Smart Dissent

Absolutely beautiful work.  Looking at Obama thru these past months, the fact that he has a philosophy of government and governing that is distinct from anyone we've seen at this level is obvious to me.  (It's sometimes amazes me that Chicken Littles can't see this--quite an infestation of CL's at Dkos). I have no doubt that a fundamental shift in our self-concept of ourselves as Americans is occuring, combining the best of the past with the best strands of the global culture.

I don't know what more I can say in agreeing with your perspective other than:  $200 bucks on the way....

this piece is a breath of fresh air.  i'm especially appreciative of your observation that pushing candidates "to the left" during campaigns is a fools errand.

i'd be interested in hearing what your take is on Obama's FISA stance, articulation of his support for the death penalty, proposal for faith based initiatives, and marginalization of MoveOn.  What is the strategy?  Is he trying to neutralize these issues so that he can focus the campaign around his strengths?  Is he trying to win certain consitituencies?  etc.

Excellent. And reasoned.

...than this, Al.  I've been reading you for months now (though only lurking) and this may just be the most insightful and lucid post of yours yet (IMHO).

I think it's very easy to get caught up in the politicking of election season and to take your eyes off the prize.  It's easy for people to swoon and faint and get the vapors with every utterance a candidate makes, attempting to read the tea leaves and prognosticate about what Candidate X's aside to a staffer in earshot of a reporter means about his policy on Y during a lunar eclipse in a leap year.  You hit the nail on the head here about what it will really take to shift public opinion and actually have the leverage to bring about the kinds of change we all care about--smart dissent and a pragmatic approach to getting the American people involved.

Thanks for a cogent and very persuasive expression of an argument I've been having with some of my more ideological-purity-obsessed friends lately.  Now back to trying to talk them down off their ledges...

After reading so many diaries over at dailykos I find this sort of calm pragmatic assesment refreshing.  I only wish more posters on that site would come around to your line of thinking.

I strongly agree that this candidate is "open to the conversation."  That and his belief in openness and transparency in government make him very different from any politician I have ever seen in my more than forty years of voting.  The fact that he is brilliant is the icing on the cake.  Thank you for such an honest and thoughtful post.

JoAnn

One of your best, Al.  Obrigado. And the homework assignment is vital.  O's speech elevates his own game.  And, to concur with Amie H, to have a candidate with "a philosophy of government" is revolutionary.  To Seabrook, on each of the specific issues du jour, look specifically at Obama's language in addressing each of those issues.  He is careful, nuanced, and consistent with his own past statements.  Revisit nepat's good comment on the previous thread. 

Again, many thanks, Al, for such a salubrious essay. 

This is easily the best and most important post you've made on The Field. This should be a doctrine not only for every Field Hand, but for every liberal and every Obama supporter.

In the spirit of spreading level-headedness, I'm going to force as many people as possible to read this post.

Between this post and Barry Crimmin's superb post on the death penalty, you're both showing how to properly go about expressing dissent.

I'd like to find the time to write an entry over at the Field Hands site on the importance of keeping drama out of this process. It's a crucial thing we need to do, and in a society that makes anything and everything dramatic, it's a point that needs constant reiterating.

If I was McCain I'd  welcome a fight on Patriotism. McCain can't lose  worst he can do is tie. Obama can always slip up.

I look forward to the debates: "senator McCain do you think Obama is patriotic?"  McCain:"well it's not for me to say ..." Obama:".....".-  he better be ready with one hell of a sound bite or he will have just  made  this  race  a whole lot closer.

Obama Hagel  08!

Al, The Field, your writing, the comments, get better and more important to me every day.  It's a privilege to read your work.  'nuff said. Time to forward this one to all my friends and again invite them to become co publishers & Fieldhands.

We must have you on the floor(wearing your milk bottle credentials!) in Denver.

Thank you again,and again.

This is another great, clarifying post that, like so many that you have written, is worth careful study.  Thank you.

There is a quality that unites the greatest Americans.  Thomas Jefferson had it.  So did Abraham Lincoln.  Several more come to mind.  Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain).  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  John Steinbeck.  John F. Kennedy.  Martin Luther King, Jr.  Barack Hussein Obama.  And Al Giordano.

That quality is the ability to express in words the essence of what it means to be American.  To use the most powerful weapon in the world - ideas - to inspire each of us to re-dedicate ourselves to the American ideal.  The profoundly radical idea that we can be better than we are.  That what unites us is greater than what divides us.  This is the essence of the America I love.

for these wise comments....  How meek and week this sounds.  Again, having listened to almost all of Obama's speeches, this one, again, managed to floor me in it's coherent and convincing message, it's tone as well as delivery.  I really appreciate your analysis, Al, (& will put my $ where my heart is), and cannot help but to contrast that to Kos' churlish stance yesterday, refusing to send in $ support until Obama "gave him reason" for it, all because he "threw Clarke under the bus".  I blogged that Sen. Obama has given us many reasons already, and, if he needed a reminder, he should listen to this speech.  My statement that no one is perfect, but sen. Obama makes me aspire to be "better" got bad reactions, too.  When did we last hear a speech from any other politician (besides Cuomo sr. so long ago - Dukakis?) that make us think, show us the underlying thinking in his reasoning and weave it together to show a path for growth?  Thanks, Al et all.

This group has 6000 members and is the largest growing group on the site: it stands against FIFSA. The  NYT Caucus blog has a story on them: http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/06/jeffrey-tambor.html?xid=rss-hollywoodinsider-20080630

I just want to quote the guy who started this at MyBO, a law student at the University of VA.

The group was conceived on a listserv for progressive, politically active people, said Mike Stark, an activist who is a law student at the University of Virginia. He wrote an initial e-mail to the group arguing: “Obama is getting mad props for social networking, 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?”

One of the recipients, who was already a member of mybarackobama.com, created the group. There were bumps in membership when various blogs wrote sympathetically, Mr. Stark said, but, “the biggest bump was from the members themselves.” He called it “the networking effect.”

The idea that the site would reject the sub-group never occurred to him, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s commitment to using the Internet to bring more transparency to government. “One of his key things is a five-day comment period before he signs noncritical legislation, and not all of that comment will be favorable,” he said. “It’s a test run to see what his presidency might look like.”

Mr. Stark said he was thinking beyond the FISA vote, which he concedes is all but lost. He said he planned to change the group’s name to Barack’s Better Angels, and linger at the site until the election as a meeting place for “progressives who won’t accept being pushed away from the table.”

One of the things I love about this campaign is the way this candidate has brought so many  new activists (me included!) to the table. I don't do anything but send 25 a month and I've done a registration drive twice (during the primary and after for the kickoff) and calling people using their site. But it's made me feel a part of something bigger, which is why I joined this group. These people support Sen. Obama but want their voices heard on policy issues; and envision that they will be able to comment when he is in office too. That is HUGE. A grassroots campaign that is devoted to the candiates platform; but will also push him progressivly. There have been so many blogs surprised that this dissent continues; but it illustrates what you capture in your post Al. And it is part of the reason I am so supportive of this candidate; despite ceartin disappointments. At the base: ending the war, health care, tax reform, education reform he stands where I want. And he is opening to hearing my voice and the voice of other progressives.

That is why I truly feel this is a chance for a transformational presidency; like FDR and his fireside chats. Only the chats are two way and online now. Those fireside chats enabled FDR to grow a base and create mutual trust to have the most progressive presidency in history. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington are the only three that were as revolutionary. I'm excited to be watching history.

Tonight is the deadline for June numbers, please donate if you are able. And voluenteer. We need to be the change we believe in.

Reading the comments on the previous thread, particularly concerning the Clark kerfuffle and supposed movement to the center by Obama caused me to both smile and grimace and I will talk about my response to those thoughts in a little bit.

But first, let me add a little to some of the things you mentioned above.  First about patriotism.  Obama quoted Mark twain, appropriate for where he was speaking.  But he also could have quoted Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, who said that one of the first duties of a patriotic citizen was to dissent when justified.

You hit many of the sections of the speech that hit me, but he also talked about something which I think is what sets him apart from most Democratic candidates in the past.  He talked about how patriotism is measured, to a degree, by sacrifice.  He talked about McCain's sacrifice and others.  He meant that it includes far maor than just military sacrifices.  And then he lambasted Bush for telling people to go shopping after 9/11.

This keys in to his rather regular talking about individuals accepting responsibility for their actions, for parents to accept responsibility for the raising of their children, for all of us to accept responisibility for each other.  It keys in with the fact of requiring public service in order to get the college assistance.  He is not a get something for nothing type of person.

This speech may have been as significant, and maybe more so, than his race speech and it is unfortunate that what comes out of it is his needing to reference McCain and subtly push Clark aside.

Yet, I think he did the right thing.  One of the purposes of a surrogate is to say things the candidate can't and which the candidate can distance himself from.  Most Obama supporters are not really going to vote for McCain because he "disowned" what Clark said.  But some undecideds will listen to what Clark said and realize he was quoted out of context and that what he said does have some meaning.

Regarding all the other things, as was mentioned numerous times, much of what Obama has said the last couple weeks is not inconsistent with his general view of things, except the FISA thing, which has also ticked me off.  But then he came out very strongly against the proposed California amendment against gay marriage, which is a pretty strong thing for a candidate wooing some of the evangelical votes to do.

Finally, I just want to say that I only know one person who meets the constitutional requirements for President with whom I agree on every issue, and I am not running.  So I go to the next closest.  And that is Obama hands down.

Al,

This post ranks right up there with your best posts.  Lefty bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, Arianna Huffington, etc. have gone ballistic because Obama is moving to the right of The Nation magazine-type thinking on some of his policies.  They've done some excellent posting in the past... but like so many liberals, they're more adept at whining, than at winning elections.

Maybe they'll read this post and open their minds to more than their own 'wisdom' and narcissism.

Damn.  Al is one of the most important voices in the media landscape today.  All the more reason to find that "Make a Donation" button up top.

Required reading for the entire Netroots, which really needs this chill pill right about now, funk soul brother.

Recommend far and wide Fieldhands!

I bet you've had women in your life who try to pick a fight with you and get mad when you are calm, cool and collected, yah?

I don't post at Kos but someone needs to get this up over there.  I had to laugh at PsiFighter's post today where the entire diary was preaching pragmatism and then at the very end he dropped in, parenthetically mind you, that he had requested refunds for his donations to the campaign over FISA.  Do these people want to win, or not?  Because this is our ONE shot at it.

I loved that Mark Twain line - hadn't heard that one before.

What the counter at, AL?  The number is blocked from view on my screen.

Al, I can only say ... where have you been all my life? Having "come of age" in the late 60's, I have seen much effective and more ineffective dissent, but have never seen anyone address it so succinctly... (or any other way!) Thank you.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Smart_Dissent

I don't even know why we define terms in "left vs. right" anymore. The right once stood for freedom and liberty, but now it seems to stand for imperialism and adherence to specific religious values.

Anyway, I was intrigued by this article, "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal" by Murray Rothbard:

http://www.mises.org/story/1842

Although it was published in Ramparts in 1968 (known as a "new Left" journal of its day), much of what Rothbard wrote about seems to ring true today.

Fair warning: The Mises Institute is well, kind of weird, probably a very popular site for those the Ron Paul set.

The final paragraph of your comment was so awesome that I want to repeat it just to make sure everyone reads it:

"Finally, I just want to say that I only know one person who meets the constitutional requirements for President with whom I agree on every issue, and I am not running.  So I go to the next closest.  And that is Obama hands down."

Thanks to Al for this island of tranquility.

