More of the Same

In the first year after Baghdad fell to American forces, the American Coalition Provisional Authority set up its offices in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace. The Bush administration chose young, inexperienced Republicans to put together the shattered Iraqi nation. George Packer describes the group in his book The Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq:

Most of them seemed to be Republicans, and more than a few were party loyalists who had come to Iraq as political appointees on ninety-day tours. They were astonishingly young. Many had never worked abroad, few knew anything about the Middle East, and that first summer only three or four of the Americans spoke Arabic. Some were simply unqualified for their responsibilities. A twenty-five-year-old oversaw the creation of the Baghdad stock market, and another twenty-five-year-old, from the Office of Special Plans, helped write the interim constitution while filling out his law school application. (184)

While these young people were enthusiastic and devoted Republicans, they were unprepared for the seriously important work at hand. They were chosen because they were ideologically correct.

Again and again over the past eight years the Bush administration has put ideology over competence and experience, from the members of the Coalition Provisional Authority to the director of FEMA to the selection of District Attorneys.

In his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, John McCain is illustrating this same kind of governing. The problem is not particularly with Sarah Palin herself, who may be a wonderful person. The problem is with what her choice tells us about John McCain. All the pundits on television who are heralding this choice as an indication that John McCain is a maverick have blank slates for minds.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Raining on the Democratic Parade

I had such mixed feelings when I learned of the announcement of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as McCain's running mate. The country hadn't fully processed the final speech of the Democratic convention when it was awarded with the historical announcement of a woman as vice-president on the Republican ticket. My first thought was that the choice was just too cynical, an attempt to woo all those die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters who don't think the party behind the person is important. And I also thought that the choice was evidently meant to make John McCain look like a maverick again in order to woo independent voters. And, who knows, it might work.

I would have a lot more respect for John McCain's choice of a woman as a running mate if he had chosen someone like Olympia Snowe. In short, my pithy and immediate response is WTF!

Over the past eight years, as I became increasingly angered and saddened by the decisions of the Bush administration, I also became more cynical. I have been worried that I would turn into a misanthrope. I've just been so distressed that too many people don't seem to care about the Bush administration's disregard of our privacy, of our constitution, of our national and democratic values. So we incarcerate people for years without giving them access to a lawyer? So we torture people now? So we eavesdrop on private conversations and troll e-mail and telephone conversations of millions of people? So we let millions of Americans live on the brink of disaster because they don't have access to healthcare? So we abandon a southern city in the middle of a devastating hurricane and then, finally, months and months later provide mobile homes that are health hazards? So we abandon diplomacy, bullying and blustering our way around the world?

Though I want a Democratic president, I would be a less worried citizen if John McCain were really a maverick and were planning to make major changes in the ways this country has been governed in the past eight years. But McCain's campaign choices and rhetoric have echoed that of the Bush administration. Choosing a little known woman as a dark horse running mate does nothing to alleviate my concerns.

Gratitude?

To critics who claim that Barack Obama didn't show gratitude toward the sacrifices and work of African-Americans who preceded him, Barack Obama responded:

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

These were the final words of Barack Obama's 2008 Democratic Convention Speech. Cornell West criticizes Barack Obama (as he has done for much of the presidential race) for not showing enough gratitude to the African-Americans who worked so hard in the Civil Rights Era and before. After Obama's speech, West complained to Tavis Smiley that Obama couldn't even bring himself to mention Martin Luther King, Jr.'s name. I thought a while about this criticism. When I returned to the Internet to read Obama's speech, having only listened to it last night on television, I was struck, however, that Obama does not even NEED to say King's name. King is a great man whose achievement is so bound to our nation's history that everyone immediately recognizes the slightest allusion to him.

Over the last week, I've listened to several young African-American men, local and national leaders, describe Obama and themselves as a new wave of Civil Rights leaders. They recognize what they owe the previous generation, but they are looking more toward the future than the past.

One thing that makes me proud to be a Democrat at this point in history is the diversity I saw in the delegates as well as in the speakers who stood at the podium over the course of these four days. In those final lines, Barack Obama directly stressed our unity in that diversity. In a very subtle and intelligent way, he uses the very language of King and emphasizes that dream of forty-five years ago:

We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.. . .
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Source for selections from Martin Luther King's speech: Martin Luther King, "I Have a Dream."

Source for Barack Obama's 2008 Democratic Convention Speech: MSNBC.MSN.COM

Cynical Partisan Divide?

