BUTTE, Montana --In an Access Hollywood exclusive interview, Senator Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, along with daughters Malia, 10 and Sasha, 7 open up about rules, what it is like for friends to meet dad, communicating on the trail, potential plans for moving into the White House and more.

The four-part interview will air on Access Hollywood, Tuesday, July 8th,Wednesday, July 9th and Thursday, July 10th.

Access Hollywood’s Maria Menounos caught up with the Obama family on the campaign trail in Butte, Montana to celebrate Malia’s 10th birthday and Independence Day.

Now that the Primary is over, the Obamas manage to get more family time together explains Michelle. “Barack is home at least once a week. We’re really doing family stuff. We are going on bike rides, going swimming and playing tennis.”

The girls also give advice to their dad about everything from etiquette to fashion. One time when a friend of Malia’s came over, he shook her hand to say hello. Malia recalls telling her dad, “You really don’t shake kids’ hands that much…You just wave or say hi.”

While Sen. Obama knows the girls are trying to keep their dad young and hip, he says, “She (Malia) basically avoids me embarrassing her by giving me these tips. Especially when I am around her friends.”

When it comes to their new fashion status, the Obamas take it in stride. While Michelle has always loved clothes, she thinks it is funny that Sen. Obama is involved in all of this fashion icon stuff because he wears the same clothing he has had for years. Malia remembers a time they went shopping together and dad “bought three pairs of black pants and the same jacket in green, brown and black.”

Family also influences Sen. Obama on the campaign trail. “You talk to a mom who’s trying to get health care for her kids and you look at her daughter standing next to her. She reminds you of Malia or Sasha and you try to imagine what it would be like if you couldn’t make sure they had health insurance.”

Communicating while Sen. Obama is on the campaign trail can be tough, but the family has learned to adjust. Michelle tells Menounos, “We have gotten used to be being able to communicate pretty well over the phone.”

Michelle adds that she keeps the romance alive by telling her husband that she is proud of him and that the girls like it when “mommy and daddy hold hands.” “Sometimes people think it is embarrassing,” says Malia. “I like it.”

When asked what they do that makes mommy and daddy mad, both girls were quick to comment. Sasha says whining while Malia explains, “Arguing is the worst thing because then they sit us down and say, ‘You know you guys are the best thing that you have in your life.’ We’re never going to get something as good as each other.’”

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 5:12 AM 0 comments

Markos, you wrote last week that you were withholding $2,300 from the Obama campaign, claiming that your individual donation didn’t matter. As if you aren’t the proprietor of an influential blog devoted to electing Democrats. As if you aren’t one of the key forces behind "people power" taking back our politics. As if many, many of your users, the ones who frequent your website and generate your ad revenue, aren’t struggling to make donations 1% the size of that

You wrote:

At the end of the day, I'm pretty irrelevant in the whole affair. Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.

What if even a fraction of your immense readership follows your lead? Maybe you need a refresher course in people power. I’m challenging the users of this website, thousands of people who are, in your words, "pretty irrelevant in this whole affair," (if you believe that or not!) to donate $2,300 collectively.

No matter what anyone says, we all matter, when we work together.I must admit, I have severe ethical problems with Markos’ withholding of the donation and claim that he does not matter. I’ve always tried to live by something akin to the categorical imperative–I must only act in a way that I want all others to act as well. I must make laws for myself that I would apply to all other humans. I donate and volunteer, and I believe that everyone should donate and volunteer, as much as is feasible (and then maybe 10% more). Thus, when I see someone so influential as Markos suggest that his personal maxim is to withhold donations, I grow concerned.

Clearly Markos does not want all of us to stop donating, as he expects us to do it all for him. I guess we do matter in the grand scheme of things after all, even if he doesn’t. So while the rank-and-file users of the website matter (thanks!) our front-page blogger, proprietor, cable news guest, and now ammunition for Sean Hannity to critique the left and Obama, this person doesn’t? I call logical fallacy alert!

I don't see this as validating his notion that others will "pick up the slack." I see this rather as proving the thesis that people power does matter, and that collectively, each of us as individuals has the power to make great change in this country. For our nation, and for the world as a whole, this election is too important to sit back and not do all we can to make a difference.

Markos has the right to do with his money as he pleases. But he does not have the right to tell all of us that he doesn't matter; such that by extension none of us matter, either. That's wrong, and it cuts against what this website and all of his work stands for.

Markos, you’re the person who helped us learn that if we all work together, each of our individual contributions adds up to make an impact. I’m reminded of your commercial for your first book, Crashing the Gate. Look at all of these individual citizens, all pulling together to change our party. Yes, the metaphor applies to pressuring our elected officials. But it also applies to getting them elected in the first place, and need I remind you, the past eight years have shown how important it is to have a Democrat in the White House. We all have to do all we can to make that happen this time. If anyone’s got $2,300 they can so easily part with, well... I’ve got a pretty good idea what they can do with it.

Markos, with your donation stunt, you’re making me feel like you’re the intractable ass in that commercial.

So, let’s see if the users of this website who support Barack Obama—-even if they’re angry over FISA, or disagree with him, as I do, on a variety of issues—-can pull together and show what people power can do.

Together, we can raise the $2,300 you refuse to donate. I don’t have $2,300. I don’t even have $230. But I can donate $50, my biggest donation so far to the Obama campaign, even though I’m unemployed this summer, because I know that my individual effort combined with that of hundreds, thousands of other such individuals, we can and will make a difference.

I’m donating my $50 in the form of 750 Vote for Change stickers, to give out to volunteers and new voters registered on Austin’s Vote for Change drive, which I coordinate. Four times a week, regular citizens come out to register new voters, proving that the small efforts of individuals add up to a lot of impact. We’ve already registered over 700 people to vote, people who know that each of our individual actions matters, and can change the course of history.

I used to think that my donations didn't matter, because I couldn't give $2,300 or even close. But then I saw thousands of people donating, many from this very website, and I realized that it does matter. It adds up. Collectively, we're stronger than any one person lucky enough to consider $2,300 a trifle.

For a $5 donation we can each enter for a chance to watch Barack Obama’s historic speech accepting his nomination in Denver, along with over 75,000 people. Those tens of thousands, and the hundreds of thousands that have joined in Obama rallies across the country represent people power, too. And we're ready to do all we can to take back our democracy.

