Self-Development and the Obama Movement

This was emailed to me via my local Obama group, and I'm going to post it in its entirety so that I don't lose it. Great piece.

Self-Development and the Obama Movement
by Wade Hudson

Barack often affirms self-improvement, personal responsibility, and mutual support. His statements on these issues include:

• Children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets.
• Alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.
• We understand our liberty in a more positive sense as well, in the idea of opportunity and the subsidiary values that help realize opportunity. The values of self-reliance and self-improvement and risk-taking. The values of drive, discipline, temperance, and hard work. The values of thrift and personal responsibility.
• It was here [in Illinois] we learned to disagree without being disagreeable.
• So long as we're willing to listen to each other, we can assume the best in people instead of the worst.
• Each of us, in our own lives, will have to accept responsibility – for instilling an ethic of achievement in our children, for adapting to a more competitive economy, for strengthening our communities, and sharing some measure of sacrifice.
• The time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations.

His most powerful statement on these issues, however, may have been his 2007 Commencement Address at Southern New Hampshire University. Following are some excerpts (emphases added):

• We become tempted to turn inward, suspicious that change is really possible, doubtful that one person really can make a difference. That's where the true test of growing up occurs.
• In both your own life and the life of your country, will you strive to put away childish things?
• It is a constant struggle, this quest for maturity, and as my wife will certainly tell you, I haven't always been on the winning side in my own life...
• [T]he first lesson of growing up: The world doesn't just revolve around you…. We should talk more about our empathy deficit – the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes…. As you go on in life, cultivating this quality of empathy will become harder, not easier….
• [T]he second lesson is this:  Challenge yourself. Take some risks in your life.... Listen to what's inside of you and decide what it is that you care about so much that you're willing to risk it all.
• [A] third lesson in growing up: Persevere. Making your mark on the world is hard. If it were easy, everybody would do it. But it's not. It takes patience, it takes commitment, and it comes with plenty of failure along the way. The real test is not whether you avoid this failure, because you won't. It's whether you let it harden or shame you into inaction, or whether you learn from it; whether you choose to persevere.
• Cultivating empathy, challenging yourself, persevering in the face of adversity – these are qualities that dare us to put away childish things. They are qualities that help us grow.

With these remarks, Barack touches on how the never-ending change we need is personal as well as social, political, and cultural.

My previous recommendations to the Obama for America national office for their ongoing planning process has touched on these issues by suggesting that our post-election movement (the "Movement for Change"?) should clearly encourage the development of "supportive friendships."

Prior to those recommendations, I had suggested that we explicitly commit to "self-development and mutual support." But some individuals resist affirmations concerning "self-development," whether the concept is expressed in terms of self-development, self-improvement, personal growth, or some other language.

Some believe that they have already matured as much as they can. Others believe that some perfect self exists separate from those aspects of their personality that they wish to change, so to talk about self-improvement negates that perfection.

Yet others claim that any talk of self-development reinforces American rugged individualism. In The Audacity of Hope, Barack eloquently counters this concern by pointing out that self-development and community development are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they can reinforce one another.

Nevertheless, the resistance to affirming self-development persists. So in order not to turn off those people who object to that language and include as broad a range of individuals as possible, I suggest advancing "supportive friendships." Language is weird. The same words carry different meanings for different people. I'm hoping that "supportive friendships" will be more universally acceptable.

I assume almost everyone wants to develop, strengthen, and/or sustain supportive friendships. And I assume that supportive friendships generally involve the same process to which I refer when I talk about "self-development and mutual support." Almost everyone wants to figure out how to deal with difficult situations more effectively. Almost everyone wants to reduce "down" times. Almost everyone wants to increase her or his effectiveness in the world. Almost everyone wants good friends who can assist him or her with these efforts. And almost everyone is willing to be a good friend to others by assisting them. So I believe that promoting supportive friendships implies promoting self-development and mutual support.

It may be wiser and clearer to make this belief explicit by affirming "self-development and mutual support," even if some folks exclude themselves as a result. I'm not sure, but for now, I suggest leaving it implicit in "supportive friendships."

Regardless, I consider it important that we somehow address these issues in our training materials and Host Guides. We might simply talk about "how to increase our effectiveness." But one way or another, we need to encourage each other to take time to evaluate our efforts, both individual and collective, reflect on ways that we could improve those efforts, and commit to undertaking improvements.

We need not prescribe for others exactly how they should proceed in this regard. Rather, following the harm-reduction model in drug treatment programs, we can encourage everyone to define their own goals for themselves and then support them in achieving those goals.

To some degree, friends naturally provide one another with this kind of support informally. Presumably, team members will do so to some significant degree, during shared meals, during meetings, after meetings, and at other times.

It's easy, however, to get caught up in the pressures of the modern world and the urgency of meeting immediate goals. So in order to pay more attention to these issues, some teams might, with some loose structures, decide to formalize their commitment to self-development and mutual support.

Those teams, if any, that decide to do so could, after pledging to keep their conversations confidential, go around the circle with each person first reporting on recent efforts with regard to self-development – whatever form that might take (as determined by each individual). Feedback from others could be minimal. Unsolicited advice could be discouraged. Mostly, others could simply listen carefully. Problem solving and conflict resolution could be addressed later as needed, perhaps informally. Benefits could include the increased self-understanding that comes from articulating one's reflections, as well as increased mutual understanding. Just slowing down and a break to reflect can foster forward movement. Team members could then go around the circle reporting on their political action and how they felt about it, and then their community service, followed by decision-making concerning their joint political action for the next month and other items.

Those are some options that a team could use to nurture self-development intentionally. Any such teams that made this kind of commitment could affiliate with one another, perhaps in a Community of Home-Based Teams.

Though it's generally counter-productive to tell individuals how they should change, we can fruitfully talk about these issues in general terms, if only to offer points for folks to consider. So, recognizing that there are many individual exceptions, following are my observations about how we progressive activists need to improve how we relate to others in order to improve our effectiveness.