To Rovian Republican politics, to the politics of cynical partisan division, Barack Obama responded:

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what - it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

Source of this selection from Barack Obama's Convention Speech: MSNBC.MSN.com

Character and Patriotism?

To the criticisms that he lacks character and is not patriotic enough, Barack Obama responded:

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

Source of selection from Barack Obama's Convention Speech: MSNBC.MSN.com

Judgment?

To John McCain's criticism that he doesn't have the judgment to lead, Barack Obama responded:

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

Source of this selection from Barack Obama's 2008 Democratic Convention Speech:MSNBC.MSN.com

No Values?

To the far-right's ridiculous claim that Democrats have no values, that the Republican Party is the party of values, Barack Obama responded:

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.

Source for this selection of Barack Obama's Convention Speech: MSNBC.MSN.com

Short On Specifics? Uh uh......

To the criticism that he is all style and no substance, Barack Obama responded:

So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Source of excerpt from Barack Obama's Democratic Convention Speech: MSNBC.MSN.com

A Celebrity Life?

To the critcism from the McCain camp that Barack Obama lives a celebrity life, Obama responded:

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

Source of this excerpt from Barack Obama's speech: MSNBC.MSN.com

Barack Obama: A good and thoughtful speech

Except for a few places where he stumbled just a bit in the delivery, Barack Obama gave a fine speech at the Democratic Convention. He had tough things to say, some specific promises to make which one hopes he and a Democratic government can fill, and some steely challenges for John McCain. Here are a few quotes I jotted down quickly:

• "We love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight."
• On the politics of the Republican party: "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as a person to run from."
• "At defining moments like this, change doesn't come from Washington; change comes to Washington."

The speech addressed some specific criticisms lobbed against him: against his patriotism, against his judgment, against his popularity. He spoke movingly of his family, of his mother, his grandparents, of the missing father in his life. David Brooks said that this was a good speech but not a political speech. The historian Richard Norton Smith said that it was a great speech, not one that will probably be written in stone--but that any perceived shortcomings will not matter if Barack Obama has an inaugural speech in his future.

I started getting a little worried, however, that Obama wasn't going to mention Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on this historic anniversary. That tip of the hat came at the end of Obama's speech, but it was just that--a tip of the hat. For a few minutes I watched Tavis Smiley (whose program I used to watch more regularly when I lived in Central Time Zone), whose guests for a brief post-convention analysis were Dr. Cornell West and Julianne Malveaux. West and Malveaux both were disappointed in the speech and felt that Obama should have shown more gratitude for the hard work of African-Americans who made it possible for a black man to accept this historical nomination. Malveaux said: "I think the brother dropped the historical baton."

I think Obama is trying to bridge at least two divides here: a political divide (or, more accurately, the partisan divide) between Republicans and Democrats and a racial divide between whites and blacks. It's a precarious balance. He will not be able to meet everyone's expectations. He will be, I hope, the first of many African-American presidents, men and women.

Here is Kevin Drum on Obama's speech. I also really liked the first quote that Kevin copied from the speech.

Day 4: Ordinary People

Wow! The voices of ordinary people are a highlight so far. Pam, from North Carolina, told us that she has been a life-long Republican; she voted for Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2--but no more. Her family had the American dream until her husband got ill, lost his job and the family's healthcare. Then she had by-pass surgery. The bills piled up, with no healthcare to help. Afterwards, David Brooks and Mark Shields agreed that whoever located these people located winners for the Democratic Convention.

As the minutes tick by until Barack Obama's speech, I'm reminded of one of the drawbacks of living in the Eastern Time Zone, in a house of early risers who try to get to bed by 9:30 p.m. The other family night owl now lives in Austin, Texas. I've stayed up late every night, alone, to watch these events, to record a few of my immediate responses, and then to read a little of what others are recording before cold analysis kicks in. After maybe four to five hours of sleep for the past three nights, I'm ready for a long snooze. But until then. . . I hope Barack Obama's speech gets to the mountaintop of this convention.

Day 4: Al Gore

What irony! After Al Gore's speech, Jim Lehrer gets David Brooks to comment on the speech, and Brooks says that Al Gore's passionate speech illustrates a man who should have been himself when running for president, who shouldn't have listened to his political handlers because that is what cost him his passion and the election of 2004. This--following Gore's forceful description of John McCain's abandoning HIS honorable self for the support of the far-right and for partisanship. Gore demonstrated how John McCain will carry on the same policies of the Bush administration. He added: "Hey, I believe in recycling, but that is ridiculous."

Thank God that speakers at this convention are finally demonstrating that McCain and Obama represent two very different choices. Recent media outlets have tried to argue that the two candidates are not that different on the issues. That's hogwash!