Barack Obama says, right on the top center of his campaign website, "I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I’m asking you to believe in yours." That means all of us who read this blog. It means everyone who doesn’t read this blog but is still invested in taking our country back. It means Markos, too.

So, who’s with me? Who’s willing to chip in to raise $2,300, or even more? More than any one individual is legally allowed to give to a campaign? Let’s make a statement that no matter what any pundits, Beltway insiders, or even prominent bloggers would have you believe, we all do matter, and together we’re going to make a difference.

Donate.
Join.
Get Involved.

Update, 12:20 p.m. CST: So far I've counted $1,068 in donations as stated in the comments. Now that's people power. Keep it going!

Update, 12:41 p.m. CST: Make that $2,460. Talk about a people-power-hour! But I'm sure you're not going to stop now, are you?

Update, 1:13 p.m. CST: Now I've got $3,677 total on my spreadsheet tally. That's fantastic! Thanks for your generosity, and your willingness to prove that our individual actions add up. Don't stop!

Update, 1:28 p.m. CST: Jeepers. I did one last swing through the comments, and we're up to $4,708. That's phenomenal. I'm a big believer in people power, but y'all still manage to amaze me. Stay on it!

One comment, then I have to go get some work done.

If you don't want to donate to Obama I respect that, but there's no excuse for total apathy. There are folks down below contributing to the ACLU, their Congressional candidates, the DNC and DSCC, all sorts of stuff. Those donations matter too -- the point here is that our actions matter. None of us is irrelevant in our democratic process, no matter how we choose to act.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 3:00 PM 0 comments

In recent weeks, some progressives have been alarmed at Barack Obama – who they fear has “moved to the center” for the general election. They have argued that his recent shifts won’t help him pick up “swing voters,” but it’s clear that Obama is playing pre-emptive defense rather than trying to win new supporters.

Obama knows that if he sticks to the progressive rhetoric that helped him win the nomination, a media narrative will take hold that he is running like George McGovern – and the campaign is deftly trying to avoid such a trap. But unlike Bill Clinton’s right-wing capitulations in 1996, it’s hard to conclude from Obama’s recent “shifts” any long-term policy consequences. For those who fear that Obama’s posture signals another Clintonian “sell-out,” the time to hold him accountable will be after the election – when as President he will be in a position to bring about change. But for now, there hasn’t been much to signal such an alarm.

Civil libertarians are furious at Senator Obama’s decision to vote for the latest FISA bill – which includes retroactive immunity for phone companies who helped the government spy on American citizens. Obama also took a “centrist” position on two Supreme Court decisions – he condemned the Court’s ruling that applying the death penalty to child rapists is unconstitutional, while agreeing with the Court’s opinion that struck down the gun ban in Washington DC. And late last week, while maintaining his commitment to end the Iraq War, Obama said he may be flexible about when troops will come home.

Not only are some progressives upset, but a few have concluded it’s a losing strategy. “Running to the middle to attract undecided swing voters didn’t work for Al Gore in 2000,” said Arianna Huffington. “It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008. Fixating on – and pandering to – this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d’être of the Obama campaign?”

The trouble with Huffington’s logic is that she assumes Obama is doing this to win the sliver of voters who are currently undecided between the two candidates.

Huffington is probably right that Obama’s recent moves won’t win many voters still trying to choose between him and John McCain. But Obama doesn’t need those people. Assuming he doesn’t bleed support between now and November, Obama has already won the election. What Obama’s really playing is a game of “pre-emptive defense”: don’t give McCain any opening to grab a chunk of his voters with a wedge issue, sabotaging what should be a Democratic rout. Not all Obama supporters are progressive, and some are vulnerable to defecting if dynamics change. With four months left, it could still happen.

In July 1988, Michael Dukakis was polling ahead of George Bush Sr. – because enough working-class “Reagan Democrats” had concluded that the Reagan years had not helped them economically. But in one of the nastiest and most negative campaigns in history, the Bush camp persuaded them to vote Republican by elevating Massachusetts’ weekend prison furlough program as a prominent campaign issue. We all know the tragic outcome of a Democratic front-runner who refused to play pre-emptive defense, as Willie Horton came to define Dukakis in the eyes of many voters.

It’s conventional wisdom that in presidential politics, a candidate courts the party base to win the primary – and then “shifts to the center” in the general election. Obama’s camp knows that failing to do so may typecast them as a “McGovern-like” candidate – and as perception becomes reality, a media narrative will take hold that could marginalize their chances. Many progressives will say that Obama is the unconventional transformational candidate who should defy that trend, but the campaign is not taking any chances. The trick now is how to do it without compromising basic progressive principles.

Before dismissing Obama’s “move to the center” as a callous betrayal, it’s important to assess each action he has taken to determine (a) if it’s truly a “shift” in position, (b) what policy consequences – if any – are the result of Obama’s “shift,” (c) whether he had any power as a candidate to change the outcome and (d) what would happen if Obama took the principled stand that the Left wants him to take.

On Iraq, Obama has suggested he may alter his proposed timetables for withdrawal after an upcoming visit. Here, the policy consequences are tremendous – and there’s little backlash for sticking to your guns. But Obama has always said “we should be as careful getting out as we were careless going in” – making it seriously questionable if he has ever “shifted” on this position. Iraq is the most important issue that progressives will have to hold Obama accountable on, but there’s little in this recent statement that indicates cause for concern.

On the Supreme Court’s ruling that repealed Washington DC’s gun control law, Obama issued a statement in support that he believed in a private right to bear arms with some restrictions. This was a “conservative” position that offended gun control advocates, but what would be the impact of opposing the Court’s decision? With most voters – and many Obama supporters – believing in a private right to bear arms, McCain could scare rural voters into thinking that Obama will take their guns away. As a candidate, Obama had no power to influence the Court; after their decision, his statement had no impact.

Likewise, commenting on the Court’s death penalty decision had no policy consequences within Obama’s control. And while many progressives oppose capital punishment under any circumstances, for Obama to take a public position that it’s wrong to execute people who rape small children would have been political suicide. The Supreme Court has ruled against the death penalty for child rapists, so it’s not likely to be revisited for a while. By saying he disagreed with the decision, Obama deflected any chance that Republicans will paint him as a coddler of child rapists – bringing back racist Willie Horton-like attacks.