We need to become:

• More accepting and less judgmental toward others.
• Better listeners.
• Less power-hungry, ego-centered, and competitive.
• Steadier and less prone to burn out.
• Less wrapped up in ideas.
• More expressive with our feelings.
• Better able to offer constructive criticism.
• Less angry and more loving.
• More joyful.
• Less obsessed with results and more trusting.
• More attuned to how we work.

In short, we need to constantly become the change we seek. While there is much we can do on our own, we'll always need support from others at times. The higher the quality of that support, the more we can grow. And the more we grow, the more we can change the world.

Lawrence Britt: 14 Characteristics of Fascism

Ah, familiarity.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media

Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Palin's Idea of Freedom of Speech

Dear God. Palin is at it again, showing her ignorance and ineptitude by completely reversing the ideal of the First Amendment.

Perhaps she should read Democracy For Dummies. I heard that the new version is coming out around January 20th of next year. It's anticipated that it will greatly outsell How To Build A Fascist Theocratic Regime By Cheating, Stealing & Lying To The American People For Dummies. I've already ordered my copy.

You can order yours as well by going here: voteforchange.com

Freedom

A beautiful description of freedom, IMO. This was a comment posted on by imadis on 538... this closely mirrors my philosophy.

DECONSTRUCTING BASIC PHILOSOPHIES OF PARTIES ...

Basic Individual Rights:

1) Freedom ‘To’
2) Freedom ‘From’
3) Freedom ‘Of’

Defining Individual Rights:

1) Freedom ‘To’ is the right that most people think of when hears the term ‘freedom’. This is one’s right of choosing one’s own religion, freedom of speech, freedom to ride across America on a Harley. It also includes the right to choose your spouse, your vocation, where you live, where to send your kids to school, etc.

2) Freedom ‘From’ refers to protecting you and your property from harm. Most criminal statutes fall under this category. Examples include banning thievery and murder, protecting property rights and one’s own health. This right is apparently so important that even the THREAT of violating this right can result in penalties, by acts such as speeding, drunk driving, or wanton endangerment.

3) Freedom ‘Of’ is one’s freedom of opportunity, regardless of race, class, sex, religion, etc. Most civil rights laws fall in this category. Education being equal and available to all as well. I also believe that this encompasses the belief that if one works and contributes to society, he/she should be allowed to earn a living wage and provide for one’s family. NOTE: This does NOT mean equal outcome, just equal opportunity.


Comparing the philosophies of the two parties, the Republicans tend to put an emphasis on number one. The Democrats tend to weigh each individual case balancing the 3 rights. One side is more ‘cut and dry’ while one is more ‘nuanced’.

For people to have their rights ‘from’ and ‘of’ protected, we need a strong central government enacting and enforcing laws. There is no other way to do it. It would be great in the Republican's minds if we could just do away with government and let everyone be what they can be by self-determination. The problem with this is now the power moves to those with the $$$$.

When times are good, this problem is not as evident. The meltdown on Wall Street has recently exposed this problem. Whether they know it or not, the realization of this represents a tectonic shift in the thinking of the role of government. This is why it does not matter what John McCain does, he CANNOT change the circumstances we are now living in.

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system, but works best when there are checks and balances to protect individual rights. Even Alan Greenspan admits that complete free markets cannot police themselves. An economic system is there to work for society's needs, not the other way around.

It Ain't Over 'Til The $150k Wardrobe Sings

This is getting precious. Excerpts from a CNN article describing the blind ambition of Caribou Barbie Governor Palin:

(CNN) -- With 10 days until Election Day, long-brewing tensions between GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say.

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin "going rogue."...

A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

In other news, Newsweek has already released a poll in anticipation of the 2012 election (seriously). Anyone sick of the polls yet?

Arugula Gets A Bad Rap

I admit it, I'm elitist. I live in San Francisco (the hotbed of commie marxist librul terrorists, you betcha), I drive a Prius, vote for the Democrat, eat mostly vegan, recycle and am a community organizer (*gasp!*) So it may come as no surprise that I was attacked by little starbursts when I saw the arugula winking at me in the Trader Joe's produce aisle.

Now, I've had arugula before, but I've never seen it in a package at my local grocer before. Of course, I just had to pick it up. I recommend you try it! It's highly NOMable. And quite good for you, too.

For instance, did you know that arugula:

* is rich in vitamin C and potassium?
* is considered an aphrodisiac?
* is used to create a liquor called rucolino?
* is only 2 calories per 1/2 cup serving?

I'd like to announce that I am officially beginning a campaign to Save Endangered Arugula. Will you join me? Here are some arugula recipes to get you started.

Wasssup!?

I hated the original, but this is just an awesome remake.

18 Million Cracks, But No Shatter

A very interesting column in the National Review by Kathleen Parker:

McCain had met Palin only once — in February, at the governor's convention in Washington, D.C. — before the day he selected her as his running mate. The second time was at his Sedona, Ariz., ranch on Aug. 28, just four days before the GOP convention.

As Draper tells it, McCain took Palin to his favorite coffee-drinking spot down by a creek and a sycamore tree. They talked for more than an hour, and, as Napoleon whispered to Josephine, ‘Voila’

...

That men are at a disadvantage when attractive women are present is a fact upon which women have banked for centuries. Ignoring it now profits only fools. McCain spokesmen have said that he was attracted to Palin's maverickness, that she reminded him of himself.

Recognizing oneself in a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is a powerful invitation to bonding. Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in the river, imagining it to be his deceased and beloved sister's. In McCain's case, it doesn't hurt that his reflection is spiked with feminine approval.

In the end, physical beauty could be pinpointed as the lasting glass ceiling for women in American politics. Sarah Palin's attractiveness - which caused narcissistic McCain to ignore her blind ambition and vapid ignorance - tarnished us all.