And, finally, a speaker who raises the moral issues of torture.

Day 4: Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson is on stage now, comparing the views of John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain has flip-flopped many times in order to gain the support of the far-right. Richardson emphasized this in a very quotable sentence: "John McCain may pay $500 for his shoes, but we'll be the ones to pay for his flip-flops."

Not Disappointed

My final note on the third night of the 2008 Democratic Convention: it did not disappoint,

• from the class act of Hillary Clinton's calling for a stop to the roll call in order to nominate Barack Obama as presidential candidate for the Democratic party,
• to the speeches of military men and women,
• to Bill Clinton's smart and convincing support of Barack Obama (comparing Obama's experience to that of his own experience campaigning for president),
• to Beau Biden's heart-felt introduction of his father,
• to Joe Biden's stories of his mother, including the one in which, when Biden was picked on by other kids, his mother told him to return and bloody their noses so that he could walk the streets (a quick camera pan to the elder Mrs. Biden caught her mouthing the words "that's true"),
• to Joe Biden's bloodying McCain's nose in his litany of McCain's misjudgments: "John McCain was wrong; Barack Obama was right,"
• to Barack Obama's appearance at the end and his hat tip to Hillary.

Yes, this was pageantry and politics, but it was also poetry and patriotism.

Of course, I was watching PBS, which included coverage of the entire speeches of most of the participants in the evening and less coverage of talking heads pontificating--though there was some of that, too.

"Johnny, I hardly Knew You!"

John Kerry is delivering, too. Tarred as a flip-flopper by the Republicans in the 2004 presidential race, Kerry is effectively demonstrating that John McCain is really the flip-flopper. Kerry's advice to McCain? Before he debates with Obama, "John McCain should finish the debate with himself." Oh yeah! "That flag doesn't belong to any ideology; it doesn't belong to any political party. . . . it belongs to all the American people."

"America Can Do Better Than That"

Bill Clinton is not disappointing. Once again, I am reminded of this man's ability to hold the rapt attention of a crowd, and I'm remembering why I voted for him twice, despite his moral failings. Bill Clinton is a leader--and he's also a master of words. Perhaps his speech is going a little too long--that's Bill Clinton, too. But he has the crowd in the palm of his hand.

And the black cat sitting comfortably in my lap jumped up startled when I whooped at these words: People around the world "have been impressed more by the power of our example than the example of our power." YES!

Another Night with the Democrats

Well, I've spent another night staying up past 11:30 p.m. here in the Eastern Time Zone to listen to the speeches at the Democratic Convention. I tuned in after PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer at 8 p.m. and watched fairly faithfully throughout the evening. I missed a couple of the shorter speeches. The speeches of ordinary folks such as Gloria Craven, former textile worker from North Carolina, and Lilly Ledbetter of Alabama, who sued Goodyear for wage discrimination, tended to be spoken in a monotone as these inexperienced speakers depended too much on the teleprompter. However, these women's experiences demonstrated the economic and judicial shortcomings of this Republican administration. Ledbetter discovered that Goodyear had paid comparable male colleagues more than she for years. She sued and won her case, but then the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down her suit on what seems to be a very narrow technicality. Interested in just what the Supreme Court decided this woman should have done? See Matthew Yglesias' post.

The highlight of the night was Hillary Clinton's speech, and I thought it was a good one. What a president she would make! But, then, I voted for Barack Obama, and I'm standing by my man. Clinton stood by Barack Obama, too, in this speech, and she's set the bar high for tomorrow night's key speeches by Joe Biden and Bill Clinton. Hope they don't disappoint.

Kudos to Michelle Obama

I just watched the first night of the Democratic Convention on PBS, Jim Lehrer from the NewsHour moderating. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, led the speeches with a typical political speech, what one might expect from Nancy Pelosi, whom I've never found very inspiring. I was hoping for a speech to really engage and energize the delegates. Jesse Jackson, Jr., did a good job at that, the speech of Missouri's Senator Clair McClaskill was delivered well, and Ted Kennedy's appearance was a highlight. A video tribute had long been planned for Kennedy, but his being able to appear in person despite his illness was an unexpected pleasure for many. However, I think the evening goes to Michelle Obama. She was poised, humorous, articulate, and set just the right balance between personal anecdote and political awareness--despite what David Brooks said afterward during the brief "talking heads" follow-up to Michelle Obama's speech.