I'm at the point that one by one I'm asking blog operators to delete my accounts to their sites.  I've had enough of their Chicken Littling...

Obama's playing chess, but you might check out this picture:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/165466629_197bdc7e04.jpg?v=0

Before Obama, I was beginning to think Americans had completely dumbed down and there could be no reasoned arguments.  This is refreshing.  I sense in this a call to responsibility and accountability on the part of the American people.  Let us do the hard work--not merely rely on the leader--the candidate, no less-- to do it for us.  And thank you for clarifying how and when in this whole process this hard work is to be done. This is grass roots at its best. Thanks.

Again, you hit the nail on the head and what an antidote. Thanks also for suggesting the speech -- it's just the kind of reminder of why this is an extraordinary campaign, even if some of the specific issues aren't playing out as I'd like at the moment. The passage about the Declaration of Independence really hit home how different it will be having someone who has experienced things like racism firsthand (as described in his books and so on).

You're right on on the dissent; I'm sure it's been linked here but there is already a growing group on Obama's site preparing to express dissent. But there's so much more we can do!

Here's to the work ahead, Fieldhands.

It has been odd reading DKos these last few weeks. One of the things that has been missed over there is that Obama didn’t cultivate the existing ‘Netroots’ he built his own, and even though it was in plain sight they either missed it or ignored it.

Now, reading some of the dairies I get the feeling that they feel they own him, he is their creation. So when he doesn’t play by their rules they throw a hissy fit and in the case of Markos, hold back a donation.

But look at the GOP. Sections of them literally hate McCain, but they have (largely) shut up and not made the waves we are seeing on the left side of the blogosphere.

As a foreigner I watch in horror as Bush was re-elected last time, winning an election he had no right to win. It would be even harder to watch a repeat.

At HuffPo perhaps? I would love to see a wider exposure for this, which as noted above, may be one of the most important you've written this election season.

Al, I read your remarks about Clark and the ill-timed rightwing 'buzz' these comments evoked, and, yes, I very much agree.

The chicken-little in me leaps to ideas like taking Clark or Webb as VP when these types of situtations arise.

However, though I don't have tv, I was at a friend's home last night and caught Clark defending the comments on an MSNBC show.  The man is adroit and sharp, however, these comments played right into the McCain's hands.

I have to remember that my interpretation of McCain and others in the imperialist agressor forces during Vietnam as adjuncts to international war criminality is well outside the US mainstream.

The military and 'security' work for the right in ways that relate to the deep psychic coding  that is part of US nationalism.

Any way, this was an excellent speech by Obama--and it is too bad that Clark had to spout off in a way that detracted from the force of this message.

Indeed, I am hoping that Colin Powell will come out shortly with an endorsement of Obama.  We need it.

When I have confirmed that Deb has refunded money back onto my card, I will kick you another fifty for beer in Denver.  LOL

This post will certainly put Al over the $7,400 goal.  If you're willing and able, you know what to do.

Imagine this sort of commentary coming out of the Convention.

Just posted the link to Al's post in the comments section of Glenn Greenwald's column at Salon.com.  Maybe others on this site can do the same.  I don't expect total sanity from Greenwald or other netroot purists, but they might at least pause after reading Al's post and cut Obama some slack.

H.L. Mencken said, "You can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people."  As a corollary, you can also never go wrong overestimating the intelligence of the pundits who blog & comment about American politiics.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!

and...Dugg!

(wiping eyes in total awe of Al...)

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

If THIS post doesn't convince you to sign the Petition...nothing will!

We're @ 516...just 224 to go!

<a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html">Online petition - A Petition to the Democratic National Convention to Credential Al Giordano</a>

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I found Al and The Field! What an awesome post!!!

Put my money where my mouth is today and kicked more $$.

Fieldhands please work on getting that credential back this week.

Thank you so much for this post.  I hope it serves to remind us all of the importance of keeping our minds on the big picture of this election--continuing to work and organize at the most grassroots levels while simultaneously doing all we can to ensure an executive branch that will favorably consider agitation and activist movement.  Your perspective is greatly appreciated.  Well done!

Just two quick things while I should be working:

1. Fantastic, brilliant writing - love it and thank you.

2. Can you put a stamp on your post and send it to Markos? Not just for his emotional response to Obama's FISA position and other concerns, but perhaps to illustrate to him there is a better way to show dissent as you suggest.

I think it is important that Markos takes a more strategic leadership role than what he has done in the past. Not that he isn't brilliant in everything he has done to advance netroot activism to this point. But I think DKos is at the point that unless he takes it to the next level, his blog will continue to decline in reader value (something different than # of hits IMO) and will ultimately function to the lowest common denominator.

One suggestion for improvement might be what you have done here. For example, I didn't really know what to think about posting my real name here a few weeks ago but decided to take the plunge. I now recognize it's significance in forcing me to say things that I can stand behind each and every time I post something. For Daily Kos, having that as an option for diarists and commenters would only help to elevate the conversation. And to take it a step further, it is the logical move for those of us who want to organize beyond the keyboard.

that Al's pen is mandatory in Denver? As many others have mentioned, excellent post.  Also, Al, someday share the secret as to how you manage to keep the comments so consistently good on this site.

As for the post itself, I found the most pertinent part (to me anyway) to be "or fill-in-your-pet-issue-here, have to first educate and organize the citizenry to demonstrably agree with them before they can realistically insist that any political candidate stick his neck onto their pet chopping block."

Basically, most of the folks that I associate with are not as "into" politics as those of us reading and commenting here.  These folks are a little left of center or a bit right of center, but for the most part, are concerned with their kids, their jobs, the pet that needs to get to the vet, etc.  They have a general sense of what is going on, hell there is a reason the Decider polls at 20-some percent approval.  The challenge for us is to understand that we are unlikely to turn these folks into political fanatics, but to continue to explain and enlighten them to the fact that there is one candidate that will try to change the way politics are done in this country. And that candidate is Mr. Obama.

This is an amazing piece of work and so thoughtful.  This type of anaylsis keeps me coming here day after day...

I meant to paraphrase H.L. Mencken by saying you can always go wrong overestimating the intelligence of the pundits who blog & comment about American politiics.

Indeed, I know that Deb reads here, and that she is kicking herself in the ass for her extreme chicken-littleism....errrr....I should say 'chicken-elitism'

(Up-date--yes we are getting chickens on the farm soon!  Real eggs--not chemicals or factory-farm exploitation.  No way.)

This speech is truly great...but.. how can it reach the general public??...people who will pay attention to it are political junkies.....how can it have a greater effect?

Great post, Al! Please cross-post to Huffington Post and DKos if possible. People need to read this.

you are unparallelled on the internets, period.

i wish i could take this post, bottle it, fill a syringe, and inject it straight into the ass of the vast majority of the 'progressive' blogosphere, starting over at DailyKos.

i cannot imagine my sanity in this election without your perspective.

Hey Allie Mann:

I like this post from Giordano AND I also like what Greenwald's doing on the FISA issue.  Take that.

Nothing wrong with getting a little publicity for the left side of the debate, and it has the added benefit of giving the candidate something to distance himself from, enabling a more progressive stand from the moderate candidate than might otherwise be possible.

It is possible to believe - with Al Giordano - that the sky isn't falling down, Obama is not turning to total crap right before our eyes, and that we need to keep some perspective - and to believe - with Glenn Greenwald that Obama's position on FISA is unfortunate, wrong-headed, and needlessly centrist.

Please note that all of this is not leading Greenwald to abandon the candidacy of Barack Obama.

In truth, there are two ways the sky isn't falling down.  Obama isn't "selling us all out" and criticism from the left, even sharp criticism from the left is not destroying him.

It's a political campaign.  That's all it is.

I went looking for this speech today and found the text on the Obama HQ blog, videos take too long to load where I am. With a little imagination I listen for Barack's cadences. The first thing that came to mind was that this is the real news for the week.

This commentary by Al uncovers some extraordinary facts. I never realized why when the debate over idealistic purity came up Nader always came to mind or to the point of the conversation, and look at that perpetual failure in electoral politics. That demand for ideological purity and precise policy prescriptions fits into a multi-party government that Nader longs for but which if it existed would have to govern based on bringing together differing or even conflicting policy groups.

Obama seems to be aiming at government within the two party system that will allow the debate of multiple policy groups. I say this taking Al's suggestion of the role of community organizing in governance in an Obama administration as an intention that grows out of the desire to govern both Red States and Blue States as a United States. It will not be a unification conducted by a partisan point of view but created out of multiple conflicting interests finding common ground. I can have hope that my own even more radical ideas than those of the netroots crew might actually become part of the conversation.

It's a good observation.  In fact the purists are going to find themselves upset a fair amount I might think because Obama really is about acknowledging the other side of the argument and finding that common ground.  Many of the purists afflicted with beautiful loser syndrome are not ready to cede that ground.  However, I believe the majority of Americans are ready as the alternative has either been the shove it down your throat variety of politics or total stalemate.

I didn't care for the AP article on this speech this morning.  They simply referenced how Obama was "defending" his patriotism.  It was clearly so much more than that.

I thought Obama's speech on patriotism was one his best. perhaps not as stirring or emotional as others but so rational in its breakdown. and such an important topic to dissect. what goes through my mind is how can a leader like this not win the election. what would it mean for a country not to elect him? for McCain. I am confident that he will win but it goes through my mind. Obama is the greatest unifying force I have ever seen in politics in my brief experience.

I loved the substance of this speech. I predict that should he become president, this will be one of the seminal ones defining his presidency or pre-presidency. Take your pick.

 Well said Al.

It's not about Me it's about We.

 People are so busy projecting what they want, they have been missing what he is.

I must say your Chicken Little vaccinations (administered twice as I recall) worked on me.  When I first heard General Clark's statement I laughed, said good for him, and hoped he was in the running for VP.  When the outrage on the news began to churn up, and the inevitable hand-wringing at DKos and elsewhere, I just tuned out the noise and focused my attention elsewhere.  

This site has provided such a thoughtful, instructive haven from the noise and worry dominating other blogs.  

Thanks again, Al.

Great post - I'd have to say one of your best - so I've finally ponied up and donated to your new site (and hopefully will get my copublisher account soon).  Hope you reach your goal tonight.

I skipped over to kos and read his hissy fit and really couldn't believe the childishness of it.  It's like he really hasn't been paying any attention at all to who Obama is, and what the potential of this movement is.  I just found it quite silly and won't be going there again in a while.

On the speech, I hope Obama finds a way to weave sections of it into other speeches such as his stump speech or his convention speech (or even snippets into a GE ad).  I just hope it can reach more and more people.  I think most Americans are really yearning to feel proud in their country again and he could really uplift them if they can open up and truly listen to him.

For the record, Rural Votes refunded the $25 that I donated to "Send Al to Denver", so I just passed it on to Al (via the Fund for Authentic Journalism). Since I donated, a while ago, through GroundSpring, Deb had to send me a check; I received it the other day and I am assuming it will clear. Deb did not refund the $50 I donated to "Keep Al Writing" because she said it had already been disbursed.

"Take that"?!  Please...

I've previously posted here that I disagree with Obama's most recent position on FISA.  But Greenwald, despite his good work reporting about FISA & Obama's change of policy, has been cutting Obama a new one for moving to the center on various issues. Greenwald's expertise is on legal matters... but on political matters, his expertise is on legal matters.

Sometimes, Al, you pack so much in a post that while readinbg it, I have all sorts of comments, and then when I start to write, half of it is gone.  Of course, that may be my brain's problem and not your posting's.