Joe The Plumber - for CONGRESS?

Ok, SRSLY. This guy has had more than his 15 minutes of fame... first he's seeking a book deal, and now he contemplates running for Congress?

Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. "Joe the Plumber," said Friday he may consider running for Congress in 2010, challenging longtime Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D) in the Toledo-area district.

"I'll tell you what, we'd definitely be in one heck of a fight," Wurzelbacher said during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham show Friday, "but, you know, I'd be up for it."

"There is a movement afoot to draft you to run for Congress," Ingraham said. "Joe, let me tell you something: you decide to run for Congress, and I'll help you with your PR, I'll help you do your ads, I mean, I'll volunteer to help you."

Pardon mon français, but are you shitting me? The same Joe the Plumber that's not really a plumber, has an interesting legal history, evades his taxes, and has bordered on race-baiting? I, for one, find Joe a very fishy GOP plant, but we may never know (and honestly, I don't care). However, this Congress bit just puts me over the top.

I'm all for Mr. Smith goes to Washington, folks, but after the Palinscapades, I'm beginning to dread these types popping up on ballots across the country for a long time to come.

Obama at Harvard Law Review

Thanks, Andrew Sullivan, for bringing this one to my attention. I don't usually lay out entire posts in this way, but this was a very insightful post.

Bradford Berenson, remembering what Obama was like as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review:

I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there's an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it's our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in. And Barack was reluctant to do that.

It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that ...

He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn't wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn't do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.

He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. ... It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.

It's Back: "Voter Fraud"

Some compiled comments on the role of ACORN and the noise the GOP is generating:

1. ACORN's primary goal is to empower economically lower class citizens. One of the many ways they do this is by registering people to vote. While ACORN does not discriminate, they do focus primarily on exploited groups such as Hispanics and African Americans, which of course have higher numbers of impoverished individuals. Such groups obviously pose a threat to McCain and his fellow Republicans.

2. It is ILLEGAL for ACORN, or any other group or individual, to NOT submit a completed voter registration form to the appropriate office of the supervisor of elections. THEY ARE LEGAL DOCUMENTS and ACORN cannot withhold them or throw them away, for any reason. It does not matter whether or not the form is obviously filled out fraudulently (e.g. if the person writes his or her name as Mickey Mouse) or even if the person who fills it out says they are lying. The reason this law exists is to prevent groups from discarding, and therefore disenfranchising, groups that they do not want to vote. What this means is that in any and every voter registration drive there will be fraudulent registration forms.

3. ACORN takes extra time and effort to separate voter registration forms that are obvious forgeries from the legitimate forms so that the supervisor of elections can deal with them properly. They flag these before they turn them in, and there is nothing they can do about the fraudulent ones except point them out. It's up to state elections officials to weed out those that aren't legit, and all applications are marked as good, incomplete or suspect. Unfortunately, many of the state elections officials are GOP, and therefore choose to disregard the flagged applications and cry "VOTER FRAUD!" These officials come back weeks or months later and accuse ACORN of deliberately turning in phony cards. In many cases, ACORN can actually prove that these are the same cards they called to official's attention.

4. McCain spoke at a pro-immigration rally in Florida in 2006 that ACORN co-sponsored. A recent response from ACORN:

While in recent weeks your campaign has stooped to engaging in tactics that do not reflect the John McCain who proudly appeared at the 2006 ACORN event, we hold out hope that the 2008 John McCain will do the right thing and call upon his supporters...to take the necessary steps to protect the public's constitutional right to participate in our nation's democracy.

5. ACORN's canvassers are paid by the hour, not by the card, so there is NO incentive for them to falsify cards. And trust me, ACORN does NOT want the falsified cards as it creates the bad press we're hearing 24/7 from Fox and the like. Even if Mickey Mouse fills out an application, Mickey Mouse can't show up at the polls to cast a legal vote. ACORN has a zero-tolerance policy for deliberately falsifying registrations, and in the relatively rare cases where their internal quality controls have identified this happening, they have fired the workers involved and turned them in to election officials and law-enforcement.

6. No criminal charges related to voter registration have ever been brought against ACORN or partner organizations. Convictions against individual former ACORN workers have been accomplished with ACORN's full cooperation, using the evidence obtained through their quality control and verification processes — evidence which, in most cases, ACORN called to the attention of authorities.

7. The plain truth is: there are only about SIX voters found guilty of federal voting fraud in a year - out of over 178 million registered voters, despite the large amount of time and money that the GOP spends crying VOTER FRAUD! every election.

8. I'd like to take this moment to personally chide America for only having 178 million registered voters when we have a voting populace (as of 2004 statistics) of over 215 million. In 2004, only 125 million actually voted, which was only 58% of the population. Come on people... it's not hard. Get out there and VOTE. I don't even care who you vote for. Make your voice be heard. One of the greatest threats to our democracy is the silence (read: apathy) of the people.

< / stepOffSoapbox> Anyway, the bigger issue here is voter disenfranchisement.

Mainly excerpted from gregpalast.com, with links added for verification:

In the swing state of Colorado, we found that the Republican Secretary of State wiped out 19.4% - THAT'S ONE IN FIVE - voter names in an unnoticed mass purge.

In swing-state New Mexico, in the February caucus, one in nine Democrats found their names missing from the voter rolls supplied by the State. The elections supervisor of San Miguel County - whose own name was missing from the rolls - has no confidence the state contractors will fix it. Our statistical analysis showed there was a direct relationship between your name and your race and income. The poor and the dark were disappeared.

In Indiana, 10 nuns lost their vote because their ID - drivers' licenses - had expired (they were all over eighty). But what about the others? We've calculated that 143,000 others were turned away - disproportionately Blacks and new voters.

Visit www.stealbackyourvote.com if you're interested in learning more about disenfranchisement and what you can do about it. They even have a nifty comic book and movie.

Don't let them steal it from us again. Be informed and protect the vote!