Finally, there’s the FISA vote that includes telecom immunity. Most Americans agree with progressives, so the backlash for “standing firm” would not have hurt Obama with voters. While some will argue that the policy consequences are huge, retroactive immunity means that telecom companies cannot be sued for their past collusion with the Bush Administration. From a legal standpoint, lost damages for such a potential lawsuit – while emotionally strong – are not likely to be substantial monetarily.

As a U.S. Senator, Obama had a say in the matter – but only one vote, and Congress was going to pass it anyway. Unlike when Bill Clinton chose to sign the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or Welfare Repeal in 1996 in order to play “pre-emptive defense” against Bob Dole, Obama had no power to stop telecom immunity from happening. Progressives upset at the FISA vote should direct their anger at Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress for caving on this issue.

When Clinton repeatedly “moved to the center” in 1996, he signed laws like DOMA and Welfare Repeal that he not only had the power to stop – but that created long-term policy consequences we are still facing today. Welfare ceased to be a “problem” for Democrats because we threw single mothers into the street, while DOMA empowered the religious right to pass hateful amendments across the country. What Obama has done, however, is avoid political fights without permanently crippling the progressive cause. It might make some of his supporters cringe, but it doesn’t create lasting policy damage.

After Obama wins in November, progressives must hold him accountable for pushing a positive agenda. For at that point, he’ll be in a position of power to change the political reality. Before progressives cry “betrayal” at Obama for issues beyond his control, maybe they should wait until he’s actually in a place where he can do something about it.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 1:39 PM 0 comments

He responded. While most Americans settled into a relaxed Independence Day weekend, Barack Obama tried to quiet mounting criticism from supporters over his decision to back a new White House spying bill.

In an unprecedented letter released on the afternoon of July 3, Obama addressed the thousands of supporters who organized a large protest on his social networking portal.

Noting that he expected to take his "lumps" and "be held accountable," Obama respectfully defended his surveillance reversal. While maintaining that immunizing companies accused of illegal spying undermines deterrence and "accountability for past abuses," Obama said he now backs legislation granting the right to give immunity (and other executive powers) because it provides a "real mechanism for accountability" via future investigations. The explanation ran 852 words--more than double the length of his original statement announcing support for the spying bill on June 20--and then campaign policy aides continued the discussion for over an hour with visitors on Obama's site (pictured at right). The unusual exchange sparked an intense debate over the weekend, as activists and bloggers questioned whether it heralded a more interactive political era, or a reminder that double talk can spread on any medium.

On Sunday night, the protest group released its official reply, collaboratively edited through a wiki and representing some of the 19,000 members. It pressed Obama to take his fight against immunity to the Senate floor this week. Since Obama's letter said he still wanted to "strike" immunity from the bill, the group urged him to take charge:

We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a 'More Perfect Union.' The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to [companies that spied] on law-abiding citizens as we did to relearn of segregation and Jim Crow. The arm of government oppression reaches far and wide, Senator, and we must beat it back on whatever front we find it.

The Senate begins debating the spying bill again on Tuesday. Obama arrives in Washington that day to address a Hispanic convention.

The protest group has not only become a huge force on Obama's site--it is now double the size of any other user-created group and its traffic slowed the campaign's server last week--it has also swiftly asserted itself in the broader spying debate. Organizers have been covered and quoted repeatedly in the mainstream media, including a New York Times profile of founder Mike Stark, tapping the interest in online organizing to amplify a civil liberties message. The group's wiki even includes a "proposed strategy" to "fan the flames of coverage by making the novel outreach approach a story in its own right," levering media attention to recruit more members for lobbying Congress. Over the weekend, it began spinning off local networks to target individual senators through a " fifty state strategy." Now there are Facebook groups for constituents to pressure senators McCain, Feinstein, Klobachar, Coleman and Alexander--along with a page for "Wisconsinites" to "thank" Senator Feingold for defending civil liberties. The group decided to focus on other senators after discussing how to broaden the effort beyond Obama. Over 3,500 members converse through an e-mail listserve on the campaign's social networking platform, with hundreds of messages a day. In fact, the group has begun moderating participation to limit topics and exclude certain tactics, such as attempts by activists to halt campaign fundraising in retribution for Obama's position on spying.

By simultaneously growing its membership, mission and ambition, the spying group exhibits the characteristics of a successful net movement. MoveOn began with the single objective of fighting Clinton's impeachment, but evolved to tackle other issues that resonated with its members. The protest against the spying bill began last month by urging Obama to change his vote. After quickly drawing him (and his senior staff) into a dialogue, however, it is nimbly shifting its focus to Obama's role in the immunity floor fight--an easier request on common ground--while launching campaigns to target senators with constituents recruited through MyBarackObama.com. Even if the Democratic Congress completes its capitulation on surveillance policy, the anti-spying group will still be the largest organizing network on Obama's site. With 6,000 more activists than the top-down "Action Wire" group, which the campaign created for official pushback, the group might even function as a supportive but aggressive counterweight to the campaign's traditional message. If Obama is not confronting McCain on other constitutional issues, for example, members could organize media or social network efforts to do it for him. If the campaign is not correcting the media for distorting factual statements by Gen. Wesley Clark, the members could rally a truth squad overnight.

Obama excelled by appealing to the public appetite for movement politics, rather than typical campaigns. And unlike campaigns, movements are animated by ideas, policies and values--not blind allegiance to a single person. If Obama is lucky, he will continue to benefit from these energized, sophisticated activists who support his candidacy while they press his hand, and use his campaign platform to mobilize turnout while organizing causes beyond his election.

The spy group's open letter reminded Obama of this collective dynamic. "As you have said time and again Senator, 'we are the ones we have been waiting for,' and we are here, working to bring about real change in Washington."

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama, netroots

// posted by Howard Martin @ 1:26 PM 0 comments

Labels: voter suppression

// posted by Howard Martin @ 5:12 AM 0 comments

As I've mentioned more than once, BuzzFlash is the oldest and largest progressive Internet news and commentary site between the two Coasts. We have the perspective of the Heartland -- and we were founded on a premise that only when we hang tough for Constitutional values will we prevail.

The most basic and fundamental message of BuzzFlash -- long before the other sites that now get branded on television all the time (we were founded in May of 2000) -- was that you don't win victories by laying down like a doormat; and you don't sell out the Constitution, one person-one vote, economic justice and the energy future of our nation by cowering in a corner every time that the Republicans pull a national security scare.