David Brooks thinks that Michelle Obama missed her opportunity to help the American people see who Barack Obama really is, who the man is. I was surprised by his analysis. As an avid reader of online news, a daily viewer of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, a reader of political blogs, and a subscriber to news magazines, I've read a lot about Barack Obama. Yet Michelle Obama's speech helped me see more of the man, of his ideals, his hopes, his dreams, his family. What did David Brooks want? Something that the political noise machine can turn against the candidate's wife?

David Brooks' sour analysis was in the minority, however. Two of the historian panelists, Richard Norton Smith and Michael Beschloss began their comments by disagreeing with Brooks. I've listened to David Brooks a lot over the years and read his columns in The New York Times occasionally, and sometimes I just don't understand where that man is coming from.

Michelle Obama rocks!

Fighting Back

A few journalists/editorialists advise the Democratic Party to respond aggressively to negative attacks on Barack Obama's character:

• Hendrick Hertzbert, "Attackdog Days," in the Comment column of The New Yorker, September 1, 2008.
• Paul Krugman, "Accentuate the Negative," in The New York Times, August 24, 2008.

How about hitting back on judgment? John McCain questions Barack Obama's judgment as a potential president? How about his own judgment? In 2001, he said that if he had been president, he also would have chosen Dick Cheney as vice-president and Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. (Hat tip to Matthew Yglesias for that link to Jed Lewison's blog, The Jed Report.)

Flip-Flops

In the 2004 presidential race, Republicans effectively stuck the "flip-flop" label on John Kerry. Remember all those stupid flip-flops flapping at the Republican convention? Well, Steve Bennen, formerly blogging at the Carpetbagger Report and now at Washington Monthly's blog Political Animal, has a list of John McCain's flip-flops: 74 and counting. As Bennen pointed out, people are going to change their mind occasionally--and they should when facts convince. However, Bennen shows how McCain's many flip-flops are tied to political expediency. This is one reason my respect for John McCain has plummeted.

Another reason my respect for John McCain is very low: his choice of Phil Gramm as an economic advisor to his presidential campaign. After making some stupid comments, Gramm had to step down from that role. But you know the guy still has a lot of influence behind the scenes. I have disliked Phil Gramm (a fellow Texan and a professor at Texas A&M University when I was a student there) and his policies for a very long time. His public statements suggest a very condescending and mean streak. His economic policies have been bad for the country.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden

James Fallows' examination of the presidential primary debates and of what those debates illustrate about the candidates is worth reading: "Rhetorical Questions," at Atlantic.com. In addition, read his comments on Joe Biden as Obama's running mate: "About Biden as Speaker," on Fallows' blog at The Atlantic.

I signed up with the Obama campaign to receive an e-mail announcing Obama's vice-presidential running mate. Because I checked the Internet before going to bed at 1:30 this morning, I knew that Biden was the choice because the news had been leaked to the press. But I also received the promised e-mail announcing Obama's decision and requesting a note welcoming Joe Biden to the race. I sent my welcome. Although I would have loved to have seen a woman on the ticket, I am happy with Barack Obama's choice. At an early point during the primaries, I took one of those silly on-line quizzes meant to ascertain just which Democratic candidate most closely matched my views. Joe Biden's name was at the top of the list. I read a lot about his background, liked what I had read--and most of what I saw in the debates--but I knew that he would not be a top contender in the end. At first I supported Hillary Clinton, but at the very last moment, right before my finger touched the voting screen, I changed my mind and voted for Barack Obama.

The McCain campaign is already on the attack, including sound bites of Joe Biden's criticisms of Barack Obama. Okay, business as usual. Time for the Democrats to fight back.

Arugula Lover

Today I got out my packet of arugula seeds. I've been planting arugula in the spring for several years, and I'm going to try a fall planting in a front flower bed, behind the globe amaranths and a native rudbeckia. I love the stuff. I guess I'm an elitist, too--even though my family's income falls far, far, far short of the $5 million threshold that John McCain claims one has to cross to be labeled "rich." Oh, and I also do my own gardening in my own little suburban yard of my own one little (1300 square feet) 1940s suburban home. Oh, and I have a master's degree in English, and I've been an instructor and assistant professor at several colleges and universities. Also, I read a lot, books with words like "economy," "mergers," "indigenous,"climatic upheaval"," and such. So I must be pointy-headed, too. Although I thought I was an ordinary American, I've recently learned that loving greens and having a graduate degree evidently make me unable to relate to ordinary Americans. Gee, I feel so special. Thanks, Republicans.

Update
Here is Christopher Beam at Slate, defending arugula: "It's Not Easy Being a Leafy Green."