Senate Projections

As reported by Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic, as reported by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com:

The Democrats appear to have nearly as much momentum in the race for Capitol Hill as they do for the White House, and now have approximately a 3 in 10 chance of winding up with a 60-seat working majority in the Senate.

Why Obama? : Part I - Resume

You cannot argue that Barack Obama comes from a diverse heritage that is both unfamiliar and exciting. No one in American political history has offered the possibility of bridging the gap of powerful cultural divides that have been gestating for the better half of this century, with roots that are much deeper than race, religion, culture or privilege.

Fathered by a Kenyan exchange student and raised by a single white mother, spending his childhood in both Hawaii and Indonesia, he has been directly impacted by the cultural divide of race while emerging virtually unscathed by the bitterness of the conflict. He has risen from virtually nothing (at one point living off of food stamps) to graduate with a Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Harvard. He has written two best-selling books. He has devoted his life to public service, first as a community organizer in the battle-scarred South Side district of Chicago, emphasizing his devotion to serving the people. As the first African-American president of the influential Harvard Law Review, he could have devoted his life to intaking large amounts of cash as a successful corporate lawyer. But he didn’t stop there: he moved to teach constitutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago, served on several boards of charitable organizations, was elected to the Illinois State Senate and, finally, the United States Senate.

So why all the hype about his inexperience? Obama has over 20 years of it. It is obvious that this is a deeply-rooted political tactic that was seeded in the primaries with Hillary Clinton, and the mantle has been taken up by the McCain campaign. (I won’t expound further on this, except to note, IMHO, that McCain seemingly cannot come up with an original idea to save his life, but I digress.) As it always is in American politics – at least in the GOP’s worldview – whittle away at your opponent’s strengths, muting their efficacy.

During the primaries, I was a die-hard Clinton supporter. However, her increasing negative attacks against Obama began to disillusion me (I am NOT a fan of negative politics) and so I decided to learn more about the Illinois Junior Senator. I had heard the circulating rumors – that he was a Muslim, linked to terrorism, racist – and that peaked my interest even more. (These days, the more dirisive the attacks, the more likely the candidate will be aligned with my worldview). So I watched a few speeches (this one really got to me), read Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope, and I was starting to get the hope bug! Being the eternal skeptic that I am, I did extensive research on his background and his policies, which fully convinced me that this man truly has the interests of the American people close to his heart more than any other politician I have ever seen.

So, without further ado, I would like to present Barack Obama’s 20 years of experience to you, and highlight a few of the hundreds of bills he has authored, sponsored or co-sponsored into our country's legislature.

• 1983
  
• Graduated with a B.A. from Columbia University
• Worked as a junior editor for Business International Corporation, a New-York based publisher focused on global finance, then at the New York Public Interest Research Group
  
  1985-1988
• Worked as a community organizer as the Director of the Developing Communities Project, which grew a staff from 1 to 13 and a budget from $70K to $400K and helped to set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenant’s rights organization
  
  1988
• Entered Harvard Law School
  
  1989
• Elected to be the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review
• Associate at Hopkins & Sutter, a Chicago law firm
  
  1990
• Elected President of the Harvard Law Review, Editor-In-Chief; supervised the Law Review’s staff of 80 editors
• Associate at Sidley & Austin, a Chicago law firm
  
  1991
• Graduated with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard
• Awarded a fellowship at the University of Chicago Law School
  
  1992
• Directed Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state
• Founding Member of the Board of Directors of Public Allies, a non-profit organization dedicated to youth leadership development
  
  1992-2004 (12 years)
• Taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School
  
  1993-2002 (9 years)
• Served on the Board of Directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization devoted to poverty relief and the promotion of social mobility (smear alert: read this)
  
  1993
• Joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development
• Made it to Crain’s Chicago Business list of “40 under Forty” rising business stars
  
  1995-2002
• Published bestselling autobiography, Dreams from My Father, in 1995, which was commissioned by Columbia University
• Served on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, a public-private partnership founded in 1995 with a focus to improve school performance, and as founding President and Chairman of the Board of Directors from 1995–1999
• Obama also served on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.
  
  1996
• Elected to the Illinois State Senate, representing 650,000 people in District 13, was reelected in 1998, and again in 2002. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama has sponsored 820 laws. A visual representation of his Illinois Senate record can be found here.
  
  1998
• Successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform called the Gift Ban Act, which prohibited legislators, state officers and employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government
  
  2000
• Unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives
• Helped pass a 5% earned-income tax credit for low-income working families in Illinois
  
  2003
• In January, Announced his Campaign for the U.S. Senate; also became Chairman of the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee
• Requirement that law enforcement videotape interrogations of suspects for serious crimes
• Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets
• Co-sponsored a prescription drug discount buying club program for seniors and the disabled
• Instrumental in the passage of an overhaul of the state's troubled death penalty system
• Co-sponsored ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation; the measure became law after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate
  
  2004
• Elected to Senate by receiving 70% of the vote, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history
• Sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide
• Voted for having Illinois endorse embryonic stem cell research
• Voted to let retired police and military police carry concealed weapons
  
  2005-2008
• Junior US Senator of Illinois
• In the US Senate, Obama has sponsored 136 bills, co-sponsored 653 bills, and authored 152 bills. You can review Obama's record here. Three of them, including S. 3558 ("A bill to provide for enhanced food-borne illness surveillance and food safety capacity") were moved upon just last week. These numbers, along with the number of bills he sponsored in the Illinois legislature, directly clash with the GOP's mockery of his record with "zero accomplishments".
  