Of course, there are other factors at work, like the DLC, which have made many Democrats as complicit as Republicans when it comes to voting with big corporations because of the money channeled to their campaigns by "K" Street lobbyists.

Barack Obama offered a vision of an end to this cowardice and betrayal.

We believe that he still does.

I want to make it emphatically clear that I and BuzzFlash oppose Obama's position on the latest House FISA bill; on "redefining" an Iraq pullout; on giving a green light to the unprecedented Supreme Court gift to the NRA; and on his "carve out" of exceptions to late term abortions that would exclude the mental health of a woman.

These are not progressive perspectives (although the Iraq statement was consistent with his prior qualifications -- and those of Hillary Clinton). We oppose his stances as stated above, and will continue to do so. As I have often stated, we are beholden to principles, not to an individual. As a grassroots organizer, Obama, we suspect, understands that.

There's been a lot of Internet speculation about why Obama made these counter-progressive comments. Is he following the advice of his strategists because he needs to ease the concerns of key voting blocks in new states that they plan to possibly pick up (e.g., Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Georgia, Virginia, etc.)? In that case, Obama loses some of his luster as being the "genuine" candidate. Or are these nuances that Obama actually believes? Or are they a lot of "dog days of summer" attention focused on issues that will pass once he becomes president and appoints Supreme Court justices who will lean progressive, along with having a heavily Democratic Congress, including the Senate?

The answer: probably a little of all of the above.

Being in Chicago, as we have said, we have worked with Obama in the past on some advocacy issues, such as putting an end to Payday Loans (although we have absolutely no connection with his campaign; we're talking about when he was a state senator). We also know a lot of people who know him from Hyde Park -- both socially and politically -- and elected officials who worked with him in the legislature.

Most of them will tell you this: if he has a core center upon which he will not compromise, it is related to Constitutional issues. We wager that he and his campaign know that Harry Reid doesn't have the votes to maintain a filibuster on the House FISA bill, so Obama is taking the chance to innoculate himself from the only thing the Republicans got to run against him; i.e., that he is a furtive Muslim sympathizer. As BuzzFlash has speculated before, we think that too many Democrats were given classified briefings about the FISA illegalities and would be implicated if Bush and Cheney were held to account. As for Telecom Immunity, show us the money. When you have the Democratic head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, cheerleading for Telecom Immunity, you know that the fix is in.

Do we justify such "business as usual" political moves? No, but we are going to hold our judgment on Obama, barring some radical departure from his primary positions, until he is elected. This guy is committed to the Constitution and BuzzFlash and the rest of the netroots are going to be all over him like a panther on the prowl if he doesn't roll back the Bush usurpations of the Constitution and our civil liberties. The same goes for abortion.

Because while he's made these objectionable statements, he's also been "framing" the national security issue in a way that Democrats have not done before; he is boxing McCain in on the definition of what makes our nation secure. That is the larger battle that has to be won.

We've talked with George Lakoff -- the master of "framing" -- and it is clear that he not only approves of Obama's ability to redefine and reframe issues to pull more people into the progressive tent, but that Lakoff has given the Obama camp advice and counsel.

That is very reassuring to us, because most Americans share progressive values, but they have been tugged by the demagogic slogans and think tank positions of the right wing. Obama has the ability to double down on the right wing by bringing in a larger context to the debate and debunking their charlatan bag of demagogic tricks.

So, I would contend Obama is hanging tough, even when it appears that he is not. The Democrats are going to try and realign the electoral map from the gridlock of the last two elections, and Obama is at a point in the election cycle when he is trying to up the comfort level of swing voters while closing off lines of attack from the Republicans -- or at least reducing their impact.

Will it work? We'll see.

But we'll end with this historical note. In 2000, before the theft of the election by Bush Inc., many BuzzFlash readers wrote us and asked what we would do if Gore won because we were so anti-Republican?

Our response was simple; we would keep advocating Constitutional principles and progressive values -- and when Gore deviated from them, we would criticize him. (Although Gore, after the 2000 election, then went through a transformation and became such a strong change agent and fiery spokesman of truth that he became disinterested in the compromises demanded by the political process.)

So it will be with Barack Obama. We will be there pounding away at his lapses when necessary while defending him from attacks from the right wing beer hall putsch crowd.

The power of government in America is derived from the people.

Let no president forget that, whatever his or her party affiliation is.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 4:58 AM 0 comments

Avi Zenilman at Politico notes that the German daily "Der Spiegel is reporting that Obama may give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate - which would, of course, lead to another round of articles wondering if Obama is the ‘liberal Reagan.'":

A member of Obama's campaign has already met with Berlin's mayor, Klaus Wowereit, and the Secret Service has reportedly started to investigate security questions surrounding a visit.

No location has been announced, but the Berlin Senate has reportedly been asked whether Obama can speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate, where former US President Ronald Reagan gave a famous speech in 1987. Reagan made a show of asking then-Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down" the Berlin WallReagan's June 12, 1987 speech could also describe what is today the growing wall erected by the US government along the Mexican border:

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar...

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Reagan was not the first president to go to that spot to make a global speech. On June 26, 1963, it was Democratic President John F. Kennedy that delivered his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" remarks, just as fierce in Cold War rhetoric:

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner."

I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.

The speculation about a possible Obama speech at that same spot makes Peter Beinart's column in the Washington Post today all the more interesting, especially because Beinart is a senior fellow of an organization, The Council on Foreign Relations, that has, for decades, promoted a Cold War lens through which to view US foreign relations:

Having seen fellow Democrats destroyed in the early 1950s because they tolerated a Communist victory in China, (President Lyndon) Johnson swore that he would not let the story replay itself in Vietnam, and thus pushed America into war. The awful irony, (author David) Halberstam argues, is that Johnson's fears were unfounded. The mid-1960s were not the early 1950s. The Red Scare was over. But because it lived on in Johnson's mind, he could not grasp the realities of a new day.

In this way, 2008 is a lot like 1964. On foreign policy, many Democrats live in terror of being called soft, of provoking the kind of conservative assault that has damaged so many of their presidential nominees since Vietnam. But that fear reflects memories of the past, not the realities of today. When Democrats worry about the backlash that awaits Barack Obama if he defends civil liberties, or endorses withdrawal from Iraq, or proposes unconditional negotiations with Iran, they are seeing ghosts. Fundamentally, the politics of foreign policy have changed...