Anyway, I wanted to say something in terms of your comment about Dukakis.  If you recall, George the Elder almost never used the word "liberal."  Instead, he kept referring to "the L word."

I kept beating my head against the wall that Dukakis never came back at him about this, but then again, it is something that Democrats have been afraid to do since I don't know when.  Reagan basically represented the culmination of the right's efforts to turn "liberal" into a dirty word.

What I wanted Dukakis to do, and if necessary I hope Obama does it, is to say something like "I keep hearing people say I am too liberal, whatever that means.  Well, let me say this about that.  If being a liberal means caring about your fellow human beings, then I am proud to be a liberal.  If being a liberal means caring about those who put themselves in harm's way in service to this country, then I am proud to be a liberal.  If being a liberal means working to make sure every American has access to basic healthcare, then I am proud to be a liberal..."

You get the idea.

i think this is a great post. i definitely do appreciate your experience on these things, as i've always respected your work, or as long as i've known of it. 

i also think i just need a break from politics. for me some of my current feelings of disappointment are just being overwhelmed after chasing this junk for months.

when i hear him speak, i still think obama means to change things. and i sure know he thinks differently than any candidate. and that still excites me. i'm just not sure what all those things he means to change are yet, aside from how people are elected or how they run or from whom they receive money (not altogether unimportant things). okay, new mechanics of politics. but a brilliant powermonger could be equally studious on such an issue. see, some of the positions i've heard him indicate lately frustrate me. i can only say "he's being strategic" so long before i say "damn, son. i do NOT agree with that or even saying it." not so much talking about clark, although i like him for his big mouth. 

so presidents always approach from the right and then govern more progressively...but another point is that i don't get how i should take comfort in the fact that presidential candidates "always" do this and it "never" means That but at the same time see Obama as doing something entirely different. is it the same as always or different? i know, probably nuanced. 

but i guess that's a good point to stress: i do'nt know anymore what he is saying as a matter of strategy and what he really means to do. i don't have that experience and time you do, that allows you to implement a disconnect there. so for someone who doesnt have that, it is safer to back off a bit.

i'm also very angry with the democrats and all their secret funding and capitulation on ideals i find important. and i'm tired of excuses and adult rationalization on shit that is killing so many people and is so utterly needless in so many ways. that's just not how my mind and heart work. some of us are long, cool arc rationalizerstrategizers and some of us fling paint and chisel wood and smash guitars because we don't work that way.

anyway, nobody needs to get on me about it cuz i'm not into panicking. and i would not get in Obama's way because i know without a doubt that there is no comparison between him and mccain. but i, myself, appreciate the countercultural heat of the 60s and 70s, hell, that shit formed a lot of who i am. and everytime he says that stuff, i just feel like we're in a different class, he and i. we just see the world very differently in at least one way. so what, right? so what. i still think there's not much comparison between him and mccain. and i don't want to have a beer OR a molotov with barack, so it hardly matters.

but energy and time-wise? i'm returning to issues that are more immediate to me, and more immediately understood by myself. we'll see what happens along the way. i stay open.

either way, thanks for your writing on these things. you definitely provide a valuable viewpoint. and no matter what, it's clear to me that you surely deserve that credential. that you were already given. 

Al - at the risk of sounding repetitive, Thank you. Your writing so often eloquently echoes the jumbled thoughts in my head. 

Quite frankly, I think what we're seeing now in the netroots/progressive movement is just growing pains - it's easy to position yourself against a federal government as toxic as the Bush Administration. It's a lot more difficult to keep the same coalitions together when the original organizing force is no longer there. To turn what began as an organization in *opposition to* into an organization in *support of* or *in league with* or just into an organization for its own merits, because being organized is good for ya. 

I have to do some more thinking - because I see a whole lot of parallels between the investment that evangelicals made in the Religious Right and the Republican party, and the investment that liberals have made in the Netroots and the Democratic party. Evangelicals have been reconsidering their alignment with Republicans for a lot of reasons (there was an article in last week's New Yorker about this) - and I think the netroots are about the come up on some difficult issues - they'll have a big re-evaluation to do when Obama is elected. I think it'll be an interesting series of conversations. 

Al, what you describe plagues academia. It is as if ideological purity substitutes for action (always messy and risky) when it is really the easy way out: ideological purity is not possible because one would have to be god and NOT a mere insignificant mortal. In other words, ideological purity means not having to actually do anything except getting your daily, multiple fix of self-righteousness . Or, people do not participate because they assume themselves to be "above" the vulgarity of public participation where people are certainly not as smart as they are. (Do I sound bitter? I am getting flashbacks of graduate school and of people I had hoped would have left the recesses of my psyche by now!)

But, I also truly believe that what allows Obama to be able to frame issues and to reach people is precisely the fact that he taught constitutional law. When I saw his speech on race, one of my first thoughts (in addition to being terribly moved) was that it sounded like a prepared lecture for a class. Sure enough, one of his students posted a diary on kos about how some of his speech had formed a part of his lectures. Having to explain or make an argument in a class filled with strangers from all walks of life and with diverse political beliefs is also part of the experience that has helped Obama I think.

Finally, I like the fact that Al (like Obama) always asks us to actually read the text and look at the evidence before manufacturing an emotion. It’s almost academic! J

Nancy, I donated through GroundSpring as well--so I guess I will be receiveing a check shortly too, via snail mail.  As soon as I get the check I am sending an equal amount (minus five bucks) back to Al to fund his efforts.

Anyway, I think that as a left-populist-progressive Al really summed up a lot of my thinking about Obama's signalling to the center.  Kos and others don't have the political insights and well honed instincts that Al does.  Al's experience in myriad countries over the past decade really gives his insights and analysis more cogency.

I know what Obama has to do to get elected in this country--I just hope that he is more authentically progressive than was Clinton.

The country is going through a malaise--so if Obama wins he will have his job cut out for him, just to keep everything stitched together after the debacles and the damage that has been done.

Your view on dissent is spot on.

My personal level of dissent is substantially reduced these days. I've spent the past decade very sick, too sick for any sort of activism ... have only had a brain working above 50% capacity for the past 2 years.

There are more than financial risks to publishing the stories that you do. My friend Steve Kangas died under suspicious circumstances 9 years ago; I'm one of the 5 people mentioned by name for helping out on his (now archived) website.

I finally received my refund from DK and have doubled it toward a new contribution here.

Keep those cards and letters coming, Al!

"Also, Al, someday share the secret as to how you manage to keep the comments so consistently good on this site."

Quality can serve as its own filter; people who want to traffic in fluff don't hang around here.

I think there's also a lesson in human nature here ... when you expect more of people, they tend to deliver.

Al-

I just want to echo what I've seen above in the comments several times. PLEASE cross-post this piece at Huffington Post and Daily Kos. This is one of the most important posts I've read of yours yet and I'd hate for it to pass without being read by a larger audience than just us Fieldhands.

And everyone should Digg It, too.

before too much more is written on the 1988 election, please consider the possibility that Bush the Elder's Men in Black had more to do with the Duke's going into the tank than any of us will ever know. 11 prostitutes were killed in new bedford that summer, and they were friends of a Dukakoid who also happened to be the DA in New Bedford -- in charge of the still unsolved Highway Killings.

I never believed Clinton was authentic or progressive, just a talented politician who told whatever group he was talking to exactly what it wanted to hear. Blech.  There is, in my mind, no comparison between Bill Clinton and Obama. Or Hillary and Obama, for that matter.

As far as Kos and others - this is why the Left doesn't have more support, and basically talks to itself - preaches to the choir, or the angry singers, at any rate.

Really great post, Al. Wonder if that's why it took me over 45 minutes to access The Field.  (And it's nice to see a politician - or a journalist - who doesn't equate wearing a flag pin with selling out.)

The McKeating fluff fest (code name: Operation Trollop) by Conglomerate Media is in full effect. Not being much of a user of BigMedia anymore, I haven't seen one single mention of this amazing speech anywhere. Just the usual smoke and mirrors dominating the headlines.

Ever since the great "race" speech by Obama, he's given a few others of equal import and eloquence, only to be ignored by Those Who Know Better in the cocktail weenie circuit.

It's going to be up to us to inform as many relatives, friends, and co-workers that this stuff is out there and easily viewed on the Internet, and for those without Toobz access, we must tell them how much more intelligent, wise, and mature Obama is than McKeating, who is 25 years older...go figure.

Onward and Upward!

(for those who don't know the "trollop" reference, some good background here:

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/straight-talk-e.html

Note McCain't doesn't deny saying this...he simply offers excuses as to why he said it. Might want to make sure acquaintances know aboot (Happy Canada Day!) this as well...)

thank you for this post--i feel the same way.   but for the fact that i'm black, i'd swear we were separated at birth!   ;-)

except to plug Pam's petition

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html 

and this

http://www.authenticjournalism.org/

@ John in Illinois

Finally, I just want to say that I only know one person who meets the constitutional requirements for President with whom I agree on every issue, and I am not running.  So I go to the next closest.  And that is Obama hands down.

Exactly. It is high time the net-root pundits stopped snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

amk

BondiBeachViews

Al,

I'm new to the blogosphere. I read you, Huffington, Sullivan, and the Kos loyally. I'm 57 and a product of Kent State et al. Door to door for Carter, but disillusioned ever since -- until Obama. I teach third grade in what passes for the ghetto in Sacramento. We've got issues up to our noses. I've been treading water with these kids and their families for thirty years. This is our absolute last hope for America and for our children. I've been sending and will keep sending as much money as I can to this campaign. When I read what some of the posters are saying now about him - including Kos himself - I can't describe the despair I feel. Your post of his remarks and your reaction is music to my ears. This is rationale - not knee-jerk, similar to what I would expect from a narrow-minded Republican who is angry because their bought-and-paid-for candidate is not towing their ideological line. Once again, Al --- thanks for the insight.

I love this posting, for so many reasons. Thank you!

PS just got my credit card statement and will get on with getting refund--and over to you. Also, signed the petition for your credential. We NEED you. Unfortunately I did it anonymously and when I went back, using my name and adding a comment, it was not possible to amend. Live and learn.

As many have said, great speech from Barack yesterday, great writing from Al today.

I loved the quote from Mark Twain, and what had been matter-of-fact clapping from the audience until then took on a joyous tone that completely matched how I felt after hearing the quote.  The same thing happened with his next line, when Barack said basically the same thing, but in his own words.

As I saw messages on Sunday from people who were/are upset with Barack on FISA, I would write and suggest that they watch the patriotism speech. I wasn't able to articulate it in the wonderful way that Al has here, but I felt that in his patriotism speech Barack was showing us more about who he is and how he views the world.  My belief in Barack was reaffirmed and I was able to focus less on his FISA position and more on how amazing it is that our next president not only holds those views but is willing to articulate them.

This diary from Barack also tells us a lot about how he views the world.   I don't recall whether it was posted here over the weekend, but it's worth posting again in case anyone missed it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165

By the way, I watched the full speech live yesterday on MSNBC, so even if it hasn't been talked about much by Big Media, I have to give them credit for showing the speech.

In a way, a politician on the national stage is like a ship.  You want that ship to be seaworthy, shipshape, clean and neat as a pin, with a good crew, and good sails pointed in the right direction.  But it's the people that are the wind in the sails.  It's the wind that determines how far and fast that ship can go ... and although you can tack, no ship can sail directly into the wind.  It's our responsibility to make sure that wind is blowing, strongly, and in the right direction.

Am I alone among your readers in wanting more autobiographical references in your posts?