Withdrawal Pains

Russia is NOT withdrawing from Georgia: "Russia to Keep Soldiers in Georgia," according to the LA Times.

The United States is setting a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, according to The Wall Street Journal: "U. S. , Iraq are Said to Have set Withdrawal Timetable."

Here is Kevin Drum's take on the withdrawal in Iraq, at The Washington Monthly.

Success?

Ummm. . . . Is this the "success" in Iraq we hear so much about from John McCain? The United States has been paying thousands of militia members $300 a month and promising them jobs with the Iraqi government. Of the 24,000 Sunni Sons of Iraq in Diyala province, 11,000 are on U. S. payrolls. (On Tuesday morning, gunfire erupted between police in Diyala province and Iraqi special forces.) The U. S. is paying a total of 103,000 militia members throughout Iraq. The agreement between the U. S. and these militias has greatly influenced the decline in violence that politicians always cite as evidence of success of the surge. Now the Iraqi government is backing out of its commitment toward these former insurgents. What happens when the promises fail?

Colin Kahl, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a centrist policy institute in Washington, who recently visited Iraq, said the dispute over the militias could set the stage for a return of widespread bloodshed, particularly because the Maliki government seemed intent on thwarting the plan.

Sources
Leila Fadel, "Key U. S. Iraq Strategy in Danger of Collapse," McClatchy Newspapers, posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008, at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/49538.html

Nicholas Spangler, "U.S. Denounces Chaotic Iraqi Raid," McClatchy Newspapers, posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008, at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/49518.html

Obama: We Do Not Serve a Red America or a Blue America

Update below

Barack Obama's address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 19, 2008, illustrates a refreshing change from the Republican Party, which smeared John Kerry and questioned the patriotism of numerous other Democrats, such as Max Cleland of Georgia--But will such civility hinder the Democrats from winning the White House? A friend and I had a discussion recently in which my friend insisted that Democrats have to learn to fight just as dirty as the Republicans, that Democrats have to learn to toe the party line and not to cross the aisle just as Republicans have done the last few years, that Democrats should mount their own Swift Boat attacks and set their own versions of a Jerome Corsi loose on the gullible public, that Democrats need their own Fox News to parrot talking points over and over and over. I, however, think one can be tough without being mean and deceitful. Perhaps I remain, still, too idealistic.

Update
Here is David Crisp on John McCain's stating that he hadn't questioned Barack Obama's patriotism. I also did a double-take when I heard McCain's claim on the news this evening. Yes, McCain is following the Republican playbook in questioning the patriotism of his opponent. And then lying about it.

And also Kevin Drum on how George Soros' support for Democratic causes has been effectively demonized by the right--Many of the responses to Drum's post reflect the feelings of my friend who thinks Democrats should learn to fight dirtier.

Kill the Anti-Christ Cliche

When I first watched John McCain's political ad "The One," in which Barack Obama is parodied for being a self-proclaimed messiah, my response was immediate and visceral. I grew up in a very conservative Southern Baptist church; my childhood was steeped in evangelical Christian eschatology. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth was the text of one Bible class; in another we read Revelation as if it were a text for current world events, the teacher interpreting every image and metaphor literally as if they were headlines in The Houston Post, my family's newspaper of choice. I lay in bed at night expecting the Second Coming of Christ at any moment, like a "thief in the night." As my parents' Little Ben alarm wound down every morning, I would be petrified that my mother and father had been caught up in The Rapture overnight while I slept, and, for whatever childish sins I had committed, I had been left behind.

According to that End Times world view, any movement toward peace in the Middle East was the first warning drum roll for the end of the world. Communist Russia was the Great Beast--or maybe it was the Catholic Church, depending on the particular proclivities of the teacher or church leader. Any number of political leaders could be the anti-Christ. The more peaceful or charismatic they seemed, the more likely they were to be the great deceiver, the bearer of the number 666, the anti-messiah.

I've left behind that particular part of my past as if it were a drug-induced nightmare. What remains is an antipathy toward any organization, religious or political, that governs, teaches, or leads by fear, intimidation, and paranoia--and antibodies against the use of religious clichés in political ads or rhetoric. When in his January 2003 State of the Union address George Bush praised the "power, wonder-working power in the goodness and idealism and the faith of the American people," I knew just whom the President was addressing and just whose heart strings those phrases would pluck like the hands of harp-playing angels. I can still recite verses from that song: "There is power, power, wonder-working power, in the blood of the Lamb. There is power, power, wonder-working power in the precious blood of the Lamb." And equating the American public with the Lamb of God did nothing for me. Sounded more like blasphemy, if anything.