Beinart cites polling data that shows that Americans are not as worried or obsessed with foreign or terrorist attack as they were years ago. He concludes:

Because Americans are less afraid and because Republicans have abandoned the foreign policy center, Democrats need not worry that Obama will suffer the fate of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale or John Kerry. He won't lose because he looks weak. The greater danger is that he will change positions in a bid to look strong -- as he recently did on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- and come across as inauthentic and insincere. As Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin have noted, the Democrats' biggest political liability is not that Americans believe they are too liberal but rather that they believe that Democrats don't stand for anything at all. On foreign policy, Obama has a chance to change that: to articulate a vision based on the principles of global cooperation and human dignity that animated Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. He shouldn't be deterred by fears of being called soft. Those fears are the echoes of a bygone age.

Growing up with the Berlin Wall from 1961 to 1989 - and the Red Scares of the McCarthy Era before it - were generations of Americans whose thinking formed and calcified around it. After the fall of the wall (and with it the former Soviet bloc), US politicians - Republicans and Democrats - did their best to sustain that fear and loathing and transfer the mania to other things: the so-called war on drugs and, since 2001, the so-called war on terror. You will know the dinosaurs by those still harping on such bi-polar descriptions of an America under siege by a monstrous external threat and the corresponding witch hunts to track down and purge the imagined internal enemies within it.

The situation in the United States, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, has been as if the lights were turned on in the house of a blindfolded man. You can remove the furniture and even the wall, but he won't notice and will continue acting as if it's still there.

We've seen evidence of that old style of political thinking rear its head again and again this year as another, newer and fresher, one has gained the upper hand over it. There will no doubt be more shrieking - "where's my wall?" - before this year is out.

With every day's obituary pages, that worldview is, little by little, dying off. From behind come new generations, not stunted by such cowering fear of "the other," and in fact disgusted by it and those that try and inflict it upon us. And a solid number of elder Americans can also see and think beyond its destructive matrix.

The Berlin Wall is now 19 years torn down.

What the moment needs - and speculation in the press suggests we might get it - is someone on the global stage to stand up and say, now and in the present: "Tear down that way of relating to the world around us!"

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 4:13 AM 0 comments

The Republican spin machine is locked and loaded to promote the notion that Barack Obama is a "flip flopper." Four years ago it was their principal line of attack against Kerry and it worked like a charm.

In 2004, the goal of this narrative was to convince swing voters that Kerry had no core values -- that his positions and commitments were blown by the winds of public opinion just as he was blown right and left in the notorious campaign ad of Kerry wind-surfing.

Not long after the 2004 election, I was in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. "So what do you think of Corzine?" I asked. "Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him," he replied about the then-Senator.

"What do you think of Bush?" I asked. "Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes," came the answer.

"What about Kerry?" I asked. "Kerry? Can't stand him. Flip-flopper."

People want leaders who are firmly committed to their values. The key thing that affected the New Jersey cabbie's view wasn't the positions or views of the candidates. It was whether they stood up for what they believed. There are many independent voters just like him.

I believe that John Kerry has very clear values, but he left himself open to be defined to swing voters as if he didn't.

Barack Obama is firmly committed to progressive values that contrast sharply with the values implicit in necon foreign policy and dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest Bush-McCain economic policies.

Obama is much less likely than Kerry was to allow himself to be characterized as a flip-flopper without core values, because his entire campaign is rooted in the discussion of values. It has drawn very sharp distinctions with Republicans on the critical symbolic questions of Iraq, the economy and health care. But that won't keep Republicans from doing everything they can to try to make Obama look like he is a "typical politician" without a moral core the same way they did with Kerry.

Last week's near-frenzy in the media over Obama's alleged "move to the center" on Iraq had no substance whatsoever. It was fed, virtually entirely, by the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign that simply asserted that his statements on Iraq represented a "change " from earlier positions. That narrative was picked up and parroted by various media pundits as if it were true.

Unfortunately, some Progressives fell prey to the media wave and actually gave credence to this non-story, when the fact is that Obama has consistently supported ending the war in Iraq and withdrawing all combat troops within 16 months, at a pace that is responsive to the situation on the ground.

Progressives have to remember that the Republicans don't care about the nuances of these issues. Their goal is simple: make Obama look like he is changing his position.

All Progressives don't agree with every position Barack Obama has taken, but the fact is that very few of his positions have changed since the campaign began.

Progressives who disagree with Barack Obama but at the same time don't want to help Republicans usher in a third Bush term need to remember three things:

1). Go right ahead and disagree with an Obama position or statement -- but disagree on the substance. Don't impute some venal motive. Remember that even when you disagree with him on an issue or policy, Obama shares our progressive values.

2). Don't reinforce the Republican narrative that Obama is a "flip flopper." Disagreeing with an Obama position is very different from arguing that he agreed with you once, but now has changed positions just to win favor with the voters. First, that is generally wrong. Second, if Obama emphasizes one aspect of a position instead of another in order to attract a particular group of voters, that does not mean he "changed" his position. Third, remember that the Republicans are desperate to get Progressives to confirm their narrative and convince guys like my New Jersey taxi driver to elect John McCain.

3). Remember that there is a huge gulf between the values of Obama and McCain. Obama stands clearly in the progressive tradition of giving every human being equal opportunity to fulfill their potential. McCain stands squarely on the side of ultra-conservative values that protect the power and prerogatives of the wealthiest among us.

Obama stands firmly against the neocon foreign policies of preemptive war and unilateral action that lay at the root of the worst American foreign policy disaster in a generation. McCain stands just as firmly for the neocon vision and the Bush approach to the rest of the world.

Obama believes that economic growth happens from the bottom up and doesn't trickle down on the rest of us. He supports the rights of workers to organize to defend their standard of living, and a world where we're all in this together, not all in this alone. McCain intends to continue Bush's economic policies that have assured that all of the economic growth in the last seven years has gone to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

Obama understands that our world faces the greatest environmental crisis in history as we seek to prevent human beings from altering our climate. First and foremost, John McCain's loyalties lie with the oil industry.

We need to remember that John McCain's campaign is managed by lobbyists from the biggest special interests in America, while Barack Obama understands the need to mobilize tens of millions of Americans to change Washington from the ground up.