  2007
• Sponsored Resolution 25, condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society
• Sponsored and passed the 2007 Feingold-Obama Lobbying & Ethics Reform Bill, the most sweeping package of its kind since Watergate (more on ethics reform and contrast with McCain in upcoming posts)
• Introduced the Security Contractor Accountability Act of 2007, which requires accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes
• Introduced the Military Family Job Protection Act, which provides for a prohibition on discrimination in employment against certain family members caring for recovering members of the Armed Forces
• Worked on the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, designed to slow the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying world, require disclosure of lobbyists who bundle campaign contributions, and increase transparency in the legislative process by requiring earmark transparency and preventing new earmarks from being added in the dead of night
  
  2008
• Introduced Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act
• Ranked by Congress.org as the 11th most powerful senator (McCain is rated 10th in the same report; Clinton is 9th, Biden is 19th. For a man who was been charged with “little experience” and “zero accomplishments”, those comparisons are worth noting.)
• Of bills currently in Congress, Obama is sponsoring 129. In contrast, McCain has only sponsored 38. Review the bills currently in Congress here.
  
  
  Obama is in the following committees:
• Chairman of the Senate's Committee on European Affairs
• member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
• member of the Senate Committee on African Affairs
• member of the Senate Committee on East Asian & Pacific Affairs
  
• member of the International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs and International Environmental Protection
• member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
• member of the Senate Committee on Children and Families
• member of the Senate Committee on Employment and Workplace Safety
• member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
• member of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration
• member of the Senate Commitee on Homeland Security Investigations
• member of the Senate Committee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security
• member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

In my next post, I will lay out defining points that demonstrate Obama’s superior leadership and experience, and provide a contrast to that of McCain.

Why Obama?: Introduction

I have been asked, many times, why I feel Barack Obama should be our next president, and why I do so much to support him. I have donated hundreds of dollars and countless hours of research and discussion with undecided voters, have begun volunteering for the campaign full-time, and will even be taking trips across the border to Nevada, the Silver State for the next two months we have before November 4th.

In a recent IM conversation, a close friend who is not an Obama supporter asked this of me again, and it sparked a desire in me to blog about this very subject. I do see many opinions floating around on this very subject, but often these get buried in the media noise, so I’ll be spending the next several posts addressing this topic.

In the conversation, I posit:

I care about us living through the next 20 years. Do we have enough money to sustain ourselves in an international community that looks upon us as largely disconnected from what is going on globally? Or whether or not I feel we are provoking Russia into war? Or whether or not I feel that the US is in a constant media bubble… I don't own a TV. I don't want a part of that.

And my friend replies:

Let me ask you something... and first I'll say this.... I'm not asking you this so I can counter any point you make... or tear down your answer... I'm just genuinely curious with the effort you are putting into this campaign..... grab those last few issues you just mentioned.... barring what thoughts you have about the other side.... what is it about Obama/Biden that makes you feel secure (I mean that financially... physically.... whatever... not the buzzwordy way) and good about their ticket?

The simple answer is: I trust Barack Obama, I take him at his word much more than any other modern politician, and I truly believe that he will change America.

Stay tuned for the longer answers.

Sarah Palin: Run. Run Away!

Ah, Governor Palin.

The woman who very likely could be our next President, even though we had no choice in her selection.

She is truly a scary person for many, many more reasons than just being inexperienced:

• As mayor of Wasilla, requested $27 million in earmarks from the government for a town of 6700 even though she is now "against them"
• Left the small town with a $22 million debt in just 6 years (they had no debt before)
• Deep ties to big oil. Her husband works for BP, Carl Pope (Sierra Club Exec Director) says "no one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin". More ties here.
• Signed into law the largest spending budget in Alaska history (6.6 billion)
• Was quoted as "not knowing what a VP does" just two months ago and "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq" in 2007
• Reintroduced aerial gunning down of wolves from helicopters for sport, which is illegal but she exploited a loophole I'm striking my opinion out, but you can decide after watching it in action.
• Wants to remove polar bears from the endangered species list because it interferes with drilling (I support drilling but not in the ANWR, which has dire economic and environmental consequences. McCain is even against it – at least right now)
• Was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it
• McCain admits his vetting team didn't even land in Alaska until less than 24 hours of her announcement in Dayton, so he doesn't know her either
• Doesn't understand operational security; told the public that her son would be deployed to Iraq on 9/11. Releasing a deploy date is a violation of OPSEC, illegal and dangerous.
• Claimed that part of her foreign policy experience includes going to Ireland. She actually was just in Ireland for a refueling stop. (The only other places she has been is Kuwait and Germany as part of a standard governor trip to visit Alaskan troops, and didn't even have a passport until just last year).
• Is so inexperienced that we aren't even allowed to get to know her right now – she's sequestered from the media and the McCain campaign says that the "people don't care" if she answers questions about policy, security etc.
• Republicans state that she oversees the Alaska National Guard as part of her foreign policy experience, but the foreign policy portion of that is completely under federal control – she has nothing to do with that part.

And that doesn't even touch on the personal and extremely right wing religious issues, because honestly, that stuff isn't nearly as important to me as making sure we are secure, we have jobs and our economy is sound. This is enough for me. Vote Obama/Biden 08 and save our country from potential disaster!

Palin: A Plea To Republicans, Christians

73-year-old McCain's health is seriously in question - they try to hide it, but if you dig hard enough, you'll find a bit of concern regarding his bouts of cancer and his life expectancy. Think about it. We just might have a rookie president that we never had a chance to choose or even get to know! (Remember how well an untested, foreign-policy-ignorant governor, from Texas I seem to recall, worked for us last time).

The question that people are just skimming over and not answering, not wanting to answer: McCain's judgement on picking someone so gravely inexperienced in a time of war and severe economic crisis in what clearly is only a pandering to the Christian conservative base. This is one of the most important decisions this man can make, and it truly makes me question his judgment - or his commitment to service - that he would choose her. Obama, on the other hand, picked Biden, whom you cannot argue could totally lead this country - successfully - from "day one".

And just who is to blame for the confusion surrounding the obscure Alaskan governor? John Stewart lets you decide.