Also (and I hope I am not derailing conversation) reading the Field has inspired me to read up on Saul Alinsky.  I loved this Playboy (!) interview with him:

http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm

A quote: "The establishment can accept being screwed, but not being laughed at. What bugs them most about me is that unlike humorless radicals, I have a hell of a good time doing what I'm doing."

I have tried several times to watch the video above and it keeps stopping at the same spot. Any techies out there with some pointers please let me know.

Anyway, I have been out of the political loop for a while and when I came back I found the netroots up in arms. I totally understand the dissapointment and frustration coming from the left on these issues. Let's face it, it is really effing annoying that Obama is caving on some of these things.

But after taking a little time to reflect, I remembered that he started this race as someone who said that it wouldn't be politics as usual and that he would neutralize the red/blue divide. So what did we expect? Somehow he was just going to win over red America with his personality? Come on!

Al is totally right on this. Obama "gets it" like no other candidate for President has in my lifetime. We will not always agree with him and he will make decisions that piss us off. But if we can elect a Community Organizer as President of the United States....I have no words for how important that is.

Hey Al

I hope you've had the chance to cross post this. Then again, I hope you wait till tomorrow AM since the heavy morning traffic will see it elsewhere before people start their work day.

Shout out to Andrew Sullivan who already linked to this. This may go down as one of my favorite Field posts.

I had the same problem... 12:28 was my magic number; it kept stopping there all day. I emptied caches, histories, etc. I then went ustream.tv and found the speech posted there. I viewed it with no problem.  

And, yes, as others have said, I believe that this is one of his most important speeches.  Apparently, he began writing it two months ago.  I can only imagine what an Inauguration Speech might sound like! (But, we have a lot of work to do between now and then!!!) Fired Up...

And this happened in BO site and jedreport site as well yesterday.

And just, when he was getting to be interesting too...

Brendan, could you post the link to ustream tv ? Thanks.

amk

I see Andrew Sullivan is now linking to Al's terrific piece.

I am posting comments at DKos and HuffPo that link to it as well.

I want this in front of as many eyeballs as possible.

I've been reading Al Giordiano for many years and holding my nose while reading Andrew Sullivan nonsense ever since he was Marty Peretz golden boy and Christopher Hitchens best pal.  I dont understand how Al and Andy come to be on the same team but I got to say that I'm keeping a sharp eye on Al.

Well, I mean that in a totally non-religious way, but you know what I mean. Thanks for framing the discourse so accurately and thoughtfully!

Would be nice to be able to watch it, but it doesn't work. I was able to watch it until minute 15 and then it cuts off...

Al:

Excellent post, as usual, but I think this is your best ever and the reason is that you did get personal with your experiences over the last three decades, in politics and otherwise.  While I do not consider myself a chicken little I was a little disconcerted to see Kos's remarks and the backlash over the past two weeks over the various issues (FISA, throwing people under a bus (and man am I tired of that phrase) etc.) so when J-Pa told me to go here tonight to read one of the all time classic Al blogs I did so (after a glass of wine) and I was not disappointed.  I have been telling a lot of my friends who are on the fence that we need to get this man in office and he will do the right thing - not all of time - but , I belive almost all of the time - and I could not put it into words like you did.  So I have sent your blog to said people and I thank you for saying it like it is.  I truly think Obama will be one of the greatest Presidents of all time and I think the sky is the limit with him - once we get him into office.  So let's just please get him into office!  The entire world will have respect for this country again, just for electing this leader.  When he travels to Europe, the Middle East or Africa the crowds will love him!  Let's not bring down our best candidate since RFK simply because he doesn't comply with our every demand for what he should say during this damn election cycle.  I will continue donating to you, to Obama, and even to the Orange to Blue and whatever else it takes to make this damn country better.

I was having the same trouble viewing the video at YouTube and found the speech over at Ustream. That copy played just fine for me.

Here's the link.

I am so disappointed in the netroots other big players, but this piece was so on point Al that I'm not not as mad as I was.  I want to find a way to unite them (chicken littles and those who were never really on board) with this more effective way of thinking displayed beautifully by you and Obama.

The speech and your reflections on the last couple weeks makes so much sense, is inspiring and requires us to work.  Sounds like 3 good building blocks for an Obama lead government in which we all participate like we may have never imagined before.

Keep up the great, thoughtful work!

This needed to be said. 

Just plunked another 25er in the bucket to push us over the 7K hump - only a few hundred to go, kids!

I just love everything about what you say. This stood out:

Actually, I have to correct myself already: the highest calling of patriotism is not dissent. It is smart dissent, that based not on self-indulgence or the blurting of one's frustration's out in ways that seek to share the panic or the misery, but based on - even sometimes against great odds - building the objective conditions by which we will win the important battles worth fighting.

Interestingly, I've been pro-life and a Republican until this campaign. It was Obama's ability to make the case for his point of view without villifying mine that enabled me to see my way to supporting him as a candidate. It is his consensus building through persuasion that helps someone like me tack to the left.

Ideological purity and slogans move no one. We are deaf to each other.

Thanks for sharing your gift of writing Al.  You have a unique way of filtering through the muck, digging until you weave together profound insight.  Smart dissent, very powerful words when used together that bring clarity.  I really hope Obama's speech on Patriotism doesn't get lost among the non-news and distractions going on right now.  This little nugget you have posted should be seen by as many eyes as possible.

Good Morning Field Hands!  Comcast went out (AGAIN!) last night...but we are now at 533 Signatures!

Congrats to Al (and us!) for getting the $$$ to just under $7,000!

That means we REALLY have to step up the signatures to keep pace!

Remember, our signature goal is *740* to match Al's $$ goal of $7400!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

Yes We Can!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

BondiBeachViews

That was a beautiful and thoughtful comment, Julie.

Frank Schaeffer posted a great piece at HuffPo a while back titled

Why This Fifty-Five Year Old White Lifelong Republican Wants Obama To Win

that I have forwarded to my friends and family (which includes a significant number of Republicans).  If you haven't read it, I hope you enjoy it.  And pass it along to your circle as well.

Love this post - very much.  But I have a question.  Al says, "I don't think that anything that Obama or McCain say during the campaign is going to determine how each of them will govern."  Then what is the campaign all about?  Where does pandering begin and end?  My sense has been that I just have a fendamental sense of Obama's intelligence and decency, so I look at his statements on issues (like FISA) and just wonder how it will play out in his administration.  I understand he needs to win, and it will be a small miracle if he does (historically, not based on his current position) so I know he must appeal to a wide cross-section, the common ground he has made a central part of his campaign.

But which words mean something and which ones don't?

After a nice 3 week break from the internet (visiting relatives who don't have it), I checked back in this week to find some sites (Kos) unreadable due to unchecked Chicken Littlism.  That's a reason I love Al's writing (and that of the commentators here)-there is a maturity here and a refreshing lack of "OMG did you see what Scarborough said this morning!!11!!" followed by 400 posts of hand-wringing.  They're really turning into what they mock able cable news for-obsessive overreaction to every mosquito's wing that falls on the rails.

Thanks for the grown up site, Al.

jhaygood - "Which words mean something?" Those that we, the people, make memorable.

And in my counterintuitive view of electoral politics, I think that some FISA opponents and some others on different issues are doing politics in a way that can come back and bite them on the ass later on.

After all, Senator Obama's not framing his position as pro-immunity for telecom companies. To the contrary, every statement he's made has stood against it. To the extent that anti-FISA activists create the impression that his possible vote for a compromise version of the bill somehow means he is for immunity, they actually limit his elbow room later as president to oppose immunity.

US electoral politics is dysfunctional and some activists too often play all-too-predictable roles in that dance. Those screaming "oh, he's moving to the right," to the extent they bolster that impression, make it more, not less, likely that such a move is necessary for governance.

There's just a whole lot of stupid going on and including from sincere people that don't think strategically or aren't very good tactically. What they don't understand in this case is that what you say is "reality" becomes reality.

It's also sort of entertaining, in a macabre way, how many people that have never run a victorious political campaign think they know best how to win one, even to the point of righteous indignation. It's like having a bunch of out-of-shape aging fat guys in the stadium insisting that they know best how the fast and agile player on the field should score the touchdown.

I managed numerous political campaigns in my reckless youth, and won more than 90 percent of them. But even that doesn't make me think I'm somehow better at it than people that just toppled the biggest machine in Democratic Party politics. Winning the nomination was more difficult this time than in any other presidential campaign in memory. At a certain point smart people say, "these folks know what they're doing better than I."

Al,

Your comments are brilliant and well written.  Barack's patriotism speech was truly amazing.  It's just unfortunate that the Clark/McCain flap distracted from it.  Your thoughtful and thorough analysis is sorely needed.   More of this please.  I anxiously await your next post.

Thanks so much for this post! This is why I keep coming to this blog that and your vast knowledge of Latin America as well!

Al, I think you may have a wee smile at this from the NYT:

Eradication efforts are most likely to have more success if more money is spent on programs to wean coca growers from the business and improve the lives of their families and communities. Mexico, in particular, is in deep trouble, and the next American president should build on the Bush administration’s plans to provide counternarcotics aid. There needs to be a different mix: less money for equipment for security forces and more for economic development and programs to reform and strengthen Mexico’s judicial system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/opinion/02wed1.html?hp

Can't wait for a blog on the McCain south the of border trip.

Al - Yikes what a dolt I turned out to be. Having read you for over  6 months I go away for a few days only to come back to some parrell universe over at RV where you  no longer exist and all that we went through was a mirage. In retrospect I can see where the "bad fit" was and the split was inevitable - but that said it wasn't until today ( and Sullivan's link) that I realized what had really happned. I thought you had somehow "GONE ON VACATION" after the high stakes drama of the primaries. I kept thinking - well he deserves it - the universe will right itself before the convention. The blogsphere is about providing information and processing it. You do both at the highest level. Thanks and thank goodness I finaly came up for air and found you again.

As if we didn't know how good Al, is, after reading this post, how could anyone keep his DNC credentials 'hostage.'

I live in Western MA, and last night went to a Western MA for Obama Campaign Unity Meeting.  I spoke to many people about what happened at Rural Votes, and someone mentioned to me she thought Matt Barron was going to use 'those credentials.'  I nearly laughed!!

How could that be possible????  Yes, Matt founded Rural Votes with CensorDeb, but had nothing to do writing or The Field.  I thought the DNC credential was for Bloggers?  What am I missing here?  Could it be remotely possible an individual who is not a delegate, but wants ACCESS to the floor gets to use a DNC blogger credential issued/earned by the person who DID write the blogs?  Is the world gone this crazy?  We don't get to hear from Al because someone else at Rural Votes wants access to the Convention?

As Steve Benen points out, Obama's embrace of the traditional safeguards that existed pre-Bush on all government-religious social-programs partnerships shows that, far from furthering Bush's approaches, he is repudiating them. For one thing, it won't just be Fundies getting to work with the Feds: It'll be Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and other groups. For another, these groups will have to account for their spending under the once and future safeguards that Obama will restore.  In other words, it won't be the "Free Money for Fundies" bonanza that it's been under Bush, but go back to what it had been.

Another thing:  Since restoring Eisenhower-era tax rates on the rich is not likely to happen anytime soon, and with Bush handing Obama a huge deficit, a huge war, and a GOP caucus bent on stopping any form of revenue enhancement just because they can, Obama's options for stitching up the safety net are limited.  Working with legitimate religious charities is one way to make limited Federal dollars go further.

Al said: "At a certain point smart people say, "these folks know what they're doing better than I."