Progressives should go right ahead and question Obama's positions on issues -- and they should continue to hold him accountable when he is elected president.

But remember that the Republicans are desperate to convince independent voters that Obama is "just another politician" whose values flow from the latest poll instead of his own commitment to principle. Don't help them. If you do you will be wrong, and you will also help the Republicans fulfill their unthinkable fantasy of a third Bush term.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 3:41 AM 0 comments

I've been blogging at The Jed Report since early 2007, focusing primarily on the 2008 presidential election.

Until now (I'm writing this on July 6, 2008), I've mostly gone simply by my first name, Jed, but as of today I'm finally admitting what many may have long suspected -- I am indeed the one and only Jed Lewison.

Jed Lewison's e-mail address:

Now that you know my full name, I'm going to tell you more about me than you ever cared to know. I'll begin with the vitals: I'm 35 and I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, where in addition to blogging and posting the occasional YouTube video, I am a writer. I've completed one novel, a political thriller, and while I work on selling that project, I'm working on a new book, also a political thriller.

I moved to Las Vegas a couple of years ago from Seattle, Washington, where I was a marketing executive at RealNetworks, the makers of RealAudio and RealVideo. I was also a senior staffer for U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, who was my boss at RealNetworks. (I actually lived in DC for a part of the time that I worked for Maria, but was never very fond of the city. I found I could do my job -- communications director -- more effectively from Seattle and traveling to DC when necessary.)

Although The Jed Report is relatively new, I've been active online for years. In 1994, I posted one of the first ever internet sites for a political campaign. (At the time, I was taking off a semester from my undergraduate studies at Yale to work as press secretary for Ron Sims, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Washington state. Needless to say, it was 1994 and we lost -- though in 2000, I achieved some revenge when Maria defeated the incumbent Senator Slade Gorton who had defeated us in 1994.) In 1995, I posted a fan site for the Seattle Mariners -- a sort of proto-blog featuring game updates and commentary. And at RealNetworks, I led the company's internet marketing and sales operation, building a business from nothing to $15 million per quarter before joining Maria on her senatorial campaign in 2000.

::: ::: :::

The Jed Report Novel Interest List:

I've established an interest list for those of you who would like to know when my first novel, a political thriller set in Las Vegas and Washington, DC, becomes available. The more people who sign up, the stronger a case I can make to potential publishers, so if my novel interests you, please add your name to the list and encourage others to join as well. Thanks!

About the novel:

Nick Haynes is a young but accomplished former DC politico who has just returned to his native Las Vegas, where he has been named a top executive at the newest megaresort on the Strip. Not long after Nick settles into his new job, he stumbles across a billion dollar conspiracy stretching from the back rooms of the premier strip club in Sin City to the corridors of power in Washington, DC. Suddenly, the most ruthless men in Vegas are after him, and with the help of his girlfriend, a beautiful real estate agent, and his best friend, a high-stakes poker pro, Nick must expose the scheme -- or become its ultimate victim.

Sign up for the interest list!

Those on the list will be notified when the book is available. There's no obligation, and e-mails won't be shared with others.

Enter your e-mail here:

Thanks -- and don't forget to confirm your e-mail address!

Agents and publishers:

If you are an agent or a publisher and are interested in learning more about my novel, or if you know an agent or publisher who you think would be interested in it, please contact me at this e-mail address:

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama, the jed report

// posted by Howard Martin @ 8:24 AM 0 comments

The Democratic establishment is out in full force now, providing justification for the crappy FISA Amendments Act that's about to become law. While they haven't learned how to fight like Republicans (who have redefined "compromise" to mean "capitulation") they've learned how to lie like them.

Case in point, Nancy Soderburg, who was Clinton's deputy national security advisor and an ambassador to the UN. She pens a truly deplorable op-ed in today's LA Times, in which she tries to rewrite not only the history of the Bush administration's lawlessness, but also this law.

I can't write a better take down of this nonsense than Glenn, so be sure to read his whole piece. But here's this part that's particularly salient:

It's notable because the political establishment is not only about to pass a patently corrupt bill, but worse, are spouting -- on a very bipartisan basis -- completely deceitful claims to obscure what they're really doing. This is what Soderberg says is what happened:

The Senate is dragging its feet because the compromise bill's opponents -- mostly Democrats -- want also to punish the telecommunications companies that answered President Bush's order for help with his illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. That is the wrong target.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks. In its review of the effort, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the administration's written requests and directives indicated that such assistance "had been authorized by the president" and that the "activities had been determined to be lawful."

We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power.

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch -- someone who can issue "orders" that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the "orders" are illegal.

That just isn't how our country works and it never was. We don't have a King who can order people to break the law. I have no doubt that people like Nancy Soderberg are spending the July 4 weekend paying shallow homage to the Founding, all the while being completely ignorant of or indifferent to the principles they pretend to celebrate.

This line of thinking is not only patently false, it's absolutely dangerous. Political expediency has been put ahead of principle, which happens all the time in politics. Politicians are always going to be politicians and they are always going to be basing their actions on the next election.

In this case, it wasn't even smart strategy. There are basically three groups who care about this legislation--us, The Villagers, and the Bush/Cheney cabal. Voters aren't clamoring for the Democrats to cave--Bill Foster's win proves that. So in a valiant effort to appease The Villagers, they piss off the activist base. As usual.

But this time is different. This time it's the Constitution we're talking about, the core principles of our founding--separation of powers, rule of law, all those "quaint" phrases that have kept this country going for 218 years.

Now the phrase we get is "it's good enough." Literally, Nancy Soderburg says this bill is "good enough." Sorry, but some of us have slightly higher standards. One of the reasons the Republican establishment is about to be thrown out by the American people is because we're sick of being lied to. Dems should take that as a cautionary tale, and realize that we're just not that stupid.

That goes for our soon to be President, as well. We have a much better chance of continuing this battle, repealing this legislation, and having the information related to this program declassified with a President Obama than we do a President McCain, and I relish the opportunity to do just that.

That's why I'm supporting Obama fully in this election. He's got my vote. But truthy talking points are not going to fool us--we will not sit by while Dem leaders lie to us about what this bill does and and watch them confer the king-like powers on the office we hope he takes.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama, democrats, FISA

// posted by Howard Martin @ 8:08 AM 0 comments

Perhaps for the first time in his life, Senator Barack Obama may have reason to commiserate with the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and George Allen. They surely could tell him a few stories about what it is like when Mike Stark has you in his sights.