I honestly feel that this is a very, very grave situation, and it inspires me to at least attempt to reach out to my die-hard Republican and Christian friends, of which I have several :) I really didn't mind who won one way or another before this pick (though of course I was still voting for Obama), as I felt that McCain would be successful in at least keeping the country intact, and I actually used to like him, but lately the man seems like he's turned into a completely different person, and it's obvious he'll just have someone else pulling the strings.

Some of you may not personally like Obama, but you must at least consider for a moment that Obama DOES have more experience than Palin when it comes to issues that matter (foreign policy, dealing with world leaders, helping us through this horrible financial crisis), he has much more education, intelligence and poise, has a policy record that you can review (ontheissues.org - I strongly encourage you to check every candidate out before voting.) He is also a committed Christian who has spent years in service and helping out his disadvantaged fellow men (as a "community organizer", a noble, selfless form of service that the RNC were quick to mock).

To the pro-lifers: Let's face it - Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned regardless of what they say they will do (haven't pro-life candidates been saying that for years?).

To those opposing gay marriage: This should totally be a non-issue considering the serious issues we are facing today, and btw, Obama doesn't support gay marriage, just civil unions.

It is wonderful to have someone who espouses your values in a seat of power, sure - but I want someone who will pull us out of this mess, not someone who will drag us further down because they lack the political duress or judgment to hold that position.

To the die-hard Republicans: I know it's a longshot, but I pray that you will take a long, hard serious look at who you vote for this November, please don't vote for the Republican ticket just because it's the Republican ticket. I, in turn, promise I won't vote Democrat just because it's the Democratic ticket in future elections (I'm actually registered independent).

For the Christians:
www.matthew25.org

Where candidates stand on the issues:
www.ontheissues.org
(Note that Palin has "no data recorded" for foreign policy, immigration, or welfare/poverty - arguably some of the most important issues today).

To Christians Considering (McCain/)Palin

Ok, all of you (or most of you) know that I am an outspoken, enthusiastically atheist Democrat in full support of Barack Obama for the 44th president of These United States. That being said, I'd like to note that I was once an evangelical, staunch supporter of the Republican Party, and therefore would like to clarify my stance on Christianity, the Republican party of recent years and the very serious, potentially life-changing status of the 2008 election.

I watched the RNC speeches (yes, all of them :-) ) and have been reading commentary on them ever since. I love reading people's comments on news sites - both from the right and the left - and I have been noticing a very interesting dynamic emerging.

Some Christians aren't too pleased with the Republican party these days.

And I think I understand why.

What I saw come out of the RNC was a bunch of hate and belittlement. Attacking with fervor, venom - vicious glee. The laughter of the crowd; they were eating it up. The horrible slam on "community organizing", belittling people who work very, very hard to make a difference in people's lives (in contrast, community organizing was one of the things that initially attracted me to Obama; I'm now beginning active involvement in volunteering in my community, and possibly overseas someday, as a result). This behavior from the RNC is the kind of hypocritical, self-serving behavior that made me turn my back on Christianity, and the Republican party, after the 2000 Bush campaign almost a decade ago.

So, after that awe-inspiring (and not in a good way) performance from St. Paul, how do evangelical voters really feel about the "gift" they have been offered?

I have a bunch of examples here of Christians voicing their opinions regarding Palin's speech (most are graciously compiled by a poster at DailyKos, credit where credit is due). These comments are heartfelt and genuine; I know there are a lot of them, but I encourage you to read them. Please note that I don't necessarily subscribe to these opinions - I am pro-choice and pro-gay - but I deeply respect their convictions. (I have more to say below the comments).

It is so frustrating to try to convince my Christian brothers and sisters that there is more to righteousness than not being a homosexual and not having aborted a baby. While these are both abominations to God, we forget that slander is also an abomination, something John McCain has made his lifestyle in this campaign. This is the main reason why homosexuals and athiests hate us so much. I know we all know John 3:16, but what about John 3:17. "For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." We spend so much time showing hate to this group of people that they draw further and further away from God, which is in it self us being disobedient to God. Refer to Mark 12:30-31 "And you shall love the Lord your God with with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these." Right there it shows that the greatest 2 commandments are to love. There is no other greater, so there is no excuse for the condemning behavior of Christians. Barack Obama's campaign has been based on this commandment because no matter how much his opponents try to tear him down, he turns the other cheek and shows love. The exact thing God tells us to do. And when it comes to abortion and gay marriages, try not to twist peoples words because the Bible tells us that manipulation is witchcraft. He is not in favor of either, nor does he oppose God's views; however, he will not take away anyone's God given right to choose. You all chose to be servants of God, so why take that right away from anybody else. Perhaps if we behaved the way God called for us to, there might be more peace.

Jesus was a community organizer.

As a Christian and as a human being who believes in the sanctity of all human life and that it is time to beat the weapons of war created out of our inability to love one another and to understand what God means, as concerns justice, I tremble at the idea of someone who believes that war is blessed by God. Those who attack us also think that their cause is ordained by God. Peace is ordained by the Jesus I know. I am starting, regrettably, to think of people who agree with Sarah Palin on this point as anti Christian and modern day heretics. I cannot imagine wanting to possibly put Palin's finger on the "N" button.

I have long respected McCain even when I didn't agree with him, but I am sickened by this choice. Out of so many qualified, brilliant women in the republican party, he chose a beauty queen hockey-mom soley based on superficial reasons, mainly her pro-life status. When will we realize there were a million abortions the year before roe, and there will be abortions after roe, overturning roe simply returns to the states, and we all saw what happened in South Dakota, but the common denominator among 2/3 or more seeking abortions is poverty or extreme financial crisis? The way to save babies is to help and empower women, not through punitive measures designed to reprove moral turpitude. That's why in the Netherlands where abortion is safe and legal, its rare, but it skyrockets in Brazil, where illegal, but women lack adequate resources and rights. I'm waiting for a real pro-life candidate, that cares about ALL life, all God's creation...Obama's as close as it gets for now.