I've been arguing the same point with friends and family, but I think there's a danger in taking this too far. Those of us from the USA have a tendency to think about our leaders in moral terms -- they're saintly or sinful, brilliant or stupid. Nuance tends to disappear.

Obama's campaign is very smart, but that doesn't make them immune to well thought-out criticism. I'm not saying that you are suggesting this; I'm merely offering some nuance of my own.

This post was a favorite of mine, Al-I just love it when you get people back on track by educating them about what's really going on. I haven't been commenting much but have been keeping track of everything. I think I'm so inocculated from your primary Chicken Little courses that I can still see the forest through the trees. It's clear that Barack isn't always going to be able to please everyone all of the time but there is NO comparison between these two candidates. Not in tone, not in truth, not in hope, not in intelligence, not in vision...Where one leads, the other follows and panders, still trying to find his footing within his own party. Where the future of our country is concerned, and with a discussion already being made on the right side with McCain talking about how WWIII has really already begun, how can anyone left or middle, and yes, even on the right, consider voting McCain? Do we want to lose another generation of children to a war that was started for the wrong reasons? Do we want to ruin this planet beyond compare-we're close to doing that already? There is a bigger picture needing to come into focus for some voters-this is our moment to stand up and take back our country-and I hope they will realize that one issue voting will not cut it this time. I know we all have our strong beliefs and wants but as you have stated so clearly Al, we need a leader that will actually listen to us. Do people think sitting this out or voting McCain because their candidate lost, or because FISA may pass, or because Barack feels we have a right to bear arms, is acceptable? I mean deep in their souls and hearts, can they live with that decision? Perhaps some need to look a little farther forward to 2012 and IMAGINE our country with Barack leading us vs. McCain having led it for another 4 years. It doesn't get much more clear than that in my mind!

I'm now off to watch his speech. We all just have to continue to work for and believe in this man. I know, that Barack knows what he's doing and that when he wins, he won't let us down.

Re your remark, Tara, @ 7/1 5:16 PM:

I don't post at Kos but someone needs to get this up over there.  I had to laugh at PsiFighter's post today where the entire diary was preaching pragmatism and then at the very end he dropped in, parenthetically mind you, that he had requested refunds for his donations to the campaign over FISA.

It jarred my memory about something. I recall when the foundation for the telecom aspect of the current FISA complaint was about to be passed: April 1994. Passage of CALEA. I was in Manhattan. I complained vociferously to everyone I met, and knew, that it should not be approved. I got stares and 'why do you care?' I wrote an article that no one wanted because the subject wasn't 'sexy' I was told and the 'editorials were covering it'. It was a year before Mark Fabiani put the term "conspiracy theorist" into the lexicon, so I was spared that.

At a time when something could -- should -- have been done, no one gave a shit, or bothered to forward-think the consequences. [Anytime you enshrine policy in hardware/software permissions, or use hardware/software to get around policy differences, you invite creative advantage and possible illegality.] Now, 10-13 years later when the consequences are in plain site, it's a cause celebre. And the blame goes to a candidate for failing to staunch now what ordinary folk could have prevented then, had they been paying attention, had they exercised their complaint then?

That's what fascinates me. Where were these machers of the public weal when it mattered? Sneering at town criers like me? Hmmph.

The NYT writes that Mexico needs "more [money] for economic development."

You might be interested in this: The Tequila Trap.

Al, thank-you for the doses of grown-up hope.

One other thing I like to hear spoken once in a while is that you can't blame people for being human, or humans for being people, to be clear. My husband, the American historian, says that WorldWar I was the first war that people were clearly and instinctively against. The government used fear, the pretense of secret knowledge only brilliant people understood, and patriotism to sell it to them, at a huge cost to life and innocence.

Nowadays marketing, cousin of brainwashing, is a near science that uses every byte of knowledge about human nature, all our lovely dreams and animal fears to wave us away from the local world that could grow us up. Pundits sure love to see us upset and fighting amongst ourselves. Walking away without spending a dollar or a smile is our power against them. So we (I) have to remember this isn't a consumer decision, its a grown up decision about putting a surprisingly fair and brilliant man in office.

You are such a fighter.  Your strength and clarity is amazing.  Thank you for being consistantly sane.  I will be posting this everywhere and sending you a donation.  Your analysis has been a precious gift over this election cycle.  When Obama wins he will need to call you and thank you for keeping us all focused and informed about what truly matters.

Hey Folks - We're almost ready to post the fireworks announcing that we've met our goal to get to Denver to report from the convention. Another $200 and we'll be there. Who wants to put us over the top?

OK. i sent 50 this morning and I am in for another 50. oh please let this push you over the top!!

john ridley, this morning on msnbc, provided another perspective. he said blacks are always put on the defensive and forced to explain why they love their country. their patriotism is always challenged.

conservatives questioning barack's patriotism is just another form of playing the race card.

Al, McCain is making a PR drive in Colombia and Mexico, talking about the benefits of 'free trade'.

The corporate media and NPR are going all out to muddy this issue.

Is there any chance that you can do a thread about how this ties in to the election campaign?

That would be very timely.

Like olivia, i'm down for 50.

Here's a roundup of reasons to be a chicken little... if you're a Republican. it's a compendium of catastrophe.

Who judges what is or is not "smart dissent"?

Loud dissent during election campaigns is the only venue that many Americans have for bringing their issues and values to the political machine that controls public policy in America.It is how democracy works. Vociferous dissent puts passion to values for politicians to better appreciate the personal importance of the issues of those Americans.

Probably deliberately.

This post is nothing but a re-iteration of stale DLC TP's from the 90's. Dukakis again, for gawd's sake, as if nothing had changed in the last 20 years. Here's some of what's changed:

The Democratic Party has become, thanks to the corporate-friendly DLC, the GOP-Lite. Its minority of Blue Dog legislators are the party leadership and they vote with Republicans on nearly all issues. When the FISA vote looked like it might not make it because a majority of Democrats was against it, the Dem leadership met the GOP leadership in night meetings and hammered out a "compromise" that let the telecoms off the hook and gave Bush his power to spy without warrants. Obama backed up that back-room deal.

This is NOT Democratic behavior. We didn't used to copy the way the Pubs smoke their own membership. We didn't uised to acquiesce in gutting the Bill of Rights.

This isn't whining, it's righteous outrage after an odious betrayal of everything the party used to stand for. The Constitution, for a start. This isn't about what the candidate is saying but about how what the candidate is now saying fits so snugly into what the Blue Dog-driven-and-led party is doing. Which is telling libs and progs to take a flying leap and Fuck you.

I will NOT enable the democrats willing to subvert the Constitution and that includes BO.

Pat Rogers - "Who judges what is or is not 'smart dissent'?" We all do and must.

I take the views of those that have won battles through their dissent as having more weight than those of many activists obsessed with political masturbation in public over being "correct" who clearly wouldn't know how to win a battle if it was handed to them on a silver platter.

Any activist or self-proclaimed change agent unwilling to strive to be better and more effective at it is engaging in no more than bad and self-indulgent performance art. In this post, I asked people of your views to give me one example of how "loud dissent during election campaigns" has brought a single victory on policy. I present that challenge directly to you. And if it clearly hasn't worked, what is the point of it? To make yourself feel better about yourself? That's all it seems to me to be.

Mick Arran - I might be missing *your* point but I don't deliberately deceive and you reveal your own lack of self-rigor with such a pathetic accusation.

Your statement of "facts" about the FISA deal and who you say was involved in it is not backed by any evidence at all. You're just making it up to fit your calcified world view. Not my problem.

You say, "I will NOT enable the democrats willing to subvert the Constitution." Big effing deal. Guess what? You're not addressing the matter in any way effective enough to dis-enable anybody! It's all just self-important "I'm so right and superior" boasting. People with that attitude are *more* responsible for the serial progressive defeats over the years in the United States than the DLC or any one else on the other side of the barricades.

Those of us that have a track record of fighting and winning battles in a way that expand Constitutional rights don't generally have time for that level of ego-driven self-indulgence.

That's the thing about dissent: Yours meets now with mine! But any aspiring change agent whose tactics have failed again and again and that continues those tactics anyway doesn't rise to the level of an authentic change agent.

Delicious response.  Sure we can't talk you into going to Netroots Nation?  You could set up a booth and offer interventions for the chicken little-ists.  I'd be happy to contribute to another trip fund drive.  The Netroots could be much bigger and stronger if more people would "get" your message about this stuff.

Nancy M. had a great comment at 12:46 a.m. on furthering our understanding of how Obama sees compromise and winning elections, etc. She had re-posted his post from 2005 at Daily Kos - his statements are fitting in today's situation, IMO. (That's one thing that I have seen in the writings and speeches of Obama in the past 5 years - most of what he says appears not only consistent but timeless.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165

And most recently Obama had said in his "Rolling Stone" interview a few weeks ago that (to paraphrase) "... I would expect that an Obama administration to implement universal health care, end the occupation in Iraq and put an energy policy in place that addresses global warming. We will have missed the boat if these are not accomplished by the end of my first administration."

He went on to say that, "I will need the American people to see the importance of these things and to stay engaged as I won't be able to accomplish these huge tasks without their active involvement."

To me THAT is exciting. One, because they encompass so many other pet projects that we all have that are already directly or indirectly affected by these three things. Secondly, because Obama has a seriously strong record of accomplishing what he sets out for himself, I think we have a right to feel hopeful about his goals. And thirdly, because he has an expectation of transparency to us and involvement from us.

It would give the progressive blogs more legitimacy if some of their arm chair quarterbacks took some time to watch a few election "training" films (i.e. reading more about their candidate's background and speeches and books and interviews) before broadcasting their expertise to the rest of us about a person who has never gone against the principles of the Constitution and who is clearly smart about the goal of winning.

Looks like Colin Powell is using the same playbook as Al as to the proper timing for evaluating where the candidates stand on the issues he cares about.  He knows how to sit back and watch for the emergent characteristics of this dynamic and complex process to take shape.

I agree with Al that now is the time to put our best efforts into actually working on the issues that we care about and build capacity for successful change by making that change real already from the bottom.  Yelling at the top really only makes sense if you've covered the ground from the bottom (if you don't do the ground work - they can't hear you...you're too far away!) AND when the timing is right to put the plan into action.  When is the timing right?  I think 'smart dissenters' have a gestalt about that that comes from their lengthy involvement working on the issue in question and networking with people at 'the top'.

One of the reasons that I find the echo-chambers of blog comment sections frustrating to read from is that one rarely gets a sense from commentors, based on their comments, what the quality of their own participation on the issue du jour has been.  This is especially the case in the more anonymous environments, which is partly why I appreciate this blog so much.   In contrast, many commentors here at the Field have demonstrated serious investment into the kind of groundwork that qualifies one to speak at length about an issue.  "Chicken Littling", those worrisome, knee jerk posts asking for opinions about this issue or that poll on which the MSM is focussing its current news cycle (they need to sell papers!!! It's a business!!!), is often product of not being very involved in the issue one is worried about.

bonkers, your comment made me immediately think about Lucy's 5 cent advice booth in Charlie Brown.  Can you see Al sitting there?  :))

After reading this blog and if I was not currently unemployed, I would donate the money to reach the Denver goal.  Please, keep up the good work. Great Read. 

Andy Borwitz: "Liberal Bloggers Accuse Obama of Trying to Win Election"

Suspicions about Sen. Obama's true motives have been building over the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party's losing tradition.