Mr. Stark, a 39-year-old former computer programmer and third-year law student at the University of Virginia, made a name for himself through his uncanny ability to get past the screeners for Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts to ask embarrassing questions. He recorded the conversations — they usually ended abruptly — and posted them on his Web site, and his renown grew.

In 2006, he took an interest in statewide politics and recorded a couple of body slams during George Allen’s snakebitten Senate campaign in Virginia, asking about accusations of Mr. Allen’s use of racial epithets.

Mr. Stark’s latest project has taken him to the Web site of Mr. Obama, who happens to be Mr. Stark’s choice for president. And while he said he did not relish making Mr. Obama a target, Mr. Stark is using the candidate’s own social-networking portal, my.barackobama.com, to confront him.

A little more than a week ago, Mr. Stark suggested to a group of liberal activists who share an e-mail list that they should organize a group on the portal to lobby their candidate to oppose legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants. The immunity is part of an update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that is set to be debated this week.

“Obama is getting mad props for social networking,” Mr. Stark recalled arguing. “Why don’t we use social networking to let him know that he can’t keep elbowing his progressive base — the people who got him the nomination — away from the policy table?”

A member of my.barackobama .com started the anti-FISA group, and Mr. Stark quickly signed on.

In those 10 days or so, the group, with its ever-so-polite name, “Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity — Get FISA Right,” has grown to more than 18,000 members and become the largest public group on the campaign site.

On Thursday, the movement drew a response from the candidate himself — a long, conciliatory note that explained his decision to support the FISA bill. “This was not an easy call for me,” Mr. Obama said in the statement, which was posted to the diary of Joe Rospars, a top Internet adviser to the campaign. “I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect.”

The debate on Mr. Obama’s Web site shows how a force he has harnessed — the power of social networking — can also be an unruly, unpredictable one that can turn back on him.

“We felt we had a change candidate who would take everyone’s concerns seriously,” Mr. Stark said. “What we have is a stiff-arm to the progressive base, and it has really raised a question of how much of a change is this guy going to bring.”

Yet he conceded that a rift had emerged among his allies. “Some people are putting the best face on it,” he said. “At least he responded. And that is the best face. People remember Nader and don’t want to go through this again.”

The in-house protest network has raised some intriguing questions for candidates who use social networking. Just how much dissent should be allowed on their Web sites? Can similar protests be mounted by opposing campaigns infiltrating the site?

It is hard to read the fallout in terms of the Obama campaign. A spokesman said the campaign’s policy was to screen groups as they were proposed, and reject only those that advocated hate speech or made personal attacks.

As for the Web site becoming an organizing tool for friendly critics, the spokesman repeated an earlier statement: “This campaign has an extraordinary group of committed supporters, and we greatly appreciate their willingness to share their time and ideas with us. We believe that an open dialogue is an important part of any campaign, and are happy that my.barackobama.com has become a vehicle for that conversation.”

Andrew Rasiej, an analyst of online politics who opposed the FISA law, said the episode benefited Mr. Obama. “What’s the actual political damage?” he asked. “The fact that he has people complaining on his site? What does that mean? If anything, it’s a positive, because he is allowing a debate on his site.”

And, lately, the plot has thickened. Mr. Stark said the anti-FISA group now contains those who oppose its very existence. “Some people have joined the group to criticize — What are you doing, hurting the campaign like that?” he said. “They joined the group that I created to challenge me. I really like this means of communicating.”

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 7:38 AM 0 comments

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 6:54 AM 0 comments

Conn Carroll (The Heritage Foundation, The Foundry) and Ari Melber (The Nation) debate whether Bush suspended the rule of law. This was part of a larger discussion they had (video,52:27) about Obama and the Netroots.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 10:20 AM 0 comments

Gene McCarthy used to say that the function of liberal Republicans was that, when they saw a drowning man, they would throw him a rope exactly halfway too short to reach him. Under the ironclad economic rule that there are no progressive multimillion dollar corporations, the New York Times is now, and always has been, a liberal Republican paper.

In the editorial today, "New and Not Improved," the Times is letting its desire to appear loftily superior outrun the facts. Just as it did when it permitted the discredited Judith Miller to shill for the Iraq war, the Times is now flacking for the Republicans with today's arguments. As usual, it does so just to create the appearance of being evenhanded while proclaiming a nonexistent equivalence of disreputability between the candidates.

s reported extensively on DailyKos, Sen. Barack Obama has never promised to use public funds. Sen. John McCain not only promised to, he undertook a legal obligation to do so when he pledged future public funding to a bank for a loan during the primaries. McCain is actually violating the election law, which is far worse than not accepting public funding.

Obama would be silly to give up the advantage in grassroots donors obtainable through the internet whom McCain can never reach. The internet has proved to be a better, more widespread method of campaign financing than the tax form checkoff system. The claim that Obama reneged on a pledge to accept public funding is a Republican talking point, not a fact. What happened was that Obama said he would talk to McCain to see if they could jointly agree to a package involving public funding and both-candidate-enforced limits on 527s and other swiftboaters, but McCain refused to relinquish the swiftboaters. So no deal -- not through Obama's inaction but McCain's.

(And because of the internet we are also going to beat McCain at independent expenditures through 527s this year, as well as on small contributions, so McCain's self-proclaimed ignorance of the internet is going to bite him right where it hurts every Republican the worst, in the wallet.)

Given the Republican habit of calling Democrats traitors since at least 1946, Obama would have also been silly not to let others take the lead on defeating the FISA rewrite, even though it would legitimize the administration's use of telcos to illegally spy on Americans. Obama actually understands being a senator, as McCain does not, and is letting Feingold and Dodd do the heavy lifting on filibustering telco immunity. We don't need a sacrifical lamb for a nominee. We need a guy tough enough to get elected. As I have said before, I have to give Obama FISA just like I had to give JFK his reluctance to push for civil rights. They're leaders and get to make calculations like that, which is not the same as rolling over supinely.