Many evangelical will be propelled by the unfortunate personal attacks on her family and the media backlash. How quickly some Christians want to see themselves victimized and sharing the cross of Christ. Too bad the identity of those who are the truly crucified, the poor, unwanted immigrants, and our own mother earth will go unnoticed. I have yet to hear anything from her to indicate that she has her heart with them and a commitment to them._I also thought it audacious that she would dare to speak about the inexperience of Obama, given her own limited knowledge, lack of experience, lack of a passport. We think with our gut in this country and by-pass the head. I pray the truth wins out on this one - if it does, it will be an act of God's grace.

Though likeable, I found her speech to be mean-spirited, full of personal jabs, and divisive. But, she wants the base and I am not a part of the base, so she does not want me. Thank God, Jesus wants us all. By the way, isn't that the Christian way?

I did not see a lot of dignity last night. I am very sincere when I say that I would not have wanted my children to see adults acting in those ways even if they were too young to understand whatever was being said. I saw the darker side of the human ego "electrified." The mocking, the jeering, and the purposeful yet unjustified self-righteousness was shocking. I used to be a proud republican and although I was already an Obama supporter, I saw something in the republican party last night that made me think I could have nothing to do with them until I would see a radical and consistent change in the state of mind and heart. These are the leaders for us and our children?

I just couldn't continue to listen to her speech - there was just too much venom - and as folks have said earlier if she is carrying the marks of a true Christian - God help us - Someone take a look at the Romans 12:9-21 - Somehow this woman misses the "marks" completely! And we have seeing a double standard - I'm still infuriated with the way Hillary was treated - here was a women of integrity, experience, and all the qualities you want in a president - and now the republicians show up with a woman our of no-where and we're all supposed to jump on board - I don't think so...and...I'm also the mom of a young lady who had a baby at 17 - the last thing in the world her father and I would have advised her to do is get married! She was only 17---What is Palin thinking?? Her daughter is only a child - not mature enough to handle a marriage and all the responsibilities that go with it - what kind of future does Palin think these two children will have? My daughter is 32 now - mature and happily married.

I was deeply disappointed to hear such unChrist-like rhetoric coming from all the speakers last night. I disagree with Jim Wallis. While I am all for women's rights and equality, I find it very hard to imagine having a pregnant 17 year old daughter and a 5 month old baby with special needs, and wanting to run for VP. That is certainly not in line with MY family values. And speaking of family values, why does John McCain get a free ride for having "cheated numerous times" on his wife and then finding someone 17years younger, gets a marriage license even before his divorce is final! Again, not in line with MY family values. I was horrified by her address last night. I don't think I have ever seen such glee in a person's eyes as I saw in Palin's as she delivered her sarcasm and outright lies. I am a Christian and as such, I believe in truth and charity. I also do not believe you can use the devil's tools of lies, innuendo and downright nastiness and hope for a good outcome.

She gave a real picture of her character last night... and it didn't have anything to do with Christian, patriotic or family values. She was just plain rude and condescending. What a disappointment.

"experience, depth and temperament to step into the Oval Office. What many of those Americans need to see are qualities like judgment, wisdom, tolerance and flexibility."" depth and temperament are two things I am looking for in both President and VP... does the candidate make decisions with caution, seek advice from several sources, work well with others, consider those with whom there may be strong differences??? the President and Vice President represent all USA citizens, all religions, all walks of life.. and have a responsibility to consider the least among us... one out of three vice presidents has had to step into the Presidential role and so these qualities are crucial for both candidates.

What was missing on the governor's speech was a temperament of tolerance and compassion. what i mean is if she is a follower of christ as she claims to be why is the bulk of her message an attack on a fellow follower? the tone of our political landscape is harsh, mean spirited and without biblical witness. we are called to use our words to encourage and build each other up no matter our political bent, love your enemies and all that.

I am SO heartened that so many Christians apparently found last night's carefully orchestrated drama-speech so basically offensive. Along with all the trappings leading up to last night and what's to surely come....at least from one side of the aisle. The religious right was conned and hypocritically used by Bush-Rove before to our collective grief and sadness, now the obvious pandering used by McCain and the ex-Bush advisors should be a clear wake-up call. Jim (Wallis), you were too kind, you owed it to people to be more open and on point.. John M. has done a waffling 180 degrees from who he was when he was justly respected.

Jim, normally I agree with you, but I must differ on this one: we saw much more than personality last night. We saw a revelation of character, and it wasn't a pretty sight, despite the pretty shade of lipstick on pit bulls. Conventions, I feel, are similar to Sunday morning church services: you can tell a lot about a church by the sermons, the songs chosen, the things that excite the congregation. My old pastor used to call Sunday morning "the frosting on the cake" and always reminded us that the real work of being Christians took place Monday-Saturday. But Sunday showed what we cared about, and got us ready for the challenges of Monday. If I'd been "church-shopping" these past two weeks, I think I could tell where the story of gospel love and inclusion and generosity got proclaimed.

I cannot even begin to describe how refreshing these comments are to read. These people are articulate, speak with conviction, and are not condescending or petty. They have faith and believe in true service. They are not impressed by those who belittle others or hide behind gross misstatements, vicious attacks or who point the finger at the other guy, while virtually ignoring serious issues that voters need to know (illegal immigration? jobs? the housing market? healthcare? a strong plan for the economy?). These people revive my respect for "true" Christians (I've found them increasingly rare these past few years).

I feel like the Republican party has been throwing the Christian faith down the gutter these past eight years, and we on the "outside" find this a stellar example of just that. I would not want Palin as our President - she won't even talk to the media, won't answer questions, and it's likely that this will continue in one regard or another all the way to election day. The question is: why is the media not demanding that she allow interviews? Why is she hiding? It doesn't take a stretch to figure the answer out to that one, but you can decide for yourself.

Could it be Gore?