Thank you, Al -- I've missed you and I'm glad I found your new site, thanks to Andrew Sullivan (I was traveling when you set it up). As the hue and cry built among activists over Obama's move to the center, I found myself defending his positioning and getting my ass kicked on various blogs. I'm hardly one to back down from a fight, but most of these people just don't listen. They're exhausting and they keep missing the point that campaign pronouncements in the general bear little resemblance to what Presidents end up doing. You, however, are the rare activist who's a consistent voice of reason among the cacophany of Chicken Littles, which grows ever more tiresome with each election cycle. I don't know if Obama's every tactical move now is the right one, but I trust him to be the kind of President I've been waiting for, if we give him the chance by helping him get elected. So frankly I little care anymore what he has to say or do to get there. I'm tired of losing, I'm tired of the travesties committed by successive Republican administrations, and I'm tired of activists on the left being quicker to bash their own candidate than even the Republican opponent at times. Such Democrats, who constantly conflate politics for principle, act as if they've learned nothing about electoral politics in this country. But I can breathe a little now that I've found you again.

I think you're missing some key points.  The FISA compromise does not enable Bush to continue spying without restraint.  It guarantees court oversight, which is the most important thing going forward.  With judicial oversight, it's no longer "warrantless wiretapping."  As for telecom immunity, I'm not jazzed about it, but preventing this egregious violation of civil rights from being repeated is of paramount importance.  The FISA compromise helps accomplish this.

If Obama really wants to change the country, he must get into office, and in order to get into the office, he must not be viewed as a progressive liberal ideologue.   As Al so eloquently states, Obama is not to blame for the fact that an openly progressive candidate can't win the White House, and he also shouldn't be blamed for being pragmatic enough to recognize what he must do to get elected.

Barack likes to say he has helped awaken and engage the young and the young at heart (that's me).  I really had to struggle with reconciling Barack's position on the FISA bill with the Barack Obama I thought I had known.  It took me about a week to sort through it, but I landed on my feet.

Even so, I joined the big Obama group because I thought it would be a productive way to have my voice heard on the FISA position.  But the hundreds of messages to that group seemed like an endless parade of Obama bashing - as opposed to criticism of Barack's FISA position.  I spent much of Sunday trying to make a positive impact, but ended up leaving the group.  

Creation of the group was a tremendous idea, but the concrete result seemed (to me) to be counter productive, like the on-line version of inciting a riot.

It occurred to me while reading DoctorJ's comment that many of these new activists are like puppies, and the blogs (not this one) are reminding me of puppies at puppy training classes. Lots of energy and enthusiasm, very happy to be there, but not really able to focus and not exactly sure what to do now that they're there.

That doesn't excuse people like KOS, who should know better, but maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the new pups - of all ages - who are engaged for the first time, who are doubting Obama because of FISA.  It's the experienced activists whom I'm frustrated with, because they seem to be having temper tantrums when they should be showing the new kids (of all ages) the ropes.

Besides spreading Al's blog (thank you, Al!), I am looking for ways to help the situation that won't feel like endlessly beating my head against a wall, which is how I felt on Sunday with the big Obama group.

(Normally I would have said "that I'm frustrated with" in order to avoid the who vs. whom choice but after the group lecture last week :-) I decided to take the chance.)

Nancy M - In my observation, the newly activated are not hurling most of the Chicken Little feathers into the air. It's more coming from people that have come to accept failed truisms about how change is made that are too common to activism in the United States.

There are people out there that think change is about attending meetings, engaging in endless group process discussions, treating political activity as a way to inflict their own personal traumas and "statements" upon others, and this has drawn a class of individuals that, in some cases, don't feel they get enough attention in other realms of life.

When I recruit journalists, filmmakers and communicators of talent for specific projects, the most common thing I hear is "sure, as long as I don't have to attend meetings or engage in group process." I grab onto those folks and - as it's known in some circles - will do everything, including their laundry, to hang onto them. People who are focused on the work, and committed to doing it *better* and always striving to be more effective at those tasks don't end up with the same kind of constant whine that we hear from some sectors of activists, because the act of doing productive work is very cleansing to the mind and soul!

All movements have a natural dichotomy between the "doers" and the "talkers." But some folks would rather just talk (or blog) than get out there and pound pavement and organize real people in real life.

The ones that have years under their belt doing activism (or blogging) without concern for whether the tactics work to win or not tend to be, in my experience anyway, the worst sufferers of Avian Little Syndrome!

My take on Obama's move is that you should judge him on the basis of the kind of people he surrounds himself with and will hire as President. Kos and others forget that fact at their peril.  Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. That is so true especially after Katrina and other disasters where Bush appointees uniformly have been shown to be partisan, heartless, and corrupt. It's true when it comes to faithbased stuff that became faith-based pork as well.

Obama's hiring pool may have some corrupt (sticky fingers are bipartisan in nature) but partisan and heartless is not one of them-at least not at the level of delivery of services. A President Obama will show as much concern about a natural disaster in Utah as one in Connecticut, and will be genuinely concerned in a way beyond photo-ops. He won't be caught playing a guitar and sharing birthday cake while an entire city drowns due to flood waters. His Fema head will be someone who better get cracking as soon as possible, and if not, somebody is going to get a sudden promotion. He won't censor science or try to spy on progressives, or hire people whose only qualifications are big donations to his campaign. Those people aren't going to be in his hiring pool.

Sometimes I think that some bloggers want Obama to suddenly act as if faith isn't important, to openly celebrate gay marriage, and in short act as if he has absolutely nothing to lose. Never mind stuff like this might turn off some centrist voters who are looking for a break, and would play into the culture war and create necessary distractions, they insist that Obama must do this or else he isn't really progressive.

The reality is that American Presidential politics is binary. It's either a Republican or a Democrat, and that means a Republican will have to go a little left, and a Dem a little right, to pick up voters who may be a little of both .

As for FISA, it's a bad bill in some respects. But it's far better to have a President Obama come back a few months later and amend things than it would be to have President McCain that would probably make the bill even meaner.

Al. Thank you so much for this excellent post. It really is a breath of fresh air.

"...treating political activity as a way to inflict their own personal traumas and "statements" upon others, and this has drawn a class of individuals that, in some cases, don't feel they get enough attention in other realms of life."

Al, I laughed out loud when I read this, remembering my grad school experience (clinical psych.), and how many times the classes I paid big $$ for, ended up being someone's therapy session... indeed, a way to inflict on others their own personal trauma. I thought this way of thinking was unique to would-be therapists, but as you so aptly point out, the political world is rife with such needy folks.

BondiBeachViews

The last several paragraphs of this blog should be required reading for all political activists.

Thank you so much for this post! You are a true voice of sanity amidst all the hysterical wailing that has been going on across the liberal blogosphere over the last few weeks. I'm starting to become convinced that the Left really doesn't want to win this election. They want to make sure that Obama tows the line on all their pet issues in order to demonstrate their own power but they have no interest in seeing Obama actually achieve the Presidency if that means he actually tries to appeal to the entire country. Kos's post withholding his donation until Obama responds like a dog to the snap of his fingers was insulting and convinced me that Kos is way too caught up in his own power.

I've worked on campaigns getting Democrats elected in the reddest part of the country and you know what the positions those candidates have to take in those campaigns aren't always pretty but I knew without a doubt that the Democrat was going to be better than the Republican on a whole host of issues that would matter to the people of the state. And I've seen some of those very candidates get attacked on Kos for being unpure. But if those critics only knew how hard we had to fight to get even a moderate Dem into that office! Anyone who's really gotten down in the muck and the mire of a campaign knows that there will be hard choices. The only people who think you can win a campaign without having to make those hard choices are fools.

As a regular Kos reader, I suddenly found myself adrift when he threw his hissy fit and much of the site followed.

His feelings are not mine - I'm much more pragmatic - but I started to question whether Obama's support could hold. I couldn't sleep last night so I got up and found my way here thanks to Andrew Sullivan. Your post was like a really nice relaxing drink after a stressful day ... I went right back to bed and slept the sleep of the just :)

I have replaced my Kos bookmark with yours for now. Nothing against him and his site, but I can do without the drama when so much needs to get done.

this is an odd request, perhaps. 

ah, nevermind. will figure it out. 

I'm sorry because the very first post I made to The Field - back in March - was about Obama and patriotism and the furor over Rev. Wright. And now that The Field archives are gone, I can't copy it here exactly as it appeared then. However, I cross-posted it (I may have edited it, I can't remember) at my.barackobama.com. Here's what I said in March, in my very first Field post:

A few thoughts on the hand-wringing over Wright, whether the “crisis” will blow over, and what can be done about it.

First, it won’t blow over. It has to be pushed over, and the only folks who can do that are Obama, the Obama campaign, and Obama supporters (it would also help if the DNC would grow a spine and step in here, but I’m not holding my breath). The only point to this “issue” is political opportunism, so it’s pointless to even argue about it. The hits will keep coming because, as the polling indicates, it’s effective. If you were a Republican or Hillary supporter, would you stop? Not likely. We can argue until November about how wrong it is but we’re wasting our breath and keystrokes.

Second, this smear is not really about race; it’s about patriotism. No one likes to be called unpatriotic. It’s a veritable capital offense, so when polled in the heat of this issue, support for Obama is support for anti-Americanism. Who wants to go on record as being unpatriotic? That’s why there’s only one way out of this, and it’s actually a gift in the face of a larger problem. For the first time in a long time, the Democrats have an open window into seizing back from the slimy paws of the Republicans and conservatives, the very definitions of patriotism.

For more than 20 years (since the Reagan era), Democrats have rolled over and played dead whenever they’ve been accused of being unpatriotic. Don’t wear a flag pin? You hate America! Protest the Vietnam war? You hate America! Don’t hum the national anthem while standing in line at Home Depot? You hate America! How has this been possible? Because Democrats have sat back and allowed Republicans to DEFINE what patriotism is. We’re too eggheaded about our own patriotism, too long-winded and abstract. We need STRONG, SIMPLE arguments that allow us to effectively take ownership of how patriotism is defined, what it means, and why Obama is patriotic.

 That is the ONLY way this will end.

Democrats will keep losing presidential elections as long as they can be characterized as unpatriotic (cf John Kerry). Given that the Republican criteria for patriotism is so simplistic (flag pins, hands on chest during national anthem, etc. etc.) and substance-free, there’s an opportunity here to redefine it. For example:

1. Public service is patriotic
2. Community organizing is patriotic
3. A balanced budget is patriotic
4. Transparency is patriotic
5. Oil independence is patriotic
6. A clean America is patriotic
7. And so on…

And I don’t think it’s all that complicated. Weaving a patriotism narrative through liberal issues and causes allows those issues and causes to become leavened by patriotism and begins the process of creating a new semiotics of patriotism.

Concurrently, the right-wing model can be co-opted. Democrats are also allowed to carry flags, after all, without looking like phonies. Without that, in the general election, the situation is bleak - esp. for Obama in the post-Wright landscape. 

My recommendation, then, is to begin weaving into the campaign narrative as many open and reasonable invocations of patriotism as possible. Talking about community organizing? Frame the discussion within the context of patriotism. Discussing the transparency of candidates? Connect it to one's patriotic duty? And so on. You get the idea. This allows us to build an architecture of patriotism which can effectively counterbalance the charges that have come out of the Wright flap. 

Is it possible Obama took my advice? No! But I'm glad that he understood what he needed to do to tell the story of his patriotism.

In fairness, lots of commenters at Kos have made approximately this same point, although not nearly as eloquently.  Kos himself is usually what I would call the hallmark of political pragmatism -- except, apparently, when it comes to Obama, where full-on walking on water capability is expected, viz.: the ability to get elected without actually having to appeal to voters who aren't just like him. 