When Arlo Guthrie was born the nurse asked Woody what faith to fill out on the birth form. He said, "'None.'" The nurse said, "Sir, you can't do that." Woody said, "In that case, make it 'All.'" I actually like Obama's turning the faith-based movement against the right wing by funding some services by all religions, not just the fundamentalists. However, he limits it, as the Rethugs do not, to outsourcing certain governmental purposes. (Outsourcing may be inherently a bad idea -- but we do it in so many other areas, why avoid it only in this set of human services?)

If we were to be exactly as blatant as the Bushies have been, and only funded our allies, just think of all the Hispanic and black churches that could be doing good work with federal money. But if we can go beyond that and trick the evangelicals into taking public funding for daycare, we will have overcome one of their blocks on women's independence; and I surmise we can draw regulations that will make the churches that take federal money do so for useful purposes rather than for antiabortion, homeschooling, etc.

It is a very clever way to drive a wedge between the evangelicals and the Republicans, and I applaud it on that level alone. The fact that under the Democrats it can be used to nourish Democratic constituencies is additionally attractive.

Federal funding is the smallest problem with church-state relations anyway. Until we achieve a level of federal services sufficient to the population's needs we are going to need to use private charitable and religious institutions to accomplish state purposes, which I conceive to be different than "establishing religion." I mean, if we wanted to turn the schools, old folks homes, hospitals, libraries and all of agricultural research back to the churches, like it was in 1800, I would oppose that.

But just because the Rethugs tried to hijack the churches doesn't mean we should let the bastids have them. Let's get some work out of them instead. If we can fund an army so big it can be used for aggression, we can fund church-based daycare and a lot more. I will support severe limits on fed spending with churches for services rendered only in tandem with limits on fed spending on people with guns; not the one without the other.

An unfortunate fact is that, for this generation at least, the voices of progressive civilization have lost on gun control, and we lost long before the activist Supremes spoke of a gun right which no true strict constructionist could bear. But in this case, as Finley Peter Dunne said about the Spanish-American War, "Trade follows th' flag, an' th' Supreme Court follows th' iliction returns." People vote for guns and against gun controls, and if after Gunsaint Reagan got shot we couldn't stop handguns, it is going to take more time to make that possible. For Obama to recognize this rhetorically is just good sense. Let it ride for about 10 years and try again.

Same with the death penalty. Americans are just not enlightened enough to abandon it yet, any more than they are ready to abandon their guns, even though neither does what they are advertised to do and both cause far more pain, suffering, dysfunction and drama than they ought. Once we are cultured enough to criminalize the cultivation, storage, curing, transportation, sale, manufacture, advertising, import, export and packaging of tobacco, tobacco derivatives, tobacco products and tobacco residues anywhere in the US, or the financing, management or corporate oversight of the same, then it will be time to outlaw guns and the death penalty.

On all these things, Obama gets a pass from me for not leading us into fights we can't win today. The weak hearts at the Times need not fear Obama changing on the war, the Supreme Court, or taxes. That they pretend to do so now is just the liberal Republican streak breaking out in them again, half a rope short of usefulness.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 7:43 AM 0 comments

BUTTE, Mont. -- With John McCain taking July Fourth off, Barack Obama had the campaign trail to himself for Independence Day, taking in a small-town July Fourth parade here and inviting his family and a thousand of his closest friends to a picnic in the Rockies.

Today was the last leg of the Illinois senator's week-long values tour of largely Republican territory. And after hitting the themes of patriotism in Missouri, faith in Appalachian Ohio, service in Colorado, and veterans care in North Dakota, the Fourth was given over to family.

Malia, his elder daughter, turned 10 today. With her in the grandstands at the beginning of the parade route were wife Michelle and seven-year-old daughter Sasha, as well as half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, her husband Konrad Ng, and their four-year-old daughter Suhaila.

Obama kicked off the parade, telling the crowd that with Malia turning 10 on July 4, he "finally told her the truth, that all the fireworks and stuff are not just for her."

The standard holiday trappings of patriotism stood in pointed echo of his week's message. The Obama family all waved small American flags. Sasha and Malia wore the pink cowboy hats that Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) gave them for Malia's birthday.

And a day after he stirred controversy by suggesting he may be willing to slow a withdrawal from Iraq following consultations with field commanders, the closest Obama got to the war issue was the Shriners' Bagdad Burikka Patrol.

"What makes this country great is not the size of our military, not the size of the economy, not the big buildings we have," Obama said. "What makes this country great is its people."

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 7:05 AM 0 comments

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 7:01 PM 0 comments

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama

// posted by Howard Martin @ 8:16 AM 0 comments

In recent days, Sen. Barack Obama has been targeted by supporters on his own social networking site, MyBarackObama.com, because of his stance on the FISA compromise.

One backer formed a group on MyBO, as users call Obama's site, named "Senator Obama­ Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity -­ Get FISA Right."

Today, that group has grown to more than 16,000 members, making it the single largest group on Obama's site.

In response to the group and a growing online controversy over his FISA stance, Obama took to his blog this afternoon to address concerns about his support for the intelligence surveillance bill.

"This was not an easy call for me," he wrote. "I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power... But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."

In addition to elaborating on his reasons for supporting the bill, Obama sought to reassure his online activists that he heard them.

"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this site and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions," he wrote."...I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country....

"Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's OK. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."

Since announcing his presidential candidacy nearly a year and a half ago, Obama has been, by and large, the most popular Democrat online, judging by enthusiasm on social networking sites and the overall buzz in the blogosphere. After some initial suspicion, the online political class -- if not all of the most prominent liberal bloggers -- embraced him.

But since capturing the nomination a few weeks ago, Obama has repeatedly draw criticism from such supporters. Some have decried his stance on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun laws, others his decision to expand President Bush's faith based programs and yet others his support for a FISA compromise. Warned Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com, "If he keeps attacking the core values of some of his most ardent supporters, that energy won't go to McCain, but it may go down ticket or de-active some activists into mere voters."

Following on the heels of the "Vote NO" MyBO group, another supporter created the wiki "Senator, please get FISA right," which includes an open letter to Obama.

"I'm very disappointed about the FISA situation," Jon Pincus, the wiki's creator, told The Trail. Pincus, 46, says he's "repeatedly" given money to Obama online. "What Obama's supporters like me are looking for is to be a part of the conversation about FISA."

It's a conversation, it seems, that has just began.

Barack Obama

Labels: barack obama, FISA

// posted by Howard Martin @ 7:04 AM 0 comments

Issued here, where there is an ongoing discussion with policy advisors taking place:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wire