Is it possible that it could be Al Gore? This guy makes a somewhat plausible case.

If it's Gore, then I am totally all for it.

Gore or Clark - either way, I'm equally happy, and my faith in our new Dear Leader will be restored.

Calm Before The Storm

It's quiet around here, in the calm before the Obama VP announcement storm.

Not sure who's buying the idea that tonight is the night that the Obama VP will be announced... I personally believe that we have a few more clockspins to go before we know.

I predict we won't hear the initial final word (via text message that is) until 3am EST or later Saturday morning.

That being said, this evening I've stocked up on Red Bull and am breathless on Google Reader with a trigger-happy mouse... and Intrade is loading on some serious fuel, with the disheartening 7.3 on Clark earlier today jumping to a 15.0 in just 6 hours. (If you didn't already know, I'm rooting for Wes Clark for VP.)

Yet More Wes Clark Speculation

Ok, I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I am quite literally paralyzed with anticipation from what I feel will be a "nothin' but net" win of a Democratic White House in November - by way of Obama's VP selection of Ret. Gen. Wesley K. Clark. And I'm not the only one.

Read between the lines:

1) Clark is the best choice for the VP slot, and can completely annihilate the core of the McCain campaign. Check out his resume.

2) "Securing America's Future" is the theme for the DNC VP speech on Wednesday night. Securing America's Future is the name of Wesley Clark's PAC.

3) In a massive display of what I see as genius head-fakery, it has been "leaked" to the media that Wes Clark will not be attending the DNC.

4) After Obama's initial rejection of Clark's comments about McCain's military service a couple of months back (IMO necessary for the political climate at the time), he later declared them "inartful" and didn't ask for Clark to apologize, therefore essentially ceding to Clark's side. In contrast, the Obama campaign has been eerily quiet on the (mis)statement "Clark, Your Services Not Needed". The original story - one that has been now widely distorted by media - is that Clark's plans were to attend a convention in Milan, and the Obama campaign told him that there was "no reason to change plans" as he did not have a speaking role as of yet. However, the story circulating now is claiming that Clark was "disinvited", which has left the media and netroots in a frenzy of bashing Obama's decision to exclude Clark from the DNC. Several sources have confirmed that the Obama campaign is aware of this story circulating, so they are deliberately holding back - why would he not diffuse the dissent of a large pool of his strongest supporters?

5) Wes's calendar is conspicuously blank for two weeks surrounding the convention. I've been keeping an eye on his calendar for the past week, and every morning, the current day's activities are announced: perhaps he is waiting for something?

6) (Unconfirmed) sources have claimed he does not have a speaking role at the convention he will be attending in Italy, and therefore isn't fully committed. I still haven't confirmed Clark's involvement in Italy, but his aides have said this: "While his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked." Hmmm...

7) Biden, the media's current top pick, has publicly stated that he is "not the guy". And here's Washington Wire's opinion on why all the other short-listers are out (emphasis mine):

Joe Biden said it won’t be him; John Edwards is obviously out; Evan Bayh faced an avalanche of negative criticism from the blogosphere with petitions to Obama not to choose him; Tim Kaine’s bubble lost a lot of air, but then seemed to regain some, but not enough for the balloon to rise; Obama used a masculine word to describe his choice for VP meaning Clinton, Sebellius and McCaskill are no longer in the race; Sam Nunn says he wasn’t vetted; pundits looked at the [DNC] speaking schedule and eliminated every other major candidate (save one) and every dark horse possibility; commentators said that Obama cannot choose a Senator from a Republican governor state or else the Republicans can filibuster his entire first term (goodbye Bayh, Dodd, Reed). Is there no one left who’s reported to have been vetted?

Only one name: former General Wesley Clark.

8) McCain has stated that Obama should "distance himself" from Clark as soon as possible. Now, why would he state this if he wasn't scared out of his mind about that choice :-)

9) I know it's a stretch, but: It is widely speculated that Obama will announce his VP pick on Saturday in Springfield, Illinois. Wes Clark was born in Chicago.


I honestly think that the "disinvite" is a smokescreen, mainly (and wisely) to keep the media and the GOP from adding unecessary dialogue regarding the recent bad press Clark has gotten until he can be announced at the DNC. On that note, I also predict that we won't know for sure until at least Saturday and possibly even all the way to Wednesday night.

Will a VP Wes Clark bring in the votes?

Some are wondering if Wes Clark can bring votes:

General Wesley Clark certainly has a compelling story, and a war record that surpasses that of John McCain. Clark's been a powerful ally to Obama and would make a great choice to bring liberals solidly into the Obama tent. But can he draw votes? That's the question.

While I personally believe that Wes is a perfect fit for the VP role, and will pull in the excitement and dedication of We The Netroots (see comment threads here and here and visit the Obama/Clark website), it's true that his Washington inexperience may be somewhat of a questionable factor to the general electorate. Then there's that whole McCain POW comment the media's been jumping all over.

However, based on his extensive military resume and his certain ability to outshine McCain for the rest of this election, I think the better take on it should be that he can keep the votes intact.

McCain Nervous About a Potential Wes Clark VP?

According to a Netherlands newsfeed, de Volkskrant, it appears that McCain may be more than just a little frightened about the potential of Wes Clark as VP:

En route to Colombia, McCain also weighed in on the simmering controversy over remarks made by one of Barack Obama’s surrogates, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, that appeared to diminish McCain's war record. He called for Clark to step aside: “I think it’s up to Obama now to not only repudiate him, but to cut him loose,” McCain told reporters on his plane.

Hmmm.. sounds like the Senator's a little nervous about the possibilities here.

Wes Clark Will Be VP

I am totally all over this:
Will The Democrats Pull A Rabbit Out of the Hat with Their VP Nomination?

Been supporting this cause for days - here's hoping!

If you're interested in seeing this dream ticket come to fruition, visit the Obama/Clark website and sign the petition.

Hopefully I don't eat crow.