So when I watched that ad about Barack Obama, my heart grew cold. The images--that orange glow like the reflected glow of the flames of hell rather than the bright white light of righteousness--and words of the authoritative male voice-over equate Barack Obama with the anti-Messiah, the anti-Christ. Hundreds of thousands of people have read the Left Behind series. John McCain's ad taps into the fear and paranoia of those evangelical Christians who believe in those novels as if they are templates for the near future. Any lingering respect I had for John McCain (and I once had quite a lot), began to dissipate at that moment. The Republican Party is using the world views of people like Hal Lindsey to get people to vote out of fear rather than out of respect for democracy and all it represents.

It's time to kill the anti-Christ cliché in American politics, time to kill it with derisive laughter or even the righteous anger of believers--whatever works. The metaphor has been used for over two thousand years to demonize any number of leaders and world powers. Why does it still have such power? Why do we continue to give in to its siren call of fear and paranoia? So Barack Obama is the anti-Christ? Well, so is John McCain, say biblical scholars with the True Bible Society. What do we have here: two anti-Christs glaring at one another across the political landscape? P-l-eaze!

Yes, Everyone Lies about Sex, But. . ."

I have a great deal of sympathy for public people who are asked questions about their sex lives or whose sex lives are made public despite their best efforts. However, I receive with some sadness the news of John Edwards' admitting to his affair with Rielle Hunter.

It's not that I thought John Edwards was a saint. It's just that I think he should have had strong second thoughts about running for president once he had that affair. The American people are not the French public, who have a much more relaxed attitude toward the sexual adventures of their leaders. Did Edwards think the affair would remain a secret? If he had won the Democratic nomination, imagine the ammunition his affair would have provided the Republican Party, which touts itself (erroneously, but too often successfully, unfortunately) as the moral and Christian party! And what about Elizabeth Edwards? Had he thought of what such a story would do to her, the wife who supported his bid for presidency despite her serious health problems? Bleh!

"The Eddie Haskell of Politicians"

Via Kevin Drum, a link to this article on John McCain, by Amy Silverman, managing editor of the Phoenix New Times.

Those who praise John McCain for being a maverick and a straight-talking politician would do well to read Silverman's article, "Post-modern John McCain: The Presidential Candidate some Arizonans Know and Loathe." The article reminds readers of McCain's activities with the Keating Five, of McCain's meanness, and of Cindy McCain's drug addiction. If she weren't rich and white, Cindy McCain probably would have served jail time. Bob Neuman, who, as Arizona congressman Mo Udall's aide, knows John McCain from the days when McCain hung out with Udall, calls McCain, "the Eddie Haskell of politicians."

More information

• Silverman's 1994 news article on Cindy McCain's addiction and illegal actions: "Opiate for the Mrs.," in the Phoenix New Times.
• Silverman's 1997 article on the media's love for John McCain, "The Pampered Politician," in the Phoenix New Times.

"Wade into the Democrats. Spill Their Blood."

This morning I have been reading of the corruption of the Republican party and its leaders. First, I started with an essay by Thomas Frank, who has a new book out exploring how "the spectacular misrule of the GOP was not an accident." In this book, Frank explores the roles of "Grover Norquist, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Newt Gingrich, and the whole troupe of activists, lobbyists, and corpora-trons who got their start back in the Reagan years." Frank's essay discusses some of the issues of his book.

I then read an interview with Frank, in which Frank discusses the conservative youth movement, its connection with the South African apartheid government, and of the International Freedom Foundation's connections with the apartheid government. Frank says:

The funny thing is, the IFF later turned out to be a project of South African military intelligence. For all its constant attacks on the left for being closet tools of the Soviet Union, the conservatives were the ones who were on the payroll of a foreign power -- discreetly, of course. Abramoff and Company were, once again, fighting liberalism for pay. This was pretty big news in South Africa when it came out during the Truth and Reconciliation hearings. Not so big here.

From a reader's comment on Frank's essay, I found the link to Bill Moyers' series on the corruption of top Republican leaders and lobbyists. Now, I've read a lot on the Jack Abramoff scandal and of Tom Delay's venality, so much of the information in this series wasn't new to me. However, the details are fascinating, and Moyer's discussion of the money trail is one of the clearest descriptions I've heard.

Watch all four videos and weep over how easily people can be misled. Ralph Reed publicly was against gambling and rallied many evangelical Christians to his side, yet he was taking vast amounts of gambling money from the Louisiana Coushatta Indian tribes' casinos.

