Courage Makes A Majority

I Can't Find the Words!

It has been nearly 15 hours since we have had a president-elect Obama, and I am still having trouble finding the words to describe my joy, but maybe I don't need words.  There was a salient moment last night on MSNBC when they called the election for Obama.  The station played five minutes of joyful celebration all accross this nation.  No real words other then a few Yes We Can chants from those gathered. Just cheers and expressions of glee and happiness (and relief). 

Thank you MSNBC for not ruining the moment with idle pundit-speak, just let the scene speak for itself.  No words needed.

I will have something to say at some point, and it will start with my thoughts I shared with you in February 2007, when I concluded that "Obama might be my guy".  He turned out to be my guy indeed.  Now comes the hard part...to govern effectively.

I will worry about that tomorrow as today I would like to savor the moment.

YOU are the Change We Have Been Waiting For!

Today is the day!  I had the great experience of going to the polls today with my entire family.  I held my son, Sam in one arm, while I filled out my ballot with the other.  In the polling station next to me was my wife, Hilary, who had our daughter, Grace attached to her hip as she filled out her ballot. 

It is that moment that it really connected.  As my candidate has said many times, that this election isn't about him; it is about all of you.  Barack Obama is the name I checked for President, but I voted not for him, but for me...and my wife...and my daughter...and my son;  my mother, father, two brothers, mulitple brothers and sisters in-law, my father-in-law, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends and neighbors. 

Many of them may not support Barack Obama, but my vote was still for them.  I just pray that when all the votes are counted we find ourselves on a new path.  It may be uncertain, it may seem risky, but it will be a path in a new direction.  And with risk comes reward...for all of us, whether you voted for him or not. 

It can't happen without your vote...YOU are the change we have been waiting for.

Get out there and vote.

Radicals, my Ass!!

The last few days we have heard a bunch of garbage from the McCain-Palin ticket about Obama being a radical, a socialist, a communist or a Marxist.  There has been a sustained effort to play the guilt by association game, no longer Bill Ayers but now they have moved on to Rashid Khalidi, a Palenstinian who is a professor at Columbia.

Now I am not going to even debate the merits of the attack, because just like every other character assassination attempt by McCain, the connection is tenous at best and the accusation is blatantly false.

No, what I want to say briefly is this.  By the time the polls close on Tuesday night, somewhere between 60 and 70 million Americans are going to vote for Barack Obama. Win or lose, a huge percentage of the nation believe in his message and his ideas, including me. 

I think the fundamental flaw in the McCain "radical" argument is that a huge portion of the electorate doesn't see what Obama is proposing as radical or Un-American (that's the implication of the socialism/marxism charge).  It is an argument that fires up the GOP base, but doesn't sway the middle, because, at its core, you have to disqualify about half of America as radicals.

It would have to mean people like me accept the idea that a progressive tax code is socialism (which it is NOT), or that "American Values" can be viewed through only one lens.  I bring this up, because I saw this web vide for Obama that tells the story of one of his volunteers in Colorado.  You watch this story, and tell me how he (or Barack for that matter) is a radical, socialist.

Five Days to Go!

Time to Crush Their Spirit

I know, it has been a long time.  I was just watching Keith Olbermann and I had a bit of an epiphany.  Keith was doing a great special comment telling John McCain to get control of his campaign.  The vitriol among the Republican base has been whipped into such a frenzy that the networks have been questioning the tactics of the GOP and whether we now have a safety issue. 

It has become clear to me as I watch this election unfold.  We are getting a glimpse at the worst our society has to offer.  The idea that people feel its appropriate to equivocate the Democratic Nominee to a Terrorist, Manchurian Candidate and a Traitor is disturbing.  Shouts of "Kill Him!" are even more frightening. 

But in all of this drudgery, something has crystallized for me.  This moment; This election provides us an opportunity beyond electing a once in a life time leader.  It is the chance for us, Democrats and Independents, to destroy the Republican party as it is currently constituted by delivering an election night ass whipping like we haven't seen since days of FDR.

Having a the Democratic Party own the White House, Sixty Senate seats and maybe 100 seat majority in the House would do just that.   If we can see election results somewhere in that neighborhood, it would send a message to the lowest common denominator of our society, those people shouting "Traitor" and "Kill Him."  It would show them they are clearly on the fringe of our society.  That the power they have enjoyed the last eight years under George Bush has been taken away.   And without that power, why even bother showing up. 

It is a chance to drive a wedge between traditional conservatives that believe in less govenment, fiscal responsiblity and dare I say civil liberties (the government should not mettle in our lives) and the social conservatives that could care less about fiscal issues and civil liberties and see the government as a tool to legislate culture and morality.

Let's break their spirt. 

• Step 1: Take the White House.  Looking good so far, based on the latest polling, 538.com predicts Obama's chance of winning at about 95.8%.  Furthermore, the chance of an Obama landslide (defined as winning over 375 electoral votes) is about 53.4%.   Now, my guess it the election will tighten a bit between now and November 4th, but I rather be in this position than McCain's.
• Step 2: Take 60 Senate Seats.  This one is a bit tougher, but still possible.  First, the Democrats start with 50 seats (including Bernie Sanders I-VT, but not Joe Leiberman I-CT who is not only dead to me, but also the Senate Democrats).  If we win the White House, both Joe Biden and Barack Obama's seats will be filled by appointments from Democratic Governors.  There are no Democratic Senate Seats at risk (Landrieu in LA is safe),  There are four seats that are definite pickups, VA, CO, NM and NH.  That's 54.  There are another 4 that are highly likely to flip: MN, OR, AK, NC.  That is 58.  Two more to get and in a landslide some questionable seats can flip and we have 3 targets (MS, GA, KY).  All three of these states are Eastern/Central Time Zone so we will have an idea early in the night.    Even if we don't flip those last two seats, we may be able to flip some sitting moderate Republican senators like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe or John Sununu.
• Step 3: Take a 100 seat majority in the House.  The Dems currently have a 37 seat majorty that means they have to flip 32 more seats (37+32 new Dem seats+32 less GOP seats=101 seat majority).   Our good friends at Swing State Project project 5 GOP seats are likely to flip, 23 are toss-ups and another 15 are weak holds for the GOP, so there are 43 seats in play, on the other hand there is only 1 Dem seat likely to flip, 3 toss-ups and 14 more weak holds.  Again in a landslide election, there is a good chance for the Dems to hold most of their seats and flip most of the GOP seats.
• Step 4: Take those solid majorities and mandate from the public for Obama and use it wisely, govern effectively and prove that the progressive ideology is superior to the failed conservatism fo the last 8 years.

There you have it.  A four step plan to change the political landscape for the next generation.  Let's go and deliver.  And for your viewing pleasure, here is Keith's special comment from tonight's show.

Exposing Dobson as a hypocrite, Part II

OK, yesterday I spent a few moments on the fraud that is James Dobson.  Well today, I came across a website put together as a response to Dobson's twisted logic about Obama.  I suggest you take a look:  http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/. 

Not that it was hard, but the author put together some quotes from both Dobson's radio address from yesterday and the Obama speech from 2006 that Dobson chose to parse and criticize in his address.

In his address, Dobson makes five claims about Obama: 1) that "everyone must agree, or we don't have a right to fight for our beliefs"; 2)  that he is "deliberately distorting the Bible"; 3) that it's "undemocratic to pass legislation that I find offensive to the scripture"; 4) that he wants us to "go to the lowest common denominator of morality; and 5) that Obama (or any other candidate) never talks about family as the foundation of our society.

This website picks apart all these claims and shows them to be false by using exerpts from the very speech Obama gave in 2006 that Dobson was railing against, except the fifth claim which used a passage from Obama speech from this past Father's Day.    Please take a look at the site.  It's about a five minute read (the comparison starts halfway down the page).

and in case you haven't noticed, I am not a fan of James Dobson.

UPDATE:  Sometimes you run across someone who has the very same thoughts you do, but they say them so much better.  Here is a statement from Rev. Jim Wallis that was released today, and it hits the issue square between the eyes, and it is written so much better than anything I have drafted.

James Dobson, of Focus on the Family Action, and his senior vice president of government and public policy, Tom Minnery, used their "CitizenLink" radio show to criticize Barack Obama's understanding of Christian faith. In the show, they describe Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

Now that James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because his basis for the attack on Obama is the speech the Senator from Illinois gave at our Call to Renewal/Sojourners event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton, and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson's attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech, Dobson was not.

You can read Obama's now two-year old speech, which was widely publicized at the time and will see that Dobson either didn't understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson's attack today on Barack Obama.

First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political environment. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:

"I [Dobson] can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue. And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees; we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama was very strong in defending the right and necessity of people of faith bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.

Obama said that religion is and has always been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point that I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands--so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond.

Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good-- for all of us and not just for the religious.

Instead of saying that Christians must accept the "the lowest common denominator of morality," as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn't advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite--that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then have to engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best of all with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.

In making abortion the single life issue in politics and elections, leaders from the Religious Right like Dobson have violated the "consistent ethic of life" that we find, for example, in Catholic social teaching. Dobson has also fought unsuccessfully to keep the issue of the environment and climate change, which many also now regard as a "life issue," off the evangelical agenda. Older Religious Right leaders are now being passed by a new generation of young evangelicals who believe that poverty, "creation care" of the environment, human trafficking, human rights, pandemic diseases like HIV/AIDS, and the fundamental issues of war and peace are also "religious" and "moral" issues and now a part of a much wider and deeper agenda.

That new evangelical agenda is a deep threat to James Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long. Many evangelical votes are in play this election year, especially among a new generation, and are no longer captive to the Religious Right. Perhaps that is the real reason for James Dobson's attack today on Barack Obama.

Oh the hypocrisy, Dobson Accuses Obama of Twisting the Bible

Very few people make my blood boil like James Dobson, a man who has made a fortune by preying on the fear and insecurities of many, many people.  A man who claims to be a disciple of Jesus, but wouldn't recognize Jesus's calling for compassion and tolerance if it hit him up side the head.  A man who cloaks his bigotry and hatred with red herring statements like "love the sinner, hate the sin."  The fact that so many hang on to his every word as gospel boggles my mind, but that is a topic for another day.

Today, Dobson sought to paint Senator Barack Obama as a demagogue that "deliberately distort[s] the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."  That is Rich.

James Dobson has supported a candidate (G.W. Bush) and a party (GOP) that has done more to erode the moral underpinnings of this nation than any other politician/political party in recent memory.  Let's revisit the progress of the current administration and the party that controlled congress for 6 of the 7 he held office.

• According to the US Census Bureau, in 2006, 12.3% or 36.5 million people live in poverty in this country compared to 11.3%  or 31.5 million in 2000 just prior to Bush taking office.  The 2007 and 2008 numbers are surely to get worse with the housing collapse, record foreclosures and high inflation in fuel and food costs.  Last time I checked, Jesus cared about taking care of the poor.
• Again according to the US Census Bureau, in 2006, 15.8% or 47.0 million people live without any type of health insurance compared to 13.7% or 38.4 million in 2000.  Last time I checked Jesus cared about providing for the sick.
• According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.6% or 7.0 million people are unemployed in 2006 versus 4.0% or 5.7 million people in 2000.  To make matters worse, the president and the GOP routinely reject extending benefits to protect unemployed workers.  Last time I checked, Jesus was concerned about the welfare of all people, especially those who could not provide for themselves.
• and of course, the obvious, a war started with a country that never threatened our security, cost the lives of over 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands or Iraqis, maimed many, many more and lined the pockets of corrupt businessmen (and women) all across the country.  Last time I checked Jesus cared about treating each other with dignity and respect, not to mention had a hard time with killing people.

Dobson may feel that Obama is on the wrong side of the abortion and gay marriage debates. Fine.  He can have a beef with those items (although I would not agree), but say that's the reason.  Stop this petulant fear mongering and extolling the virtue of his view of the Bible as the only legitimate view.  I can safely say that Christian Right and the GOP have done far more damage to our moral center than any other group of people in the last decade.  The proof is staring you right in the face.

I wish the media would start ignoring this guy because he has no more a legitimate claim on faith than I do. 

So in closing, James Dobson, you can bite me.  Enjoy your stay in hell.

Music To My Ears: "I Refuse To Be Lectured"

I saw this today will reading TPM Election Central.  When I saw it, I stood up, clapped my hands and shouted, "FINALLY!"  What you about to read is a crystal clear example of why, I believe, that Barack Obama is the best candidate for President of the United States.

To set it up, unless you are living under a rock, the past two days has seen a bit of a back and forth between the candidates over how to best keep America safe from terrorists.  Barack firmly establishes that a commitment to the Constitution and rule of law is not  mutually exclusive from keeping us safe from terrorists. 

Grandpa McBush, in typical yelling at the clouds fashion, called Obama naive and having a "September 10th" mindset.  Apparently, your un-American if you call for upholding the Constitution.  Cranky McSame even rolled out "Mr. 9/11" Guiliani to be his chief attack dog today.

Barack's response:

"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let's talk about 9/11.

"The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors -- the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we'd be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

"Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership -- the people who murdered 3000 Americans -- have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

Music to my ears.  My candidate, a Democrat, refusing to cede foreign policy expertise to the republicans, who clam such knowledge because, well, because their republican.  For too long the conventional wisdom in this country is that Republicans have an "advantage" when it comes to foreign policy debates.   

Democrats have long avoided to debate.  No longer.  Pretty stark statement that the murderers that killed over 3,000 Americans have gone unpunished and remain free to this day.  For 7.5 years we have known who is responsible but have done nothing to capture them and bring them to justice.   

Instead we sacrificed the lives of another 4,000 Americans pursuing a war based, in part, on the premise that there was a connection to 9/11.  7,000 dead Americans and another 30,000 wounded, and still, Osama bin Laden remains at large.

Keep talking tough John, because in 139 days, your time as a central figure in politics will be over and you can join Bob Dole in the pantheon of pathetic presidential candidates.  I'm sure he can get you a job as a celebrity spokesman for Viagra so you can be just like him.

 

Did I mention the Choice is Stark

There really isn't anything to add here.  This really says it all.  Anyone voting for John McCain should have his or her head examined.

Get out and Vote this November, and remember. YES. WE. CAN.

The Real Popular Vote Totals

As you saw yesterday, I really despise the whole "popular vote" argument.  It's a bullshit metric, and more to the point, it brings no relelvance to the nomination discussion since delegates determine the nominee.

However, I came across a great popular vote total estimator at an oustanding political blog called fivethirtyeight.com (538 is the total number of electors in the Electoral College).  It is the only place that I have found the following 1) hard individual vote totals for all states that held primaries and caucuses with published vote totals (44 states, including Michigan and Florida); 2) estimates of the vote totals for the 4 caucuses (Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine) and 3) flexilbility to determine which votes to count.

So with that said, here is my belief of what the popular vote is right now.  The scenario that I believe is most representative is 46 states that had contested votes + DC (that means no Florida and Michigan, and of course, South Dakota and Montana are tomorrow so no vote yet for them).  I ignore ALL territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands) and Dems Abroad because the territories have no vote in the general election this fall and Dems Abroad will be included in the vote of their home state.

In that scenario, Obama leads the popular vote +563,686.

Now, I realize that some people would have an issue with the exclusion of Florida and Michigan.  I maintain that those primary do not accurately reflect the will of the voters.  In Florida's case, it was an excercise in name recognition.  In Michigan's case, it was a classic communist "election," meaning there was only one name on the ballot. 

However, if I were to concede that Florida and Michigan count the numbers still favor Obama.  Let's be clear, any suggestion that Obama get ZERO votes for Michigan is, in a word, bullshit.  Stop with crap that he "Voluntarily took his name off the ballot" argument.  So in this scenario, Obama gets "Uncommitted."

In this scenario, Obama leads +178,773.

So there you have it, any reasonable summation of the popular vote still moves in favor of Obama.  Note to Hillary supporters:  Hillary Clinton, Harold Ickes and Terry McAuliffe are not the final arbiters of the popular vote totals. 

I will depend upon my brain, logic and critical thinking skills to define what is a reasonable reflection of the vote.

Only one more day for Barack, and we are one step closer to the ultimate goal.

 

The Spin Cycle

I think I am going to be sick.  The art of media spin has gotten to be so ludicrous, my stomach hurts.  In the good old days, the "Spin Doctors" used to take unshaped information and frame it to help move the media narrative in support of a certain premise or argument.

Now, we have spin doctors that not only try to advance the framing of an argument, but also try to introduce the very information they are trying to spin.  The spinning these days often requires the suspense of logic and realism. 

Take for instance the whole "popular vote" argument being made by the Clinton campaign.  We have heard several time the last several weeks, Hillary making the claim she has the most votes.  To agree with that, you must suspend logic to believe that 1) Barack Obama gets ZERO votes in Michigan; 2) The Florida and Michigan primary, which went uncontested as unsanctioned, are a legitimate way of measuring the will of the voters 3) the 4 states that held caucuses and did not publish poplar vote totals (Iowa, Nevada, Washington, Maine) somehow shouldn't count (Obama won all four of those states-yes, he won Nevada as he won more delegates than she did) 4) Puerto Rico counts, even though the have no votes in the General election. 5) You can count Puerto Rico but not Guam, the Virgin Islands and Democrats Abroad (all voted for Obama). 

Not only does the spin require the suspense of logic, but also it introduces the very information the campaign is trying to spin.  The popular vote means NOTHING.  The nominee is determined by one metric, and one metric alone, delegates.  This race was always about delegates, but when that measure became unwinnable by Hillary, they just introduced a new metric.  A metric they could spin, because there really isn't an official total since more than a dozen states hold caucuses instead of primaries.

It is a metric that is also ex post facto.  Had it been an important metric then the campaigns would have planned for it and had a different approach.  Changing the rules of the race after the race is 80% done is not fair and is not democratic.

I can't wait for Tuesday, when this race is over and we all focus on beating the piss out of John McCain.  Maybe by this time next week, I will be over my nausea.