And I can't second you enough on doing our part to make it impossible for Obama to ignore what we the voters who support Obama care about, and that won't happen just by throwing a hissy fit and threatening to withhold money. 

Camilo Vargas and Patricio Rojas have been translating the speeches by Obama or speeches that have to do with the campaign. They have a been doing great work on this and it would be great for Spanish speakers to have access to them.

Here is the link to the latest speech on patriotism.

Seems to me Obama's recent plays on these two issues are attempting to appeal to mutually exclusive segments of the old Republican base. You can't simutaneously peel the Giuliani security obsessives and the Ron Paul/NRA wing.

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

to you for your excellent post!  Thank you for bringing some reason back to this election.... If anybody has bothered to look at the "big picture", Obama's week has been an awesome focus on what it means to be an American... From the start in Independence, MO... till tomorrow in Butte, Montana....  He is defining himself for the American Electorate and he is doing it quite well......

To all those supporters are feeling that they have been abandoned.... NO, You have NOT... not by any means.... Barack Obama still represents your last best hope to move this country in the right direction.....

f

Dear Al,

My first post here.  And my first active involvement in an election..in decades.  Why?

Because for me, "No more politics as usual" wasn't just about gas prices or even the war.  In fact, it went way beyond either.

I re-engaged when I sensed, and heard from Barack's own lips, that integrity, trustworthiness, and a deep abiding value in "Doing the right thing," even when it wasn't politically expedient (translate: even when it didn't garner votes) was the foundation of his candidacy.

Your column, eloquent as it is, seems to be very much grounded in the practicalities of "The Old Way to Get Elected," including saying things, promising things you don't really mean (translate: playing "The Game") as well as not expecting a presidential candidate to take a lead on a potentially sensitive issue due to the risk factor (which is why you encouraged us to organize en mass so that such candidate has substantial backing first as a sort of safety net).

Al, I am done with that kind of body politic.  And my guess is, I'm not the only one.  Half the people in this country don't bother to vote.  I've been one of them.  And I've made that decision because I cannot morally or spiritually support such an old, destructive, inauthentic way of choosing leaders. 

There is a strong assumption running through most bloggers who defend Barack.  And that assumption is: He is unelectable unless he basically plays "The Game."  (Regardless, btw, of what he said in the primaries when he scoffed at ever doing such a thing.)

I strongly disagree.  Being authentic, taking the high ground, making decisions based on integrity, keeping his word, and demonstrating that we can trust what he says...it's called character, Al...is exactly what will not only get him elected, but will deliver him a landslide. (That's why so many turned out to see him.  That's why so many filled the stadiums.  Policies?  Are you kidding?  No, it was because...finally...here was someone who wasn't going to lie to us or pander: "I'll always be honest with you.  And I'll tell you the truth, even when it's something you don't want to hear.")

Demonstrating character is not a sidebar, Al. It's the essence.  The foundation.  The bedrock...of "winning" in this moment in time. And for all the moving speeches he has already made, and will continue to make...

...they ring somewhat hollow for me if they're not grounded in such an essential as this.

I thank you for allowing me to speak my truth, and wish everyone well.

great post Al...by far your best  to date...you must be feeling liberated in your new home.  

Ben Massel @9:36, FISA vs Firearms

Seems to me Obama's recent plays on these two issues are attempting to appeal to mutually exclusive segments of the old Republican base....

Regarding gun contol, my own thoughts have shifted and I wonder how many liberals have made the shift with me. I used to be typical liberal pro gun control but that was before all the post 911, Patriot Act movements toward fascist police state America and now I no longer want an America where only cops and military have guns. I no longer trust them. Too many killer cops, too many harassed demonstrators, too many "non lethal" taser deaths, too many cops in grade schools, too many visored helmut black uniformed robo cops on display at political events, etc. Remember when police used to just come out and arrest someone? Now they cordon off whole neighborhoods, bring out the "swat" team and make a grand display. I think this is to desensitize Americans to a menacing police state control.

And I am a 65 year old white professional female living alone in an inner city, a demography that simultaneously is supposed to be both more fearful and unlikely to be a victim of police brutality.

Excellent perspective on highlighting the difference between being able to get elected (which the National Republican Party is skillful at) and governing (gross deficiency).

Reagan may have been an exception to the concept that what one says campaigning rarely predicts one's policies after being elected.  Although the results were disatrous for the country, he delivered on his promises to cut spending on social programs, and cut taxes imposed on the wealthy; of course, it bloated rather than balanced the federal  budget as was the stated objective.

I have been meaning for some time now to address the state of the black family, and the condemnation of its male population by people, who frankly, I think, refuse to believe that the Black man's greatest regret is that he's absent and, therefore, unable to raise and protect his family. Well, maybe not all but I can fairly say most Black men want to be able to raise their family but are hindered by the programs ingrained in our society to control the Black population. What are some of these programs you may ask?

Well for one, the PRISON SYSTEM! On a daily basis black men in America are profiled, arrested and their fingerprints/biometrics entered into a database, why is that? Prosecutors all across the nation use Black people to make a name for themselves in their profession. Most times these people who are sent to jail are innocent, and nothing happens to the prosecutors, who are trying to build their careers on the backs of Black folks. Even after being found innocent the emotional/psychological scar remains with its victims (in this case Black men). Black men are most times exposed to this type of deprivation not because they are necessarily guilty of a charge but guilty of being BLACK.

I do not think it fair to say that Black men are prone to abandoning their families any more so than their white counterparts. I do believe that most times Black men are "KIDNAPPED" from their families by the system. "Law" is not held accountable for it's own mistakes.

It is this lack of accountability on the part of "LAW" (Police, DA, Courts) and never ending quest, it seems, to compile all Black people's names, especially the men, in the police database, which has left many Black families without their males. I think it is a terrible misunderstanding if anyone believes that Black men are just lining up to go to jail. However, it is true that Black men are being plagued upon by "LAW" for some type of incarceration.

Of course our socio-economic state places us squarely in the firing sight of trouble, and most times forces the male to seek "food" in places that he would not seek it if his circumstances were better. He needs good early childhood education, opportunities to go to college and to graduate, to get a good job, and treated equal to the White man, both in pay and stature.

W.E.B Dubois spoke of our talented ten and how they are supposed to help us advance and not come to worse. There is a force in the system that drives Black folks in a negative way and it is the duty of the talented ten to drive us in the affirmative. To help us change our slave mentality of family abandonment and the seeming normalcy of the practice. I do admit that some of it can be addressed as some sort of traumatic stress disorder, I don't know, a sociologist/psychologist would be the expert in diagnosing "The Black Man's Sickness of Abandoning Family".

For me it is not so complicated, I see it everyday, Black men being led in chains to jail/prison and most times they are innocent. Hold the DA, the courts, the police, and every TOM, DICK, and HARRY who made their names in Law enforcement on the backs of our MISSING FATHERS (Fathers, missing in Action) accountable and you will begin to see a change in the structure of the Black family. Give them more and better opportunities and just maybe they will not stray too far from home. With OBAMA as our President it will be a New beginning for Black folks in America, and just maybe, with some hard work, OBAMA, may change things "roun here" and our Black males will return to help raise up our people and ultimately the Nation.

The New Yorker cover was indeed blatant prejudice against the first African-American Nominee, Barack Obama and his esteemed wife Michelle. This dose of reality administered by the New York based magazine awakens us from our euphoria and disillusionment about the changing attitudes towards Blacks by Euro-Americans. It is a harsh reality and, while under condemnation, it does expose the widespread bias that a lot of Euro-Americans still maintain, and the length to which they will go to dash the hopes and dreams of the African-American.

I've watched, with great anticipation, to finally see this change of equality come to fruition, and have hopes in Obama to make the dreams of a race come through but must wait until November to see if, as OBAMA hopes, AMERICA is ready for change or if Dr. Wright should continue teaching liberation theology (GOD Knows we will need it-if white people have it hard in America that means black people is having it ten times harder).

I've watched as Black, White, Red, and Yellow folks gather in support of this African-American Wonder. I've watched as Obama and his colleagues (most notably, Ted Kennedy) attempt to awaken the nobler side of America so that this nation can truly live up to its true potential of being great. No where, in my opinion, is truly great and DEMOCRATIC unless every citizen is treated equal, have equal opportunities, and equal representation.

Obama represents the dream of Black folks, and the hopes of some White folks, and he must, as politics require, pander to all the constituencies promising to represent their needs when and if he gets elected president. It is a juggling act that politicians do to gain support but it can also be costly as saying yes to one group might mean instant death of support from another group. This is a risk the professional politician takes when trying to please everyone, usually he/she ends up pleasing none.

Barack Obama, a Christian, spent 20 years in a Christian Church, chased from the Christian church because they accused the head pastor of spewing Anti-American rhetoric is now being accused and portrayed as being Moslem. How unreasonable can you get or maybe it is not about reasoning but perception. Based on the Dr. Wright's saga one would think the Moslem issue was a dead matter and that to further state that he is would be a mis-representation of OBAMA. Well, in fine biased and racist style the New Yorker struts its stuff without any remorse and/or consideration for the persons- not the candidate but the Human Beings- named Barack Obama and Michelle Obama.

This cover is beyond political satire and is racist to the core. However, I do believe the New Yorkers actions come at a time when condemnation for racial bias is silent and everyone afraid to confront this nasty reality. Well, maybe not everyone, a few days ago McCain attempts to build bridges by reaching out to the NAACP but is he ready and serious about making changes for the progression of Black people?

On the other hand, Obama, being the underdog (only because he's Black and it has nothing to do with his capabilities), must be careful not to advocate too much on his race's behalf if he wishes not to seem like a one sided candidate. Even though, his race is one asset, which has brought him thus far, being favored by a diverse group of Americans, it is nonetheless the curse, which may doom his candidacy.

His reluctance to speak against racial bias may have indeed encouraged its continued practice. If the New Yorker was afraid of being called bias and racist for publishing such an atrocious excuse for political satire, and if this society was more noble then such a cover would never exist. The people that support such a cover and encourage these types of behavior are biased against Black people and should be condemned by folks of good conscience. Obama must begin to address these issues and stand firm against them, win or lose. If not, McCain may out maneuver and start addressing and condemning racial bias and come off as the true agent of change (McCain the Empathetic). To tell the truth, as much as Black people may desire a Black president they also want a good president- someone to address the failings of Black people and to help us to progress. A healthier Black community will only add to the nation. Keeping Black people down keeps down the nation- Its just that simple.

Just a few days ago I was online playing spades with people I don't know nor can I see, and was amazed and disgusted at the rampant abuse of Euro-Americans who empathize with the Black experience.

I must mount the soap box in defense of those non-Blacks who understand and care enough to make a difference in the lives of all people. It is obvious that while America has progressed there are those out there who still maintain bias against the Negro and the "N... Lover".

In the spades game, I mentioned earlier, one player (for argument sake, A), not my partner, made a mistake and his/her partner (B), I didn't stop to try and distinguish gender, blasted (A) with all sorts of words I do not choose to mention here or anywhere else. As a person of good conscience I could not sit there while B abused A and called him a "N... Lover". Needless to say I defended A and left the game, after beating B of course. The point is that there are those biased Euro-Americans who would try and chastise other Euro-Americans (with the vision of a better nation and ultimately a better world) for assisting the African-American to advance/progress in America.