Suzil Paynter, director of the Christian Life Commission of the Texas Baptist General Convention, describes in the series how her "heart hurt" when she discovered the duplicity of Ralph Reed. Chris Geeslin, pastor and president of the U. S. Family Network, mourns how:

We were supposed to be presenting this moral value to the country and bringing the country back to God. . . and supporting these programs--and we did some of that--but. . . really, I feel now that was kind of a charade. . . "

Geeslin had discovered where the money came from to support the USFN: Russian oligarchs--and others--seeking Tom Delay's influence. The U. S. Family Network was really a money laundering machine.

Or listen to Michael Scanlon's description of how he, Reed, and Abramoff manipulated religious people, specifically stirring up Texas Christians against gambling, in order to preserve the regional casino-gambling monopoly of the Coushatta tribe:

Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos. The wackos get their information from the Christian Right, Christian radio, the Internet, and telephone trees.

At the end of his series, which can only be seen at 3 p.m. on Sunday afternoons in our area (not a prime viewing hour), Moyers reminds us of what has since happened to some of the key players in these corruption schemes. Jack Abramoff is in jail, and Michael Scanlon "pleaded guilty to charges connected to Abramoff." While Ralph Reed lost an election in Georgia, he "now runs a public relations firm in Atlanta" and "is on the host committee for a John McCain event later this month."

And what about Tom Delay and Grover Norquist, two other compatriots of Jack Abramoff? Ole Tom "has launched a new organization called Coalition for a Conservative Majority. His goal is to organize chapters in 50 states." Grover Norquist is still "busy as a lobbyist in his role as president of Americans for Tax Reform, the organization that funneled money to Ralph Reed."

In the early 1980s, young recruits for College Republicans

were told to memorize a speech from the movie Patton. But for the word "Nazis" they were to substitute the word "Democrats." "Wade into them," the young recruits repeated. "Spill their blood!"

Perhaps thinking they were patriotic, they supported an ideology and its leaders that have just about destroyed our country's credibility and the ideals for which our country has long stood. And created a poisonous political atmosphere in which calls to murder liberals and Democrats no longer seem to be metaphors.

Sources

• Rick Perlstein, "Thomas Frank on the Bush administration: Sabotage by design," an interview with Thomas Franks on Salon, posted Friday, August 8, 2008.
• Thomas Frank, "How conservative greed and corruption destroyed American politics," essay in Salon, posted Friday, August 8, 2008.
• Bill Moyers' Journal, Capitol Crimes, a series on PBS, with video and transcripts at: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08012008/watch.html

Cousins on Stone Mountain

Here we are, cousins, together on Stone Mountain, in Georgia, with a cairn to commemorate the visit:

Anthrax, Climate Change, and Cloning: Animals in the News

• Ted Turner's bison herd has anthrax. Eighty-five head of bison have been destroyed:"85 of Ted Turner's Bison Destroyed," in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
• A South American stork has been spotted near Marigouin, Louisiana: "South American Stork Spotted in Louisiana," in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
• Increasing abundance of jellyfish suggests problems with the world's oceans. Scientists are saying that "the increasing reports from around the world" indicate "that the trend is real, serious and climate-related": "Stinging Tentacles Offer Hint of Oceans' Decline," in The New York Times.
• The Gulf Stream is bringing many more tropical fish north. These fish abandoned by the Gulf Stream in northern waters become a boon for aquarium collections. They may also suggest effects of climate change: "For Aquariums, the Small Fry Swept North Become a Big Catch," in The New York Times.
• A California woman has her pet dog cloned in South Korea. This is the first successful commercial cloning of a dog: "Pet Cloning Service Bears Five Baby Boogers," in The Guardian.

Great Response

How Easy it is to Fool People

This week's The New Yorker includes an amazing story of a Frenchman named Frédéric Bourdin, a man who over the years has passed himself off as abandoned teenagers or missing children:

Over the years, Bourdin had insinuated himself into youth shelters, orphanages, foster homes, junior high schools, and children’s hospitals. His trail of cons extended to, among other places, Spain, Germany, Belgium, England, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Bosnia, Portugal, Austria, Slovakia, France, Sweden, Denmark, and America. The U.S. State Department warned that he was an “exceedingly clever” man who posed as a desperate child in order to “win sympathy,” and a French prosecutor called him “an incredible illusionist whose perversity is matched only by his intelligence.” Bourdin himself has said, “I am a manipulator. . . . My job is to manipulate.”

This man was able to pose as a missing teenager from San Antonio, Texas. He fooled the missing boy's family even though his eyes are brown and the boy's were blue. The story forcefully reminds us of how easy it is to fool us when we want to believe. Skepticism is a healthy trait.

Anthrax in the News Again

Update below

"Whatever happened to the anthrax investigation?" I asked some of my co-workers recently during conversation between tutoring sessions at the community college where I now tutor part-time.

Well, that investigation is once again in the news, as the most recent suspect committed suicide this week. Considering the FBI's bumbling in the case (Steven Hatfill, the previous suspect, was exonerated and recently settled with the Dept. of Justice and the FBI for $5.2 million), I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about this final suspect. Maybe he was pushed to the edge by the focus of the investigation. However, these details about the man are rather interesting:

• Dr. Bruce Ivins worked in the Army lab at Fort Detrick where intensive studies on live anthrax spores were performed. He even swabbed contaminated areas in the lab and in his office in 2001 and 2002, without telling anyone until questioned later in an Army investigation.
• He had been acting erratically lately, suffering from depression and making homicidal threats against his co-workers and a social worker.
• According to letters he had written to his local newspaper, as a conservative Christian, he supported the Bush administration and believed that the U. S. should be governed according to the Gospel. (I would hesitate to call him a Christian "fanatic," as one blogger has, based just on these letters, however.)
• According to the Los Angeles Times, Ivins was "a co-inventor of a new anthrax vaccine", and he stood to benefit monetarily if the product came to market.
• Ivins conducted research on squalene, a component of the anthrax vaccines given to U. S. soldiers to supposedly protect them against bio-terrorism. These vaccinations have caused a lot of controversy. Journalist Gary Matsumoto has written a book on this controversy, titled Vaccine-A: The Covert Government Experiment that's Killing Our Soldiers and Why GIs are Only the First Victims.

When the anthrax letters were mailed, the fear and terror created by the attacks on 9/11 racheted up. Hoax letters were sent, and suspicious packages were found around the country, most turning out to be non-threatening. For instance, some white powder on the floor of a woman's restroom at a university where I was teaching caused a stir; local police were called to investigate. The substance was bath powder, if I remember correctly. Although I'm not susceptible to hysteria, I remember casually looking at websites advertising bio-terrorism wear for civilians--gas masks in child sizes and such!

More seriously, however, the anthrax letters were used to gender support for war against Iraq. Glenn Greenwald has extensively documented the role of ABC News in linking anthrax with Iraq.

This whole story is begging for a Congressional investigation. Congress should look into what government sources fed information to ABC, linking the anthrax with Iraq, and into why the FBI has been so ineffective in its search for the source of the anthrax. Is there a conspiracy? (My tendency is to think not conspiracy but opportunism as being the Bush administration's MO in manipulating facts to advance its desire to begin a war with Iraq.) Has there been a cover-up? Was Dr. Ivins the anthrax terrorist or is he a fall-guy? Inquiring minds want to know.

Update. Monday, 4 August
A New York Times article paints a disturbing picture of the FBI's errors and sloppiness in investigating the origins of the anthrax-laden letters. Here is the link: "Anthrax Evidence is Said to Be Circumstantial," Scott Shane, New York Times, 4 Aug. 2008.

2nd Update
Glenn Greenwald has posted information about the credibility of the social worker upon whose public record hangs a great deal of the negative perception of Dr. Ivins' personality. Greenwald points out that while Dr. Ivins may well be the person who sent the anthrax letters, those charges have not been proven yet. And plenty of people who knew Dr. Ivins well remain skeptical of the charges. We should be cautious about jumping to conclusions in a case in which the FBI's investigation has been so poorly led.

I recall how an investigation in the 1990s, by the Dayton and Liberty County police in Texas, led to the arrest of an aunt of mine. My aunt had been robbed and raped, yet before the investigation was over, the police had taken my emotionally shaken aunt alone in a room, hooked her up to a polygraph, and interrogated her to such an extent that she ended up confessing having stolen the money and lying about the rape. Prior to this harassment, the police had lost the rape kit, and they had tried to get my aunt to finger a man who had just been released from prison. In the later interrogation, the police browbeat my aunt, telling her the polygraph indicated that she was lying, that it would be better for her and her family if she confessed to the crime. My aunt was so emotionally unstable by this time that she copped to the crime even though she didn't do it. Then she tried to commit suicide.

Circumstantial evidence can seem to be damning when it's just an unhappy example of how connecting-the-dots can result in any number of conflicting scenarios, depending upon who is holding the pen.