Arab clans, driving them to support or join the budding guerrilla movement.

5. Putting vengeful Shiites in charge of a Debaathification Commission that fired tens of thousands of mostly Sunni Arab state employees simply for having belonged to the Baath Party, leaving large numbers of Sunnis penniless and without hope of employment.

4. Dissolving the Iraqi Army in May, 2003, and sending 400,000 men home, unemployed, resentful and heavily armed.

3. Allowing widespread looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003, on the grounds that "stuff happens," "democracy is messy," and "how many vases can they have?"-- and thus signalling that there would be no serious attempt to provide law and order in American Iraq.

2. Plotting to install corrupt financier, notorious liar, and shady operator Ahmad Chalabi as the soft dictator of Iraq, and refusing to plan for a post-war administration of the country because that might forestall Chalabi's coronation.

1. Invading Iraq.

Cornel West on the Political Left Today

"What I would like to see is radical reformism once more become fashionable among young people."

- Professor Cornel West






At the 2007 Left Forum in NYC, Princeton University Professor Cornel West answers the question:

What does it really mean to be a leftist in the early part of the 21st century? What are we really talking about?

It's clear that the Democratic Party remains clueless, visionless and spineless for the most part. Does that mean you give up on them? No, it doesn’t mean you give up on them, but you have to be honest with them. But it does allow one to, in some way -- and this is what I think Brother Rick Wolff was talking about in terms of the desegregation of the rightwing consensus, the unbelievable ways in which now rightwing fellow citizens are at each other's throats. The evangelical right wing can't stand the free marketeers, can’t stand the balanced-budgeters. That's fine. Let them fight. Let them fight. Let them go at each other. They're weakened in that way. But what kind of alternative do we have? [...]

leftist identity is not going to be the major means by which you get at people to wake up and come to terms with their social misery, be willing to stand up courageously, articulate vision, and most importantly, have a slice of people who are willing to live and die for a cause, you see, because they have other stories and other narratives that they use to do that.

So I would even argue, in some way, that Martin King and Fannie Lou Hamer were much more important than the Black Panther Party. [..]

[Democracy Now]

Commenting on the same Left Forum, conservative John McWhorter writes as if Blacks should be resigned to struggling within and under a system that they cannot change, which, to me, sounds more like victim-mentality than an encouraging statement on the status of healthy and vibrant democracy in these United States. He says,

If Obama is elected, it is unlikely that he will spearhead a black agenda of the sort that the Left Forum panel would recognize. Nor is it likely that such a black agenda will ever come to be. However, there are ways of making people's lives better within the system that we are stuck with.