The "N... Lover" as they are most times referred to are abused and usually bombarded with this bandwagon argument that says if you help the Black Race you are working against the white race. Because of this fallacy many Euro-Americans will fall back and allow the continued abuse of the Black Race. Even though, most times the conscience will stir when any Human Being (no matter race) sees something wrong some Euro-Americans will sit back and ignore the wrong hoping it will take care of itself.

Nevertheless, you have those Euro-Americans who are more courageous and who desires above all a future where their children can grow up in peace and harmony with, if no one else at least, their countrymen (Black or White). My experience has taught me not all Euro-Americans will sit back and ignore the pains, suffering and struggle of their countrymen simply because they are of a different Race. Throughout History these Euro-Americans existed and, yes, the Black Race would have found it more difficult to be at this stage in the game if it weren't for the assistance of these Euro-American Visionaries.

While Abraham Lincoln is, notably, the most famous "N... Lover" (I hate that phrase) it couldn't haven't been possible without many other Euro-Americans who were of the same sentiment, which is that it is to the nation's overall benefit to help Black people to advance. I do imagine that there are other moral and ethical motivations that drive a person of good conscience (Black or White), and I applaud whomever may find it in their heart to muster the courage it takes to stand against wrong, racial bias and prejudice. It is a sin against GOD and man to desire and to work to such end as the demise of another Human Being and especially just because he/she is of a different race/color.

So in my book the "N... Lover" is all but a person of good conscience seeking only to create a better environment in the world for all people. The "N... Lover" has transcended race/color and are the real visionaries among their peers who are too short sighted to see that race/color is irrelevant and people should be judged on their deeds instead of their race/color. It is the "N... Lover" who continues to move this Nation forward because they have the insight to know that diversity is not criminal but instead beneficial. The "N... Lover" has nothing to be ashamed of and has a lot to be proud of because he stands for love, respect, equality, and most importantly to leave a better world for the future. To those (people of good conscience) who have transcended race/color I join Harriet Tubman and many other Blacks in tipping my hat to you and hope that you may continue to push for Equality in America and the world.

It is these "Nobler" Euro-Americans that stand with Barack and not against the White Race but for change. It is these "Nobler" Euro-Americans who will make a revolutionary difference come November. And it is with the help of these "Nobler" Euro-Americans that a better future will be secured.

I am inclined to compose this blog based on my disagreement with Senator Obama's dismissal of the Brethrens who wanted to know his plans for the Black Community at the Town Hall Meeting in Florida. While Senator Obama has done much to advance the cause of Black people it is obvious these young Brethrens are ignorant to his "many efforts" and simply needed to be educated on Obama's deeds. I think the senator could have handled the situation better, and not dismiss them and say that they 'should vote for someone else or run for office themselves'.

The problem is not Black people running for office but after some Black people are raised up (politically) by the Black community these Black politicians usually turn their backs on our community. The problem is not voting for someone else but finding the candidate that would best look out for Black people's interest, which, incidentally, is the real and forgotten DREAM of America (Equality for all).

When Mayor Dinkins was voted the first Black Mayor of New York City the Black community was ecstatic with joy and optimistic that better would come but to the disappointment of the Black Community Dinkins turned out to be a failure as he maintained the Status Quo, which does not cater for the advancement of the Black community.

This was a mistake on behalf of Dinkins as he tried to prove his worth to the White power base and neglected his own Black Base. No need to mention that he served only one term as some in the Black Community turned their support to Giuliani.

Black people are more sophisticated these days and will need to know "WHAT WILL YOU DO FOR ME IF YOU WANT ME TO VOTE FOR YOU?" Much like any other demographic they too need to know that their interest will be looked after, their cause will be advanced (Equality), their needs looked over and not overlooked.

In conclusion, if any politician believe that they will get anywhere without the Black and Latino Vote they can think again. What Obama needed to say to those brethrens was "I understand that you are not aware of my many efforts to advance the Black community so before you leave today I will arrange for you to receive literature detailing these efforts, and if you have any suggestions on what I can do to help make the community better please feel free to share your thoughts". I will support Obama to the end but he must also support Black people as much as he supports any other demographic, it's only fair.  Obama must be a president for all America, and no less for Black America.

Between Monday and Tuesday I saw two phenomenal women speak their conscience about our nation and the new direction we need to take to recover from the many crises we face.

Michelle Obama introduced her family to the American public, and spoke of her upbringing, her father's influence on her life, and her decision to join in union with Senator Barack Obama. It is a story that most people, Black/White, can relate to and it is indeed a story not possible anywhere else but here in America. Michelle Obama has shown herself to be a dignified American Woman, and most importantly, a great mother and wife. The adage, 'a great man need a great woman', rings true and Barack could not have been blessed with a stronger ROCK than Michelle Obama. After listening to her speak I can say that she is a selfless person, a strong American, and a considerate Human Being. Surely she will make a wonderful first lady and someone that America can be proud to call their own.

In turning my attention to the Hon. senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, I must say how impressed, so far, I am at her efforts to UNITE the party against the Republicans. her speech was gracious, and she did show her lioness as she spoke against McCain and the Republicans mismanagement of this nations economy, the squander of its good name, and the urgency to change direction by voting for Barack Obama come November. In her efforts the senator did remind those reluctant supporters that they are not in it just for her but for their future. It is true that while both Senators were in contention for the Presidential Nomination and that while campaigning negative adverts were posted both Senators are more alike in their belief, hope and faith in this country than they have differences.

Coming from a family with some very strong females, some impacting our world in profound ways, I must say that both Michelle and Hillary are phenomenal American Women who have moved the feminist movement further down the road of progress. Females, not only in America, Black/White, have been affected in a positive way by the efforts of both women and are looking forward to a brighter future with more opportunities, and faith in a world made better by the efforts of both women. Hail to Michelle and Hillary.

The line is drawn and our lion and champion, Barack Obama, emerges.

Tonight we see Senator Obama make a wonderful speech but most importantly a striking indictment of the republican party. after listening to the pundits and commentators I expected a speech filled with rhetoric but it was filled instead with the facts of the American crisis we face. Tonight I hear the war drums and the troops rallying as Obama, our Lion and Champion draw the line in the sand. On one side is not only McCain but the republican Ideology and on the other, not only Obama but, the Democratic party. We see that this election is not about John McCain nor Obama but about the philosophies of both parties (Democrats and Republicans). Does the Republicans deserve another four years?

After listening to Michelle, Hillary, Bill, Biden and now Obama, I must say the verdict is and will be an astounding NO.

Obama the Lion is ready for battle.

John McCain did nothing for me except reiterate his struggle and sacrifice as a POW. While I can appreciate his sacrifice for his country and country men I still think it is not enough to persuade the voters that he will bring something different to the table than President Bush and his party (Republicans).

What the American People want is something, anything, and/or anybody, that can change the course of this nation. Only a idiot or Dunce would continue down a failing path, and only the guy or girl who is wearing the shoe can tell you how it feels. For most Americans the shoe is beginning to tighten and is feeling very uncomfortable- time to get new shoes.

For the past 14 years The American people were subjugated by the Republican party and its leaders to the mismanagement of the economy, the squander of America's good name, and an unwarranted WAR, which is leading to the death of many American lives. The Republican party and its leaders ignored our crisis and sometimes denied the existence of our crisis. The Republican party, in essence, betrayed the trust of those voters who brought them into power when they failed this country by running it into the ground, or least close to it.

When listening to McCain, one has no other choice but to wonder if he is indeed sincere about making life better for all Americans. To be realistic and if we must take his efforts in politics (over 25 years) into consideration, and after 14 years of his party's control on government one must easily conclude that it is unlikely that things would be much different if he's Senator or President McCain.

In my final analysis, while the RNC provided some insight into the Republican party's platform- not easily recognizable except for the portions that sounds George Bushy, and some that sounds Obama-ishy (change will come, etc.)- I am not convinced that they themselves are convinced that this Nation is in trouble. There is an urgency to change the course and to bring about a better way of life for all Americans, and the Republican party had its opportunity to help us, instead they made it worse and now here we are in some serious crisis. The question for the voter is not whether or not Obama or McCain can do it but can we afford to give the Republican party control, again, of the executive branch? The reason why we stay away from poison is because we have knowledge of what it will do to us, and after 14 years of Republican Government what more do we need to kick them out of office. An election is not only a time of choosing but, also, a time of reckoning, and now the Republican party must face the people it failed for the past 14 years. Does the people look past the Republican party's failings and give them another 4 more years or is the American people fed up enough to boot them, and give change (Obama/Biden) a chance to help get us back on our feet? The answer to this question will come this November, and I urgently await that moment of truce.

What better way to short circuit Obama's message than to copy/pirate it, make it yours (McCain). In a world where perception means more than substance and where bias exist, fear the normalcy, and chaos a way to power, McCain and the Republicans have now systematically short circuited Obama's message.
How does the Obama campaign recover or more importantly distinguish itself from the copy cats. Well, for one they can stop making this a race between Obama and McCain, and start making people realize that this race is about ideas- Republicans vs. Democrats. This race is about survival, and about not foolishly following the Republicans further down the road of destruction.
It must be made clear to the American people that If they think their lives are better now than 8 or 10 years ago then truly McCain and the Republicans are the Answer to our prayers but if their lives are worse then we need change-Democratic change.
Neutralizing Palin is going to be a job for the Hon. Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. It is a pity she were not chosen as the running mate for Obama but as fate would have it she may end up being the strongest knight the democrats have against Palin.
Which brings me to the question of where is Mrs. Clinton? At this stage of the game Hillary, a champion, and democrat should be thick in this fight. Show us that you (Hillary) don't have to be president to help save this nation.
Finally, what is really the Republican plans for this country, economy, foreign affairs/relations, national security, women's rights, etc? And stop with the surge thing already- the WAR is fundamentally wrong. Obama camp, I think its time you sent your KNIGHT (HILLARY) to check the Republican QUEEN (PALIN).

Can Palin use another word please, maybe , and or additionally instead of constantly saying ALSO. Last week both Obama and McCain did their thing and I believed strongly that Obama held his own but I must admit that Biden nailed it tonight. Biden laid out his case in a coherent manner- The Republicans does not deserve another 4 years to do worse. He prosecuted well and if this was a court house surely the verdict for the Republican party, after 8 years of failures that has led to our present crisis, would be an astounding guilty. If Biden and Palin were both Professors teaching the same subject I would quickly take Biden's class before wasting my time and money listening to her (Palin) ramblings.

Ok, now let's say I wasn't a staunch Obama/Biden supporter, and undecided it would really be hard for me to vote for McCain and Palin knowing very well that she (Palin) is basically a DUNCE. I can understand strategically placing a female on the ticket to gain female support but we must admit Palin is no HILLARY CLINTON. As pleased as many females must be at McCain's choice I know that most women must feel like he could have made a better Female choice. Are the Republican party members intellectually challenged? Ms. ALSO PALIN ALSO MAVERICK and NU-CU-LAR seems like she barely made it out of school. Moreover, she barely answered the questions if she did at all- I get the feeling she does not understand the questions?

Biden wiped the floor with her as he expressed that Palin/McCain is nothing more than the same as Bush. Additionally, if the Republican party is so corrupt to the point where Palin and McCain must choose opposing views from their party most of the time then why remain Republicans and then if you accept the fact that the party is severely flawed then why ask us to trust you and them?

I do believe that there is an urgency to change course and am not convinced that McCain/Palin (Republicans) are the best choices to get us back on our feet. As a matter of fact I must thank GOD that he gave us the choice of OBAMA/BIDEN- FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHTER.