Katrina, Palin, Gustav and End of the Reagan Era

RNC Cancels First Night: The Vengeful Ghosts of Katrina

Marc Cooper August 31, 2008 www.MarcCooper.com

When the post-mortems are written on the now diseased McCain campaign and -- more generally-- on the demise of the Reagan Era, the three top contributing factors of death will be listed as Katrina, Sarah, and Gustav.

As I wrote at the time, the ebbing flood waters of New Orleans exactly three years ago where a grim, but rather lyrical symbol of the evaporation of the Reagan Era. All the national mythologies of the previous twenty years were breached and flushed when the 17th Street levee cracked and FEMA fumbled.

Since then, it's been only deepening waters for the conservative movement, and with rather perfect timing, comes the rise of one Barack Obama.

A principle-free John McCain did his best these past months to dredge up all the psycho-political hobgoblins of the past 40 years -- alternately suggesting that Obama was something akin to an uppity, elite, remote and ultimately dangerous, feckless tyro. McCain swaggered onto the stage, redolent of jock straps, locker rooms and jet fuel exhaust, reassuring us that in such troubled times only his dead-serious maturity and stability could see us sternly through the storm.

Just when he was on the brink of successfully selling that story, he was unfortunately overcome by his inner frivolity and he chose a laughable and affable nobody zealot from a three stop-light town to be his running mate. I think it was all pretty much over last Friday.

But now, to finish things off , come the vengeful ghosts of Katrina -- in the form of Hurricane Gustav-- madly howling right onto center stage at the St.Paul RNC. If the political campaigns refused to come to New Orleans -- as many had insisted -- than it seemed somewhat cosmically inevitable that New Orleans would come to the campaigns. Here she is.

Always the opportunist, McCain and what's-her-name from Alaska immediately flew to Mississippi for the usual sort of photo-op. As if McCain's presence on the Gulf is going to save even one life. But there's simply no way to positively spin this for the woeful Republicans -- except that some strategists' quiet prayers have been answered by diverting Bush and Cheney away from the convention stage.

That ain't enough, though. Whatever happens in New Orleans in the next 48 hours -- and let's hope it's as little as possible-- the cable news split screen coverage will be a 'round the clock reminder of the total and unmitigated failure of the entire Republican approach to non-government. Alas, this election should be about the Big Things, not what kind of Moose Pie or what kind of shotgun Miss Congeniality prefers.

This is about our future. About everything from the use of American military power to providing health care to rebuilding our national infrastructure. Ultimately, it's about the quality of the leadership we generate and choose.

Gustav has blown what was left of the Republican Revolution right off the Monday night tube and, most likely, right into the deep, dark sea.

Michael Eric Dyson on Obama Acceptance Speech, MLK and History

Democracy Now:
Amy Goodman Interviews Michael Eric Dyson

August 29, 2008

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now here in Denver in our special broadcast, “Breaking with Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency, From the Streets to the Suites to the Convention Floor” by Michael Eric Dyson, professor at Georgetown University, where he teaches theology, English and African American studies, also an ordained Baptist minister and author of sixteen books, including—well, that’s at last count—April 4, 1968: Martin Luther King Jr.’s Death and How It Changed America. He also wrote Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster, as we talk on this third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

Michael Eric Dyson, it’s good to have you with us.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Great to be here with you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, why don’t we start with Dr. King, forty-five years ago?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And then let’s talk about what happened last night.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Sure. Well, you know, Martin Luther King, Jr. was giving an amazing speech. He had the history of Abraham Lincoln in his background. He had the Lincoln Memorial, of course, there as the backdrop to his speech, and he was quite conscious of trying to make a Lincolnesque speech: “Five score years ago, a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand today signed the Emancipation Proclamation.”

Now, for Martin Luther King, Jr., it’s about a C+ speech. He’s, you know, hitting all the notes but not feeling the great inspiration. Mahalia Jackson hollers from the sideline, “Tell them about the dream, Martin!” And so, he puts the paper down, and he soars. Black women have often been in the background of tremendous events for which they’ve never been given credit.

But Martin Luther King, Jr. was saying some things at the beginning of that speech that have been obscured by the last, the peroration, the dream stuff. He says, “We have come to the nation’s capital to cash a check that has been returned to us ‘insufficient funds.’ I refuse to believe that the great vaults of democracy are empty.” He said, “We are marooned on a tiny island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.” All that’s obscured.

He says, “Negroes in the South can’t vote, and Negroes in the North believe they have nothing for which to vote.” He went on to say that police brutality was the reality, and the marvelous new militancy which has arisen certainly must not replace white supremacy with black supremacy, but he acknowledged those young people. All of that was in that speech. He said, “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of this nation.” I mean, this is tremendous language, but is obscured by the dream element of that speech.

But Martin Luther King, Jr. articulated a vision that had the possibility of transforming American society, because he was trying to make an argument for the vote and for civil rights. John Kennedy was relieved when Martin Luther King, Jr. went to the White House immediately after the speech, and he says, “I have a dream, too.” So he was very wary. You know, there’s a great book about John Kennedy and his relationship to civil rights called The Bystander. The title alone suggests that he did as little as possible, any minimal critical effort, to really facilitate civil rights in the White House.

AMY GOODMAN: You saw, in the conversation I had with John Lewis before I was so rudely interrupted by the Denver police—

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yes, right.

AMY GOODMAN: —that, well, John Lewis, of course, forty-five years ago—and he was honored last night—

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —in the first part of the event with Dr. King and King’s children—he gave a speech—

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —which was toned down.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Oh, yeah, they vetted that speech. He was going to give a radical speech about the march of Sherman. They said, “Hey, we got to tone that down a little bit, because the old man, A. Philip Randolph, has been imagining this speech for decades, imagining this march for decades. Please, let’s not interrupt the broader march here, and let’s not forget the bigger picture.” So he toned it down.

He was the young Turk on the stadium—on the pulpit that day, the rostrum, the podium. Dorothy Hite, the female leader, of course, could not even speak, so sexism interrupted the process there. The radical was toned down. And Martin Luther King, Jr. was given his nine minutes. That’s what he was assigned to be able to speak that day.

And what’s interesting—you know, we talk about this generational division between the civil rights generation and Barack Obama’s post-civil rights generation. Well, there was a lot of beef between A. Philip—between Roy Wilkins and Whitney Young and those guys and Martin Luther King, Jr. Roy Wilkins was older. Thurgood Marshall said, “Wait a minute. We should be doing this in a court. You’re taking this to the street?” Martin Luther King, Jr. was looked at as a young rebel who was doing something that was quite antithetical to the interests of black people, especially as Thurgood Marshall and Wilkins and the NAACP conceived it. So they said, “We’ll give him the last speech. We’ll speak first”—Roy Wilkins and Whitney Young—because the camera—I believe it was from CBS—would be there. They’d get captured. Plus, they didn’t want to speak after King.

But they didn’t know that by the time King was about to speak, not only was CBS there, but ABC and NBC joined it, because it was such a monumental thing. His nine minutes got transformed into nineteen minutes of pure oratorical genius, especially at the end. And the rest, as they say, is history.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Eric Dyson, fast-forward forty-five years to the Mile High Stadium. 84,000 people crowd in—

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —making it the largest audience for a nomination acceptance speech in the history of this country, beating out John F. Kennedy at the L.A. Coliseum, what, at 80,000.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Then, of course, 25 million people watching on television.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: What about what the substance of Barack Obama had to say?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Well, you know, he had a tough audience, so to speak. He had a tough responsibility, because he had been criticized, ironically enough, for being, you know, a soaring orator. You know, fill in the blanks, give it to us. Well, you know, policy wonkish speeches are not necessarily those things that inspire us. So he’s got to fill in the blanks. He’s got to meet the demand that he give a speech that displays his broad knowledge of the public policy issues that are critical to American future and the expansion of democracy, and at the same time prove his bona fides as an American patriot and then not be ghettoized in any sense to an African American tradition, but seeing that as a springboard to an American tradition, and plus he’s got to inspire. Jeez, that’s a hard thing to do, and then you got 84,000 people out there. 20,000 can’t get in. They’ve come to you, six-mile lines. It was an extraordinary thing.

But I think that he was conscious of that historical legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to it at the end, had set it up that John Lewis and Bernice King, the daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Martin Luther King, Jr., III, had participated. So he had the pageantry of the civil rights generation, but he looked toward a kind of future that moved beyond issues of race and class and gender and their negative, pernicious consequences. So it was a very difficult thing he had to do, but I think, in many ways, a lot of people felt very good about that speech and felt that he delivered.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you feel overall? Was there something you wanted to hear more of, or did this do it for you?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Well, you know, no speech is perfect. And as a minister myself, I know how difficult it is, depending upon the inspiration. I used to tell people when I preached at a church, “If you want a great sermon, be a great audience.” And he had a great audience. I mean, you know, they were enthusiastic. They were ready to hear from him.

And I think he did a very difficult thing. He laid out his position. He showed a sharp contrast between him and John McCain, or at least he tried to establish that, and tried to get back at John McCain. But look, he’s in a difficult position. He’s a black man. Are you going to be an angry black man? Are you going to—if he goes after McCain too hard, then he’s perceived as a kind of angry black fellow, so he can’t really do that. But he has to also articulate his resistance to Mr. McCain’s policy, as well as his project for America, as a kind of John Wayne, gung ho, gunboat guerilla democracy that begins to play the games of war in ways that have been problematic. So it was a difficult thing to do, but I think he struck his note pretty high.

AMY GOODMAN: What about his calling for intensifying the war in Afghanistan?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, that’s a very difficult thing to do. I mean, I think, as Senator Obama sees it, that Iraq’s occupation has nothing to do—and I think it was—was it Senator Biden or Gore, I can’t remember, who—or no, it was Senator Obama, where, you know, occupying Iraq, when this is a war that’s being prosecuted in eighty different places and countries, is not sufficient. So I think that the contrast for him is that Iraq is not the place to be, but the intensification of Afghanistan is. And then many people, of course, are very uncomfortable with that, because the intensification of the war in Afghanistan doesn’t mean that you’re dealing with the source of al-Qaeda anyway, and you’re not dealing with the economic and the social suffering and misery that lead to some of the choices that have been destructive in that region.

AMY GOODMAN: Last night, Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill asked Jesse Jackson about the Afghanistan escalation that Barack Obama is pushing for. He said he thinks Dr. King would have supported that. Do you agree?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: The escalation in Afghanistan, that Dr. King would have supported that? Now, there’s a way to say that you could support that in this day and age. I don’t know if Dr. King would have supported the escalation in Afghanistan, because Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, is a moral leader and a political figure, insofar as he’s dealing with the distribution of resources. He’s not a politician. So I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been a handful for any president now, including Barack Obama. It would have been interesting.

And I, obviously, as a surrogate of Senator Obama and have supported him from the very beginning, because I’ve known him for a number of years, but to contend that Martin Luther King, Jr. would support the intensification in Afghanistan would be problematic. I think that Mr. Obama, himself, said, when asked the question, you know, during the South Carolina debate, “Tell us why Martin Luther King, Jr. would support you,” he said, “He wouldn’t. He wouldn’t support any presidential candidate. He would get America as a public to hold me accountable, because change happens from the bottom up, not the top down.”

AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama said, “You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington.”

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, well, obviously, Mr. Obama is conscious of, you know, making certain that security for Israel is paramount, for a variety of reasons too complex, all of which, to parse here. But I think that, obviously, he is conscious of the fact that Israel’s place and prominence in American foreign policy is a given, and his argument to defend them is something that has been problematic to many people, as well as the fact that the difficulty of having balanced discourse, rhetoric and dialogue in America about Palestine and Israel and the relationship between those two competing forces in that region, and Israel’s security, as well as Palestine’s—the Palestinians’ security in that area, it’s a very difficulty and tricky way.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a part of Dr. King’s speech forty-five years ago, August 28, 1963.

REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: The marvelous new militancy, which has engulfed the Negro community, must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.


And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied, as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied, as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied, as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “for whites only.” We cannot be satisfied, as long as the Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and the Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No. No, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied, until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Martin Luther King, forty-five years ago, like a mighty stream, taking on those issues.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, yeah. It’s remarkable. A lot of people forget that he dealt with those issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama is not opposed to the death penalty.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Mm-hmm.

AMY GOODMAN: Your thoughts on that? You have a brother who’s in jail for life?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yes, yes. Yeah, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: For murder, a crime he says he didn’t commit.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Exactly. And obviously, that—you know, thank God that the death penalty did not exist in Michigan, because he might be on death row right now. So, it’s interesting, you know, Barack Obama’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year. Myself, obviously, with my brother in prison, I see this from a perspective where so many people who are innocent, you know, may be sent to death. The Innocence Project with Barry Scheck and others in Illinois has proved that there have been hundreds of, especially African American, prisoners who are not fairly treated. So, to me, the death penalty, along with the prison-industrial complex, along with the making of money on the backs of the incarceration of black and Latino men and, increasingly, poor white people, is a huge problem in American culture.

AMY GOODMAN: And your thoughts on Barack Obama supporting the death penalty? Do you think he understands this issue of the disparate effect, even if you believed in the death penalty, that it has on particularly people of color in this country?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Oh, yes. I think that he’s conscious of that. I think he wrestles with that. There’s no question about that. I don’t think it’s an easy conclusion he comes to. I think that the eyebrow-raising occasion by his suggesting that the death penalty might be applicable to arenas outside of somebody consciously and deliberately murdering someone versus the raping, the brutal raping, undeniably, of a child, was certainly very, very curious to many.

But I think he’s quite conscious of this racial disparity, because when he was in the Illinois State Senate, he was conscious of racial profiling. He was conscious of the untoward effects. And, of course, being in Illinois, you couldn’t help but, you know, understand what the governor was doing with prisoners who were on death row.

AMY GOODMAN: George Ryan—

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Exactly, Brother Ryan, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —ended up commuting all their sentences.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yes, yeah, a hundred of them.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, we only have less than a minute, but Hurricane Katrina. You wrote a book about it, Come Hell or High Water.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Well, it’s stunning. I’ve looked at Wendell Pierce on your interview there, and here it is that this nation, three years later, still hasn’t ponied up, hasn’t taken seriously the lives and the interests of these people. And he said it’s something like $300 million there, maybe as much as $500 million, that’s not been distributed to the people who need it. And when the monies went to that area, they were given in disproportionate numbers to Mississippi and other places where people were doing a bit better, had a bit more economic support, than those who are still vulnerable in New Orleans.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Democrats are in charge of both houses.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Well, there’s no question about it, and it’s the shame of the nation.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it would change under Barack Obama as president?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: I would hope so, but as Mr. Pierce said, nobody’s exempt. You know, the push for Barack Obama to become president is huge, and it’s wonderful, but nobody is exempt. And yes, but I happen to think it would change.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Eric Dyson, I want to thank you for being with us.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor of sociology at University of Pennsylvania and now at Georgetown. I want to thank you for being with us. His book is Come Hell or High Water, also April 4, 1968: Martin Luther King Jr.’s Death and How It Changed America. He has many others, as well.

Women's Liberation and Racial Justice: Obama and the Sisters

Photo: Ella Baker

Democracy Now:
Amy Goodman interviews Melissa Harris-Lacewell
August 28, 2008


Obama and the Sisters
Melissa Harris-Lacewell
This article appeared in the September 1, 2008 edition of The Nation.

August 13, 2008 The Nation

__________________________________

Democracy Now:
Amy Goodman interviews Melissa Harris-Lacewell
August 28, 2008

Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University. She is a contributing writer at TheRoot.com. She is finishing her new book Sister Citizen: A Text for Colored Girls Who’ve Considered Politics When Being Strong Isn’t Enough.


AMY GOODMAN: The Democratic Party is preparing to pay tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King today, ahead of Barack Obama’s nomination speech. Forty-five years ago today, King led the march on Washington and delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. Two of King’s children, the Reverend Bernice King and Martin Luther King III, will be honored at Invesco Field tonight, as will Congress member John Lewis, who spoke at the original march.

While Barack Obama is expected to reference King’s speech tonight, one of his longtime supporters is urging him to also draw on the political rhetoric of African American women, including Fannie Lou Hamer and Ella Baker and Barbara Jordan and Shirley Chisholm.

In a recent piece in The Nation magazine titled “Obama and the Sisters,” Melissa Harris-Lacewell describes these women as the lost prophets of American democracy. Harris-Lacewell writes, “The Obama candidacy is built on the organizational foundation laid by these women at least as much as it is on the oratorical showmanship of black male preachers.”

Melissa Harris-Lacewell is an associate professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University. She is a contributing writer at TheRoot.com. She’s finishing her new book, Sister Citizen: A Text for Colored Girls Who’ve Considered Politics When Being Strong Isn’t Enough.

She joins us here in our Free Speech TV studios in Denver. Welcome.

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Hi. How are you?

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Talk about these women and this historical moment today. You’ve been a longtime supporter of Barack Obama.

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: I have been. And, you know, part of what was at the center of the primary candidacy between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was this question about African American women: would they support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, because she was a woman, or would they support Barack Obama’s candidacy, because he was African American?

And ultimately, what that sort of general media question failed to do was to recognize that African American women, all by themselves, have a political history and structure, a way of approaching what it means to be a citizen in the United States that doesn’t rely exclusively on the history of white women or of black men.

So, what I’m encouraging Barack Obama to do tonight—and I hope that he will—is to invoke this history of black women who have, in fact, laid the foundation that he now stands on.

AMY GOODMAN: I don’t know if Hillary Clinton read your piece, but I want to play for you a part of Senator Clinton’s speech on the convention floor on Tuesday night.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: This is the story of America, of women and men who defy the odds and never give up. So how do we give this country back to them? By following the example of a brave New Yorker, a woman who risked her life to bring slaves to freedom along the Underground Railroad. On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice: If you hear the dogs, keep going; if you see the torches in the woods, keep going; if they’re shouting after you, keep going; don’t ever stop; keep going; if you want a taste of freedom, keep going.


AMY GOODMAN: Were you surprised?

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: I wasn’t. I was pleased, and distressed. So, I was pleased to hear Harriet Tubman’s name invoked in that moment, that moment of history, where she had talked a great deal about white women’s suffrage, for her to also bring in the history of an African American woman who was a patriot.

But I’m also a little distressed, because part of the reason that I suggested Barack Obama choose women like Ella Baker and Fannie Lou Hamer, women of the late twentieth century, is because, unfortunately, Harriet Tubman is a little too easy. We have all agreed as a society that slavery was wrong and that the desire to escape and to move out of slavery was clearly a heroic act. Part of what women like Fannie Lou Hamer and Shirley Chisholm do, is they challenge us in our moment right now. They ask us to question some things about how we operate as a democracy in this moment.

So, I was certainly pleased to see a black woman, particularly someone like Harriet Tubman, invoked, but, again, it’s too easy. I want to see the hard work done of bringing back in black women’s stories. Harriet Tubman was not the last person who was such a leader.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s talk about some of these women—

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Sure.

AMY GOODMAN: —who you see as the great models.

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: I mean, Ella Baker is probably my most favorite, although certainly also Ida B. Wells at the turn of the century, who led our country against lynching. In fact, the NAACP ultimately picked up Ida B. Wells’s entire strategy against lynching and pressed the anti-lynching—the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in the Senate.

But Ella Baker is such a nice foil in this moment, because Ella Baker had a hard time getting Martin Luther King to listen to her strategic choices. I mean, Ella Baker laid the groundwork for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, for the SCLC, which we think of as King’s organization. She was involved with the NAACP.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain who she was.

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Oh, so Ella Baker is an African American—first of all, everyone should read Barbara Ransby’s book about Ella Baker, which returns her really to public discourse. She’s an African American woman who, again, was a community activist and organizer, was brought up in a family of organizers, and was not a speechmaker. Instead, she was someone who believed, as Barack has at least said, that we are the people that we’ve been waiting for. So she would go into these local communities and lay the groundwork of structure, where ordinary people were doing the work of naming their own problems, as well as pursuing their own solutions.

And she was consistently silenced by Martin King. She was consistently marginalized by the male preachers of the Civil Rights Movement. Most of us don’t remember Ella Baker’s name, even though we benefit from her work. And so, I think it’s important to invoke and bring her back in a moment when we’re going to celebrate, rightfully, Dr. King, to also recognize these invisible women, because then that tells me that Barack Obama really is interested in not just being a charismatic leader, but empowering a broader democratic worldview.

AMY GOODMAN: Fannie Lou Hamer?

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Fannie Lou Hamer, who was herself a sharecropper and the last of eighteen children, she was the founder of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, which came to the convention and said, “You can—

AMY GOODMAN: This was 1964, Atlantic City?

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: In 1964. And said, “You cannot seat the all-white Mississippi delegation, because to do so would erase the reality of black people throughout the South.” So they formed a separate party, and she came and talked about the fact that she and other women had been beaten and tortured simply for trying to vote. One of the most enduring lines that we remember from Fannie Lou Hamer is her telling us that she was sick and tired of being sick and tired. In other words, she was ready to be an activist. So, again, here’s a woman who was an older woman. She was a poor woman. She was always interested in the intersection between class and race.

AMY GOODMAN: Clearly, Lyndon Baines Johnson was nervous about her, right? She was giving a major address—was it before the Democratic Credentials Committee, and all the media was there?

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: That’s right. That’s exactly right.

AMY GOODMAN: And then Lyndon Johnson gave a separate speech, so that the media would pull away from Fannie Lou Hamer?

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Yes, that’s exactly right. And ultimately, Martin King brokered the deal with LBJ to seat the convention—excuse me, to seat the Mississippi delegation and made some other concessions, but in a way that, again, really made Fannie Lou Hamer and the women and men that she brought with her feel that the overall Civil Rights Movement had sold out the interests of the poorest and the most vulnerable that the movement was meant to help. So, again, invoking her helps us to remember that even the Civil Rights Movement was not a moment of pure unity of race, that there was always these questions of class and of gender that complicated the racial movements in America.

AMY GOODMAN: There’s a wonderful mural of women in Brooklyn, New York, and the centerpiece is Shirley Chisholm.

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: That’s right. Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman to run for the American presidency and in 1972 declared that she was neither the candidate of black interests nor the candidate of women’s interests, but that she was a legitimate candidate for the American presidency, who, in her body and in her interests, certainly encompassed that of African Americans and of women, but had a sort of universal story to tell about the need to bring in young people as voters. Remember, this was just after young people got the right to vote, the first presidential election after that. So she, like Barack Obama, was relying on trying to mobilize this new group of voters for—sort of a new way of thinking about politics.

AMY GOODMAN: Barbara Jordan.

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Oh, Barbara Jordan. The keynote address, which I am completely convinced Barack Obama brought his 2004 keynote address out of. She is the first legislator from Texas, African American woman, to sit in the US House of Representatives. Her speech about why we should, as a matter of constitutional law, remove and impeach President Nixon remains sort of one of the most clear-headed articulations of why the Constitution matters. She was a huge figure who died much too young but, in her convention speech, brought this sense of collectivity, unity, but also speaking from her particularity as a black woman as a way of talking about the universal American experience.

AMY GOODMAN: I don’t know—was it Molly Ivins who said, if there was a casting call for the role of God, Molly Ivins would get the part?

As we wrap up, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, this is a historic day. Barack Obama will accept the nomination at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium here in Denver. There have been a number of changes in Barack Obama’s position. AT&T sponsors this convention, among a number of corporations—

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: At the Pepsi Center.

AMY GOODMAN: —at the Pepsi Center. And that was one company that he really benefited when he voted for granting retroactive immunity to the corporations. Your concerns and your—and why you’re supporting him now? And you have like thirty seconds.

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Yeah, well, the key is that I support Barack Obama for the US presidency. That does not mean I think that Barack Obama is the be-all and end-all of American politics. We have got to follow the leadership of these African American women and continue to press over and against anybody who we support. Being a supporter means that I get to be the prophetic critic on the other side of the Obama administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you very much Melissa Harris-Lacewell.


Obama and the Sisters

Melissa Harris-Lacewell

This article appeared in the September 1, 2008 edition of The Nation.

August 13, 2008 The Nation

AP Images
Rep. Barbara Jordan of Texas delivered a stirring keynote at the 1976 Democratic National Convention.

When he accepts the Democratic nomination August 28, Barack Obama will give the most important speech of his life. The bar is set especially high after a primary season of soaring rhetorical achievements. Obama must capture the historical relevance of his nomination while keeping his focus firmly on the country as a whole. He must define the nation's problems while conveying a spirit of optimism. He must promise to bring change while offering reassuring familiarity.

As those in the Obama camp try to meet this oratorical challenge, I am sure they are culling the history of American political rhetoric, especially since his bid for the presidency inspires comparison. Proponents have likened him to the inspirational Bobby Kennedy, who was brash enough to take on his party's elders. Some detractors have compared him to Bill Clinton, arguing that Obama is a moderate in charismatic clothing, hawking hope but wedded to the status quo. His hometown of Chicago compares him to the city's machine-busting first black mayor, Harold Washington, and to another famous Chicagoan, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. On August 28, most will be listening for a resonance of Martin Luther King Jr. because Obama will be speaking exactly forty-five years after Dr. King declared, "I have a dream."

These are fair comparisons, but they ignore another important tradition from which the Obama candidacy emerges--that of Fannie Lou Hamer, Ella Baker, Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisholm and the many thousands of black women activists whose names history failed to record. These women are the lost prophets of American democracy. As a country we dimly recall their accomplishments and have almost wholly forgotten their words. The epic battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton heightened conversations about race and gender, but it did little to illuminate the intersection between these identities where black women leaders have made significant contributions.

When Barack Obama takes the stage in Denver, he could draw on the political rhetoric of African-American women as the core of his historic speech. The Obama candidacy is built on the organizational foundation laid by these women at least as much as it is on the oratorical showmanship of black male preachers. Obama's speeches may be reminiscent of Dr. King, but his organizing fellows program, use of existing social networks and concern with sustained mobilization recall Ella Baker, the inspirational activist whose work set the course for every major civil rights organization of her time. It was Baker who kept refocusing the movement on organizing rather than oratory, and her work showed that when citizens are given the skills to organize on their own behalf, rather than relying on charismatic leaders to show them the way, real change happens.

Collectively we know very little about the deeds, lives and words of Baker and other black women leaders. Many Americans assume that they spoke about parochial, narrow or self-centered topics. Quite the opposite is true; black women's political work hits the notes of inclusion, universalism and patriotism that Obama needs to emphasize.

On July 22, 1964, Fannie Lou Hamer, born into crushing poverty in rural Mississippi and herself a sharecropper, testified at the Democratic National Convention. She spoke of how she was intimidated, threatened and viciously beaten merely for trying to register to vote. Her language was plain and powerful; speaking of the abuse of another black woman who tried to register, she told the DNC, "They beat her. I don't how long. And after a while she began to pray and asked God to have mercy on those people." Obama can lay claim to Hamer's legacy to remind Americans of the precious value of the vote. Hamer helps Obama tell the country that freedom was bought with the blood of soldiers on foreign battlefields and with the actions of ordinary, courageous, self-sacrificing citizens at home.

In 1972 Shirley Chisholm became the first African-American woman to seek a major-party nomination for the presidency. Like Obama, she faced criticism for being a relative newcomer to national politics, but her outsider status was also the strength of her claim to leadership. While she was proud of her race and gender, she asserted, "I am not the candidate of black America.... I am not the candidate of the women's movement." Running in the first election after the voting age was lowered to 18, she was especially concerned about mobilizing young voters. In the primaries, Obama, like Chisholm, presented himself as "unbought and unbossed." In Denver he will need to draw again on Chisholm's legacy of independence, creativity and youth mobilization.

On July 12, 1976, when Barbara Jordan gave the keynote address at the DNC in New York City, she was the first black woman member of the House from Texas, a state whose Democratic Party perfected the all-white primary. Jordan recognized that her presence meant that "the American Dream need not forever be deferred." She refused simply to list "the problems which cause people to feel cynical, angry, frustrated." Instead, she acknowledged that Americans needed solutions to the problems of the present and ways to fulfill a broader national purpose of freedom and equality. Obama's 2004 DNC speech was profoundly reminiscent of Jordan's keynote. Jordan warned of the great danger America faced if we "cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups: city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual, each seeking to satisfy private wants." Obama, like Jordan, asked Americans to see their common interests and seek the common good. This year he must ask voters to cross lines of identity, party, religion and region to create a unified America.

Obama's acceptance speech will likely affirm the democratic vision articulated in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, reference Franklin Roosevelt's dedication to a society that cares for all its citizens and refer to John Kennedy's call to service and sacrifice. There is no question that Obama will acknowledge Dr. King's inspiring dream. But he also has a chance to acknowledge the black women who helped pave the path on which he now walks and who offered vision and direction for the nation. He should take the words and deeds of these forgotten patriots along with him because when and where they enter, all Americans enter with them

About Melissa Harris-Lacewell

Melissa Harris-Lacewell, an associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, is completing her latest book, Sister Citizen: A Text for Colored Girls Who've Considered Politics When Being Strong Isn't Enough

Marshall Ganz and Camp Obama

Blacks in Europe Inspired by Obama's Candidacy

Yes You Can, When Can We?
African Americans are not the only blacks pegging their hopes to the Obama dream.
Lola Adesioye August 27, 2008 TheRoot.com

Aug. 28, 2008--There has been much talk and much written about the significance of Barack Obama's candidacy to African Americans. But Obama's acceptance of the Democratic Party nomination is an unprecedented moment for blacks Europeans, too. As we watch, we do so with the hope for similar strides in our communities, in our countries.

To see this African-American man, with his African-American wife and beautiful African-American children advance toward the White House is as inspiring to us as it is to you.

As a black woman born and bred in England, I had processed the historic nature of this year's Democratic National Convention. But I was not quite prepared for the sense of pride and optimism that I felt as I watched Michelle Obama—tall, elegant, poised, sophisticated and powerful—deliver her speech before the 20,000-strong crowd in Denver.

Watching her compellingly and convincingly set out her case for why she—as a sister, wife, mom and daughter—would make a great first lady and why her husband would make a great president. The enormity of a black woman delivering those words shook me.

It clearly impacted other Europeans, too. "She didn't come off too strong, and yet she was strong," wrote the owner of the Black Women in Europe blog, from the convention. "Some say Michelle's speech was just okay. I think it was great."

Conventional wisdom has it that England is more tolerant and less segregated than America. Britain prides itself on its diversity and considers itself a melting pot of different races. But the truth is that classism is still strongly at work, social mobility is virtually stagnant, and very few black people in England achieve the positions of power that matter most in society.

Blacks simply have not been in England long enough, in any significant numbers, to ascend to the highest echelons of British life, some would argue. Blacks make up only around 2 percent of the population in the U.K. I, like many in my generation, am the daughter of African immigrants, the first generation born in the U.K. There is no parallel for blacks in most European countries to the Civil Rights Movement and the deep well of African-American history that allowed Michelle Obama to get up on that stage at the convention and declare that "a girl from the South Side of Chicago can go to college and law school, and the son of a single mother from Hawaii can go all the way to the White House."

The thought of a black prime minister any time soon is little more than a whimsical notion.

So the symbolism of the Obama family's American journey is deeply relevant to us. For role models, educated black European women, like myself, have looked to Oprah and Condoleezza. And now we have Michelle. British men will undoubtedly look to Barack as a guidepost for their potential.

For us, this is not just about politics, this is about life. This is about the fact that in cities like London, Paris, Berlin and Rome, black people are watching the Obamas' every move with anticipation, and silently thanking them. In Europe, we still have a way to go, but if Barack and Michelle Obama can get this far—if Americans, with all their troubled history, can get this far—so can we.

Lola Adesioye is a British-born socio-political analyst, commentator and writerwhose areas of expertise are culture, society and politics as relates to black people in the U.K. and America.

18 Million Cracks, Now What?

18 Million Cracks, Now What?

What the Clinton campaign must do to have lasting significance.

Lani Guinier August 26, 2008 TheRoot.com

Aug. 26, 2008--Without a doubt, Hillary Clinton has been a trailblazer. She steeled herself for a tough primary battle, became a terrific campaigner by the end of the season and ended up, in her own words, making 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, with the help of her fiercely loyal and energized base of supporters. Those who voted for her and those who simply admired her from afar can swell with pride at her accomplishment.

But if Hillary Clinton's campaign is to have a lasting effect, her supporters and admirers must rechannel their energy to make those 18 million cracks amount to real change in women's lives. If the campaign remains focused on her as an individual rather than the broader goals that her achievement can help bolster, then it will have fallen far short of its much-touted significance.

It is inspiring to rally around a "symbol" of women's aspirations, but it is self-defeating to harp on lists of women's hurts at the hands of the media, the political establishment or the sexist views of ignorant eavesdroppers. Reciting the refrain of press bias exclusively along gender lines, for instance, obscures the fact that the press is not Obama's friend either, as Frank Rich observes in The New York Times.

The advancement of an exceptional symbol of women's accomplishment is a powerful motivator. However, it does little concrete good for ordinary women, unless more attention is paid to organizing fervent supporters into a mobilized constituency that can hold the next president, the next Congress and the media accountable to a pro-women and pro-America agenda. Being agents of change will require rolling up our sleeves and holding all politicians more accountable, including those who wear pantsuits and pearls.

Why not come together around concrete proposals to better the lives of poor and working-class women, rather than merely championing the stepping stones to which many college-educated professional women now feel entitled? From the proliferation of HIV among black women to the double bind of work and family faced by all women, it is time for a women's agenda that enlists support from all classes, all races and from men as well as women.

For example, Rosabeth Moss Kanter has written about the importance of entrepreneurship in a woman's agenda. Many women, she says, are small business owners: running beauty parlors, nail salons and day-care services. Why not focus on ways to change the tax code to make it easier for these small business owners to maintain a home office? Why not allow more women (and men) with small children to work at home, logging into computers when the kids are taking a nap or in school? If more women (and men) could work from their homes in the United States, it would solve several problems at once, from shipping jobs overseas to getting snagged in pollution-clogged traffic jams or sending a sick child to school because there is no adult to care for them.

Could Barack do more? Certainly. He should acknowledge gratitude to the contributions that feminism has made to this country, from pay equity to basic respect for women. In addition, he and others must continue to take seriously the legitimate frustrations of women who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s. These early pioneers fought every step of the way to gain access to good jobs, decent wages and a chance to participate as equals in private and public life. They withstood hateful slurs, dead-end mommy tracks and arbitrary rules against marriage or pregnancy, as they broke through one barrier after another to work as firefighters, police officers, partners in law firms and elected officials. They deserve the right to fight back against any perceived loss of ground.

But Sen. Clinton's supporters might take a page out of Obama's 1995 organizing manifesto, if they seriously intend to put their legions to meaningful work.

In 1995, as he launched his first campaign for public office in Chicago, Barack Obama wondered aloud, "What if a politician were to see his (or her) job as that of an organizer: as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?" Then, answering his own question, Obama concluded, "We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions."

One of the biggest accomplishments of the Obama campaign has been to build a new generation of leaders. It has spent its time not merely wooing young enthusiastic supporters; it has been grooming them to assume the mantle of leadership within their local communities. Obama's model of organizing goes beyond raising money or turning in great debate performances. It involves building a new capacity for Democratic governance, not just acting as litmus paper for a set of progressive proposals. Progressive reform without the people, after all, is not progressive at all.

As the Clinton campaign and its supporters assess the way forward this week, they must solicit the views and input of more black, Asian and Latina feminists. And black, Asian and Latina feminists need to offer ourselves up as part of the solution, especially those of us who support the advancement of women in our society as a way of energizing new ways of solving old problems for everyone. We are at our best as change agents when we speak out as women (and men) with a cause, not simply a litany of grievances. That cause may be recruiting more women to run for office, training more women to assume leadership within our communities or developing a platform of "women's" issues that benefit everyone. These issues might include a healthy families initiative to repeal draconian drug laws that have led to the mass incarceration—and absence from their children's lives—of black and Latino men. Attention should also be given to promoting public-spirited entrepreneurship within the informal economy of African-American and Latino communities. And real policy should be put into place to secure broad and formal support for grandparents raising their children's children. From professional women to high school dropouts, from granny voters to those who are perpetually homeless or jobless, it is time to focus on what we can do to rebuild a sense of common purpose and shared commitment.

Collective change won't come, however, through the election of any one person, whether it is the first black president of the United States or the first white female president. Our future lies in training the next generation of future leaders to create productive communities that recognize and applaud the contributions of all their members, from the women who mop the floors in our boardrooms to the women who map the geography of our imagination in our classrooms.

Hillary Clinton will be introduced at the convention by her daughter, Chelsea Clinton. But bringing Chelsea onto the stage, literally and figuratively, is not enough. As Sen. Clinton prepares to campaign for the Obama-Biden ticket, one of the top items on her, and our, agenda should be training a cadre of young, visionary leaders to wield power in a more democratic and egalitarian fashion across race, class and gender lines. If women are to resist becoming prisoners of men's dreams, we need to do more than make 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling. We need to redefine what breaking the ceiling means.

Not All Conservative Evangelicals are Thrilled with Palin

Initially, certain key conservative evangelicals and Christian right leaders immediately applauded the McCain's selection of Palin as VP candidate. As more time has passed since McCain's announcement, more information is getting out about the number of conservative evangelicals who are not thrilled about Sarah Palin. JD

Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled with Palin

desmoinesdem, August 31, 2008 MyDD

Many conservative pundits were not impressed by John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, since her glaring lack of experience undercuts McCain's main message against Barack Obama.

On the plus side for McCain, just about everyone agreed that putting an anti-abortion mother-of-five on the ticket would delight the evangelical Christians who were so crucial to George Bush's re-election.

Although the "pro-family" interest groups applauded McCain's choice, I had a hunch that Palin wouldn't be unanimously embraced by the evangelical rank and file.

I lurk and occasionally comment at a few "mommy blogs" written by religious conservatives. Checking in on some popular sites in the evangelical Christian blogosphere over the weekend, I did find some commentaries that praised Palin for her views and for continuing a pregnancy while carrying a child with Down syndrome.

However, if you join me after the jump, you'll see that plenty of evangelicals are far from "fired up and ready to go" for this Republican ticket.

Christian conservative bloggers were not united behind any presidential candidate during the primaries, but many favored Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. Sam Brownback was distrusted for having converted to Catholicism as an adult. John McCain was never a favorite in these circles, although he was not as detested as Mitt Romney.

Whatever their political differences, evangelical Christian bloggers share a general philosophy about a woman's proper role in the family and society. As the recommended reading list of the Biblical Womanhood site suggests, they are not big on moms of young kids working outside the home. Ladies Against Feminism is frequently found on Christian blogrolls, and that blog is adamant about God wanting women to focus on home and family.

This post by the talented preacher Voddie Baucham sums up the case against Palin from the Christian right:

Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don't see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick. I say that for at least two reasons. [...]

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin's recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor's orders) in the final days of her pregnancy. [...]

She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply "was not going to miss out on that speech." A speech! The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain's choice as pro-family. [...]

Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture's desire to completely erase gender roles. [...]

In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, "It's ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don't have an abortion." How pro-family is that?

This post by an at-home mom has dozens of supportive comments below it:

The home, the family, the raising of children--it is the zenith of human accomplishment. It's a full-time job, requiring full-time attention if it's to encompass all God intended. [...]

The message is "women can have it all"...and it is a lie, because they can't.

The message is "men and women should have equal access to the same roles". The reality is, that's not how God created HIS universe to run. He created them male and female, and yes, by their very biological design, nature screams at our dull senses "YOU ARE DIFFERENT"! Created for different purposes, created to compliment one another in their life work.

Blogger Doug Phillips was annoyed that Palin "praised and thanked feminist role models Clinton and Ferraro for what they had accomplished for women's rights" in Dayton. He unloaded on Republican priorities in this post:

The selection of a feminist, pro-life mother of five with four children, seventeen and under, including a newborn Down's syndrome baby, to fulfill the post of vice president is without precedent in American history. What Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro was unable to accomplish for the feminist cause in 1984 may now be handed as a fait accompli to America through the hands of evangelicals and conservatives. After decades of Christian leaders fighting against the feminstic vision of the working supermom, Republicans are now showcasing the vision in the most high profile election in the world.

[...] I am confident that Mrs. Palin is a delightful, sincere, thoughtful, and capable woman with many commendable virtues. But in fairness, there is nothing "traditional" about mothers of young children becoming career moms, chief magistrates, and leading nations of three hundred million, nor is this pattern the biblical ideal to which young women should aspire. At a time when motherhood and marriage is so under attack, the message Republicans are sending is this: Winning political elections is more important than the following proposition given by the Lord: "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed" (Titus 2:4-5).

Bonus track: Phillips linked approvingly to this 2004 post by an ordained minister who argued,

So then, if we are to be faithful to Christ, we must search the Scriptures to see what the Lord says in regards to the issue of women civil rulers, and whether it is permissible for Christians to support a woman for the office of civil magistrate. Second, we should recognize that the issue here is not the character or ability of the woman seeking the office; nor is it her spiritual condition, her views on the issues, or even if she is the "best" available candidate. The point in question is this: does the Word of God give us the liberty to place a woman into a political office where she will in some sense bear rule over us in the civil sphere? Or, to state it more precisely: is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men? Has God ordained women to be civil leaders, or has He reserved this authority for men only? I believe that the Bible gives a definitive answer to this question: women are not permitted by God to hold political office and rule over men in the political sphere. There are four lines of evidence in the Bible that establish that women are not to hold political office.

The title of this post by "Mrs. Chancey" is "Woe to My people":

Why is a wife and mother with five children (including a newborn with Down's syndrome) running for vice president? She has a bountiful amount of work cut out for her by the Lord sitting in her lap and around her dining room table. I can certainly respect her Christian and biblical views, but I am really amazed at Christians leaping to embrace putting a wife and mother into political office--particularly an office that will essentially make her the helpmate of the highest official in the land and practically remove her from her husband and children.

Isaiah 3:12 truly applies: "As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths." I can assent to Sarah Palin's conservative views and even applaud them, but I mourn for a nation whose men have forgotten how to lead their families and their land in the way our Founders envisioned and the way God intended. A wife and mother has already been elected by God to the highest office in the land. She has her own particular husband to help, his calling to make successful, and her children to nurture and train to the glory of God. How could the vice-presidency possibly compare with a task that God has personally designed her to fill?

This Ron Paul supporter said Palin seemed like a pretty good governor who is worth listening to, but she had some concerns:

can she REALLY put her husband and children first if she has the second highest office in the country? Especially if things go wrong, which they very, very likely will? Can she be there for her husband if she's a very busy working mother? Can she fulfill her duties as a wife if she's traveling abroad and attending congressional sessions and casting deciding votes? Can she drop everything and handle a crisis with one of her children? Pro-family doesn't mean you're pro-HAVING a family, or pro-LOOKING like a family, or pro-God's designation of a family (which she is--one man, one woman, for life, etc). Pro-family means family comes FIRST, and each spouse puts that responsibility FIRST. [...]

I am not arguing that large numbers of conservative Christians will refuse to vote for the Republican ticket because they disapprove of Palin. But we should be aware that this pick was controversial within the evangelical Christian community as well as among other segments of the Republican base.

Even with Palin at his side, I do not think McCain will inspire as large an army of volunteer Christian soldiers as Bush did four years ago.

Meet Sarah Palin's Husband.....Todd Palin

The partners of male presidential and vice-presidential candidates have consistently been highlighted and placed under public scrutiny on the campaign trail. So I present to you...Todd Palin the husband of McCain's VP candidate Sarah Palin. (I didn't include the "Shadow Governor" article, which can be found on a number of threads on Daily Kos and www.andrewhalcro.com. Concerns were raised around his possible role in Walt Monegan being fired. They raise the question whether Todd Palin is functioning as a defacto shadow governor. I didn't include the article in this posting about Todd Palin. If Sarah Palin was responsible for illegally firing an employee for personal vindictive reasons than the issue should be Sarah Palin and her abuse of power as governor of Alaska,than her allegedly manipulative and vengeful husband). One more interesting and absurd note, the white supremacist organization StormFront has posted a blog debating whether Todd Palin is white or not because he has some "Eskimo blood" in his heritage.


Todd Palin unique among nation's 5 first husbands
Jeannette J. Lee, May 27, 2007 Anchorage Daily News (AP)


Mr. Palin goes back to Prudhoe
Mike Ross August 21, 2007 www.ktuu.com


Statement by United Steel Workers International president Leo W. Gerard on John McCain’s selection of Sara Palin as his running mate
August 29, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------



Todd Palin unique among nation's 5 first husbands
Jeannette J. Lee, May 27, 2007 Anchorage Daily News (AP)

THE MAN: He's worked the oil patch, won the Iron Dog and takes care of the kids.
It was mid-February and Todd Palin, Alaska's newest first gentleman, was speeding across 2,000 miles of ice and snowy tundra en route to victory in the world's most grueling snowmobile race.

That same week, his wife, Gov. Sarah Palin, was in Juneau requesting more money for the state budget and assuring legislators they'd soon see her plan for a natural gas pipeline that could one day be the most expensive construction project in North America. Then she flew to Fairbanks to wave her exhausted husband across the finish line.

It's not just his title as the state's reigning snowmobile co-champion that sets 42-year-old Todd Palin apart from the nation's other first spouses. And it's not that he's one of just five who are men.

White-collar jobs in law, education or health care are typical among the current crop of first spouses, but Palin spent nearly 20 years as a blue-collar employee in the oil fields of the North Slope. And every summer he heads west to his birthplace in Dillingham to work the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery from his property on the Nushagak River.

A lifetime of manual labor in the state's two largest and most physically demanding industries is helping Palin carve out his role as Alaska's first spouse, or "first dude," a nickname he has in common with the Kansas governor's husband, Gary Sebelius.

Like other first spouses around the country, Palin has been asked to champion an array of causes or institutions since his wife took office in December.

His favorite is steering young Alaskans toward stable jobs in the oil and gas industry. It's a singular choice among his counterparts, whose pet issues include schools, public health, domestic violence, poverty or the arts.

BP-TRAINED

"For those of us who learn by touching and tearing stuff apart and for those who don't have the financial background to go to college, just being a product of that on-the-job training is really important," Palin said one morning over pastries at an Anchorage coffee shop, before meeting with trainers at several companies and trade groups in Anchorage and Wasilla.

Palin, who took college courses, but does not have a degree, said he is grateful for the training he received from the multinational oil company BP starting in 1989.

Until recently, he earned hourly wages as a production operator in a BP-run facility that separates oil from gas and water. Palin was making between $100,000 and $120,000 a year before he went on leave in December to make more time for his family and avoid potential conflicts of interest. London-based BP is heavily involved in the gas pipeline negotiations with his wife's administration.

Palin's advocacy dovetails neatly with his wife's No. 1 priority: forging a construction contract with private companies to transport natural gas from the North Slope to the Lower 48. The export of natural gas would presumably replace revenue from the state's dwindling oil reserves, which funded 80 percent of the state budget last year.

"He will be passing information on to me and participating in getting work force development programs up and running in Alaska," Sarah Palin said. "That's in addition to doing all the things that make Todd Todd. There are lots of things I would never want to take away from him, but this is something he's enthused about."

Those things include taking care of their four kids and escaping into the Alaska wilderness to fish commercially, hunt or train for the Tesoro Iron Dog, billed as the longest, toughest snowmobile race in the world. The Palins have a son, Track, 18, and three daughters, Bristol, 16, Willow, 12, and Piper, 6.

A PALIN PASSION

Palin is so passionate about the Iron Dog that he made sure to squeeze in snowmobile runs between official events this winter, such as statewide inaugural galas, and moving the family to the governor's mansion in Juneau. The capital is 600 miles southeast of the family home in Wasilla.

"I've got a really good group of buddies and we train either early in the morning or late at night so we can still make things like the kids' basketball games and try not to impact the family life," Palin said.

In past years, Palin has trained about 3,000 miles before the race to accustom his body to hours of constant jolting and to detect any mechanical kinks in his vehicle. This winter, Palin covered more than 2,500 miles on the frozen swamps and rivers around Wasilla.

Scott Davis, his race partner of five years, said Palin has the willpower to stay levelheaded while racing at high speeds over terrain that can range from glare ice to bare ground to flooded coastlines strewn with driftwood. The Iron Dog traces the Iditarod trail from Wasilla to Nome, plus an additional leg to Fairbanks.

"I have to trust my life in his hands, and I do, because he can still think when he's dehydrated and tired," said Davis, a seven-time winner. "You know, I think this is the longest I've been partners with anybody. A lot of teams certainly don't have fun when they're doing it and I like to think Todd and I do."

This year's win is Palin's fourth since he started running the Iron Dog in 1993.

Palin was born in the western Alaska town of Dillingham to Jim Palin and Blanche Kallstrom, who is a quarter Yu'pik Eskimo. He met Sarah Heath at a high school basketball game and they eloped in 1988, six years after graduation, to avoid having to pay for a wedding.

"We had a bad fishing year that year, so we didn't have any money," Todd Palin said. "So we decided to spend 35 bucks and go down to the courthouse."

At home, Palin takes care of the cooking, the bills and other domestic paperwork, in addition to driving the kids to extracurricular activities like basketball and soccer, according to his wife. He divides much of his time between Wasilla, where Track is recovering from shoulder surgery, and the capital in Juneau, where the Palin daughters are in school.

"He can go on just an hour or two of sleep a night. He says, 'I can sleep when I die,' " said Sarah Palin. "There is no way I could have done this job without his tremendous contributions to the home life. He's able to keep it organized, like a well-oiled machine."

Mr. Palin goes back to Prudhoe
Mike Ross August 21, 2007 www.ktuu.com

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- A decision by Alaska's first family is raising concerns about a possible conflict of interest involving Gov. Sarah Palin and the oil industry.

The governor's husband, Todd Palin, is back on BP's payroll. Gov. Palin says his return will not influence her decisions involving the oil industry, but one former lawmaker who wrote an ethics guideline for the administration believes it's a bad move at the wrong time.

A few weeks after Gov. Palin was elected, Todd Palin took an unpaid leave of absence from his job as a North Slope oil field production operator.

But, the state's first husband recently returned to BP's payroll.

"You know, we've never hidden the fact that Todd had a job and he's created to work," said the governor. "He wants to keep working and after seven months of not working he is ready to go back."

Todd Palin said the family needs the extra income.

"I mean, we're still fairly young and we've got kids going into college. Some governors and their spouses, I'm sure, are independently wealthy, but we're not one of those couples. So we have to watch out for our kids' future," Mr. Palin said.

The governor has called a special session of the Legislature to possibly rewrite the Petroleum Profits Tax. Her proposals could have a multi-million dollar impact on her husband's employer. BP could also become a major player in the natural gas line project.

Former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz co-authored the "Ethics White Paper" with former U.S. Attorney Wev Shea at the request of the governor shortly after she took office. He doesn't agree with Mr. Palin's decision to go back to work.

"It's bad timing. It's a tough situation for the family, but I think the interests of the state have to come first," Berkowitz said. "In the interest of the state, you need to make sure you're above the appearance of impropriety."

He said Todd Palin's employment with a major North Slope producer could raise questions and problems.

"The short version is, I think this adds an unnecessary, complicating variable to a very complex situation. Going through a revision of the oil and gas tax is going to be difficult enough as it is and you want as few distractions as possible. This will amount to a distraction," Berkowitz said.

But the governor and her husband strongly believe there's no conflict of interest.

"A conflict could be perceived if my spouse's position was in a management position with an oil company. But, because it's a blue-collar, in-the-field type job, working in a facility as a production operator, separating the oil, the gas and water; it's not a management position where decision are being made for the future of investment with this oil company in Alaska. So, it hasn't been perceived, on our part anyway, as a conflict of interest," Gov. Palin said.

Mr. Palin agreed that his position with BP makes a difference in the ethical debate.

"Like Sarah said, I'm not in management and I'm not making decisions for the company," Todd Palin said.

The first couple points out that Mr. Palin has worked on the North Slope since 1989, even during the years prior to Palin's election, when she served as chairman of the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission for former Gov. Frank Murkowski.

"If I thought there would be a conflict of interest, where I was going to be doing any favors for one company because my spouse happened to be a union hand, blue-collar for that company, I would be the first to say, 'This isn't right, I don't like it and it's not going to happen,'" stated the governor.

Berkowitz contends it's all about perception.

"There's at least a perception of a conflict of interest when you have a family member working in the industry and you're reviewing the oil and gas taxes. So, just the perception of a conflict is somewhat complicating," Berkowitz said.

Rep. Les Gara, one of the leading supporters of the governor's Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, doesn't see a conflict with Mr. Palin's job.

"The big problem is when people start voting the way the people giving them money tell them to vote, right? That's why the FBI is in town. I don't see this as that problem," said Gara, D-Anchorage.

But even the governor's supporters concede that her husband's decision to go back to work for a major oil company will put her actions under closer public scrutiny.

Steve Rinehart, a spokesman for BP, said the company feels Mr. Palin is a skilled worker and is glad to have him back, but would not comment on whether his employment creates a conflict of interest for the governor.

Contact Mike Ross at mross@ktuu.com




Statement by United Steel Workers International president Leo W. Gerard on John McCain’s selection of Sara Palin as his running mate:
August 29, 2008


“It is important to realize that while the governor’s husband is a member of a union, this does not automatically qualify her for an on-the-job training program to become a heartbeat away from the presidency. And while her husband is one of 850,000 dues-paying members of the steelworkers union, it does nothing to absolve Sen. McCain of his long history of anti-union sentiment and anti-worker actions, including continuously pushing an anti-working family agenda that:



- Opposes giving workers the right to bargain collectively;

- Jeopardizes retirement security by privatizing social security;

- Further threatens job security by signing more job-stealing trade deals without the regard to human rights and environmental abuses; and,

- Erodes the ability of working families to secure quality health care by taxing their employer -provided coverage for both active and retired workers.



McCain’s choice is another example of his poor judgment and his desire to play politics as usual. McCain-Palin is not a team that works for working families. The first-term governor’s record is thin and divisive. And John McCain has a life-long record of being for the rich and powerful. No union card can hide that any more than Ronald Regan's union card did.”

The Palin Trap

The Palin Trap
Leighton Woodhouse, August 31, 2008 Huffington Post

Sarah Palin's VP Selection Speech and Transcript
Sarah Palin August 29, 2008

____________________________________________-

The Palin Trap
Leighton Woodhouse, August 31, 2008 Huffington Post

On Friday, following McCain's announcement that Sarah Palin was his choice for running mate, like way too many others I allowed myself to indulge in the fantasy that this was the stupidest decision of a GOP presidential candidate since Dan Quayle was tapped for the role. Now that my post-DNC sense of invincibility has worn off, however, so has my triumphalism. I woke up yesterday morning with a much different sense of the Sarah Palin choice. I think it's a trap.

The McCain campaign knew exactly how both Democrats and the traditional media would respond to the Palin announcement, because it was entirely predictable. Choosing someone this plainly unqualified wasn't a mistake, and it wasn't even a gamble. It was a trade-off.

My suspicion is that the McCain campaign doesn't really care that Palin undermines McCain's case for experience, because they're not planning to use that argument anymore. They've decided that the experience argument is ineffective against Obama's change message, and they're more or less giving it up. Moreover, they know how to respond to attacks on Palin's total lack of qualification for the office, and are in fact inviting those attacks as a way to build sympathy with working class independent voters. That's where Palin's value lies.

Instead of continuing on the experience theme, McCain is front-loading his "Country First" message, and his campaign is taking the competition for working class voters on economic issues much more seriously than they were a few months ago. McCain has finally figured out that this is not going to be a national security election, and that Iraq is a distant second to the recession as the central issue in 2008. So it doesn't matter that Palin has no foreign policy experience. That's not what they need her for - they need her for the debate over the economy.

Of course, Palin is useless for any actual debate on the subject that might require policy expertise and persuasive argumentation. In that, she's similar to McCain, who is not identified as a Senator with any special knowledge on economic issues, and has been exposed as an out of touch multimillionaire. For all these reasons, and with GOP-style economics completely out of style, the McCain campaign is at a major disadvantage in any wonky policy debate on fixing the economy. Knowing this, and knowing that the election is going to be won or lost on whether their ticket is regarded as the best equipped to meet that challenge, the McCain campaign is doing what the GOP always does when it has to fight for working class voters in a debate that Republicans can't win on its merits: they are reverting to symbolic politics, a role for which Palin is tailor-made.

Palin was educated at a not-famous public university, received a bachelor's degree in journalism and became a sportscaster before entering the political arena. She married her high school sweetheart, a commercial fisherman and oil company worker (not an executive, or even a manager). Her political career began at the PTA. She raised four kids while holding down her career, and recently had a fifth. Compared to McCain, Obama and even Biden, her story is easily the most sympathetic to working class voters, especially white women. While the McCain campaign whispers to voters in Peoria that Obama is not 'one of us,' with Palin they will be able to present a face and a story that is reassuringly familiar - much more so than the top of the ticket.

The McCain campaign is going to trot Palin out whenever they need to make the case that they feel America's pain. They're going to contrast her story to Obama's, and even to Biden's (not the part about being a scrappy kid from Scranton, but the part about being in the Senate for a million years). They're going to have her stick relentlessly to her personal biography, and avoid at all costs any discussion of policy. And whenever any Democrat attacks her for being inexperienced, they're going to turn to working class voters and ask why all these Harvard-educated, pointy-headed know-it-alls think that they know better how to help working families than a woman who worked her way through a demanding career while raising five kids, stayed married to her hard-working husband, and was so successful that she became a governor and then a VP nominee. They're going to turn any question about Palin's 'experience,' whether from a Dem or from a journalist, into another elitist attack on working class culture, another example of snooty, brainiac liberals condescending to ordinary Americans. And to boot, a bunch of good old boys picking on Mrs. Mom.

I don't believe that this is a bid for Hillary supporters, I think it's a bid for the same segment of the electorate that almost every tactic from both campaigns has been aimed at: white working class swing voters. I think the inevitable attacks on Palin are part of the purpose of her selection. By turning her into a lightning rod, they will be able to deflect attacks away from McCain toward a far more sympathetic figure, and then use those attacks as evidence in a far more powerful counterattack against typical liberal elitism.

We're best off not taking that bait


Sarah Palin's VP Selection Speech Video and Transcript
Sarah Palin, August 29, 2008



Dayton, Ohio

PALIN: Thank you so much.

And I thank you, Senator McCain and Mrs. McCain, for the confidence that you have placed in me. Senator, I am honored to be chosen as your running mate.

(APPLAUSE)

I will be honored to serve next to the next president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that when Senator McCain gave me this opportunity, he had a short list of highly qualified men and women. And to have made that list at all, it was a privilege. And to have been chosen brings a great challenge.

I know that it will demand the best that I have to give, and I promise nothing less.

(APPLAUSE)

First -- first, there are a few people whom I would like you to meet. I want to start with my husband, Todd.

(APPLAUSE)

And Todd and I are actually celebrating our 20th anniversary today. And I promised him...

(APPLAUSE)

I had promised Todd a little surprise for the anniversary present, and hopefully he knows that I did deliver.

And then we have as -- after my husband, who is a lifelong commercial fisherman, lifetime Alaskan. He's a production operator.

(APPLAUSE)

Todd is a production operator in the oil fields up on Alaska's North Slope. And he's a proud member of the United Steelworkers union. And he's a world-champion snow machine racer. (APPLAUSE)

Todd and I met way back in high school. And I can tell you that he is still the man that I admire most in this world.

(APPLAUSE)

Along the way, Todd and I have shared many blessings. And four out of five of them are here with us today.

Our oldest son, Track, though, he'll be following the presidential campaign from afar. On September 11th of last year, our son enlisted in the United States Army.

(APPLAUSE)

Track now serves in an infantry brigade. And on September 11th, Track will deploy to Iraq in the service of his country. And Todd and I are so proud of him and of all the fine men and women serving this country (inaudible)

(APPLAUSE)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

PALIN: Next to Todd is our daughter, Bristol, another daughter, Willow, our youngest daughter, Piper, and over in their arms is our son, Trig, a beautiful baby boy. He was born just in April.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: His name is Trig Paxson Van Palin.

Some of life's greatest opportunities come unexpectedly. And this is certainly the case today.

I never really set out to be involved in public affairs, much less to run for this office. My mom and dad both worked at the local elementary school. And my husband and I, we both grew up working with our hands. I was just your average hockey mom in Alaska, raising...

(APPLAUSE)

We're busy raising our kids. I was serving as the team mom and coaching some basketball on the side. I got involved in the PTA and then was elected to the city council, and then elected mayor of my hometown, where my agenda was to stop wasteful spending, and cut property taxes, and put the people first.

(APPLAUSE)

I was then appointed ethics commissioner and chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. And when I found corruption there, I fought it hard, and I held the offenders to account.

(APPLAUSE)

Along with fellow reformers in the great state of Alaska, as governor, I've stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-old- boy network.

(APPLAUSE)

When oil and gas prices went up so dramatically and the state revenues followed with that increase, I sent a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska. And we are now -- we're now embarking on a $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

(APPLAUSE)

I signed major ethics reform. And I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

(APPLAUSE)

If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves. Well, it's always, though, safer in politics to avoid risk, to just kind of go along with the status quo. But I didn't get into government to do the safe and easy things. A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built.

Politics isn't just a game of competing interests and clashing parties. The people of America expect us to seek public office and to serve for the right reasons.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: And the right reason is to challenge the status quo and to serve the common good.

Now, no one expects us to agree on everything, whether in Juneau or in Washington. But we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant's heart.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, no leader in America has shown these qualities so clearly or present so clear a threat to business as usual in Washington as Senator John S. McCain.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: This -- this is a moment when principles and political independence matter a lot more than just the party line. And this is a man who has always been there to serve his country, not just his party.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is a moment that requires resolve and toughness, and strength of heart in the American president. And my running mate is a man who has shown those qualities in the darkest of places, and in the service of his country.

(APPLAUSE)

A colleague once said about Senator McCain, "That man did things for this country that few people could go through. Never forget that." And that speaker was former Senator John Glenn of Ohio.

(APPLAUSE)

And John Glenn knows something about heroism. And I'm going to make sure nobody does forget that in this campaign. There is only one candidate who has truly fought for America, and that man is John McCain.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: This is a moment -- this is a moment when great causes can be won and great threats overcome, depending on the judgment of our next president.

In a dangerous world, it is John McCain who will lead America's friends and allies in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

It was John McCain who cautioned long ago about the harm that Russian aggression could do to Georgia and to other small democratic neighbors and to the world oil markets.

It was Senator McCain who refused to hedge his support for our troops in Iraq, regardless of the political costs.

(APPLAUSE)

And you know what? As the mother of one of those troops, and as the commander of Alaska's National Guard, that's the kind of man I want as our commander in chief.

(APPLAUSE)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

PALIN: Profiles in courage: They can be hard to come by these days. You know, so often we just find them in books. But next week when we nominate John McCain for president, we're putting one on the ballot.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: To serve as vice president beside such a man would be the privilege of a lifetime. And it's fitting that this trust has been given to me 88 years almost to the day after the women of America first gained the right to vote.

(APPLAUSE)

I think -- I think as well today of two other women who came before me in national elections.

I can't begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984...

(APPLAUSE)

... and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America...

(APPLAUSE)

... but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

(APPLAUSE)

So for my part, the mission is clear: The next 67 days I'm going to take our campaign to every part of our country and our message of reform to every voter of every background in every political party, or no party at all.

PALIN: If you want change in Washington, if you hope for a better America, then we're asking for your vote on the 4th of November.

My fellow Americans, come join our cause.

(APPLAUSE)

Join our cause and help our country to elect a great man the next president of the United States.

And I thank you, and I -- God bless you, I say, and God bless America. Thank you.

Police Raid and Arrest Republican National Convention Protesters for Conspiracy to Riot

Above: St. Paul police officers attempt to gain entrance to a house on Iglehart Ave. Saturday. Sara Coffey with the National Lawyers Guild was stopped outside the house, handcuffed and detained. She helped police negotiate with those inside (David Joles, Star Tribune).


Police raid RNC protest sites in Twin Cities
Abby Simons, Heron Marquez Estrada and Bill McAuliffe, August 30, 2008 Star Tribune


Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis
Glenn Greenwald, August 30, 2008 Salon.com

PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY: Motion for Emergency Restraining Order Against Police
mgresist, August 31, 2008 http://twincities.indymedia.org


_________________________________________________

Police raid RNC protest sites in Twin Cities

Abby Simons, Heron Marquez Estrada and Bill McAuliffe, August 30, 2008 Star Tribune


Ramsey County authorities conducted raids across Minneapolis and St. Paul Friday and Saturday as a pre-emptive strike against disruptive protests of the Republican National Convention.

Five people were arrested and more than 100 were handcuffed, questioned and released by scores of deputies and police officers, according to police and elected officials familiar with the raids.

In a statement Saturday morning, Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher said the St. Paul raid targeted the RNC Welcoming Committee, a group he described as "a criminal enterprise made up of 35 self-described anarchists...intent on committing criminal acts before and during the Republican National Convention."

"These acts include tactics to blockade and disable delegate buses, breaching venue security and injuring police officers," Fletcher said. Deputies seized a variety of items that they believed were tools of civil disobedience: a gas mask, bolt cutters, axes, slingshots, homemade "caltrops" for disabling buses, even buckets of urine.

But the raids drew immediate condemnation from activists and St. Paul City Councilman Dave Thune, whose district includes the former theater at 627 Smith Avenue South, which was rented by activists as a gathering space.

"This is not the way to start things off," Thune said Saturday morning. "This is sending the wrong message. Regardless of how you feel about these people...they had a right to be there."

On Saturday afternoon, law agents surrounded 951 Iglehart Av. in St. Paul where members of I-Witness Video, a New York-based group that monitors police conduct during protests, were staying. They were detained and handcuffed but eventually freed without charges.

At a news conference Saturday, Cheri Honkala of the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, one of the protest groups, described the Friday raid and an earlier one Thursday that evicted a demonstrators' camp on Harriet Island as "terrorism" intended to divert attention from issues the protest groups are raising and cast the news as police versus protestors.

Thune was especially critical of Fletcher for taking action within St. Paul city limits.

"I'm really ticked off...the city is perfectly capable of taking care of things," Thune said. "If they had found anything that could have been used to commit a crime they would have arrested somebody."

Said Thune: "Unless they come up with anthrax or weapons of mass destruction, I think they came up short."

Later Saturday, Fletcher described in a news release the items seized during the raids, which included a variety of "edged weapons"; glass bottles, rags and flammable liquids; "Old tires (for burning)," a gas mask and "Empty plastic buckest cut and made into shields."

The RNC Welcoming Committee denied criminal intent and described the police actions as "violence" that is a sign of more extreme police measures to come.

Three people were arrested and detained for probable cause conspiracy to commit a riot following a raid at 3240 17th Ave. S. in Minneapolis.

Ten other people in the house were processed and released after about 90 minutes, said Bruce Nestor of the National Lawyers Guild.

Nestor said the warrant used to search the home was identical to two others for searches at homes at 3500 Harriet Av. S. and 2301 23rd Av. S. in Minneapolis. One man was arrested at the 23rd Avenue S. house, and a fifth arrested at an "undisclosed location," according to the Ramsey sheriff's office.

Nestor said the the warrant used to search the 17th Avenue house also matches the one used to raid the former theater in St. Paul that is the organizing site of the RNC Welcoming Committee.

Nestor said he has not seen documents that support a reason for searching any of the locations, but that the warrant, signed by a judge on Friday, seeks multiple items, including electronics and MP3 players, rags, jars, Molotov cocktails, communication between RNC Welcoming Committee members, urine and feces.

Those arrested could be held through the weekend, Nestor said. A judge will review their case within 48 hours. Nestor said the conspiracy to commit a riot charges are vague.

"This is a charge that police use for preventive detention," he said. "It requires that no actual criminal act be committed and borders on criminalizing political advocacy."

Nestor did not know whether the three were members of the RNC Welcoming Committee.

Meanwhile, the group decried the Friday night raid on their organizing site as unwarranted, as evidenced by the lack of arrests after at least 50 people were detained. The group decried law enforcement's tactics, particularly because children and the elderly were present while the group was watching films and sharing food before the doors were broken down.

"The police may claim that the raid was executed according to protocol - however, the violence inherent in this action may only be a hint of the violence to be expected on Monday and beyond, and is only a hint at the violence perpetrated daily by the police," the group's statement read.

"(By) Looking for items found in any twin cities house like jars, paint, and rags, this attempt to portray us as criminals and destroy our credibility has already backfired as evidenced by the masses who have come to support us." the RNC Welcoming Committee said in a statement late Friday.

An attorney for protesters said Ramsey County sheriff's deputies and St. Paul police officers handcuffed at least 50 people and made them lie on the ground for an extended period. The raid happened Friday night around 9 p.m. at the former Smith Theater on St. Paul's west side.

Thune estimates that about 100 people were in the theater and detained. He said deputies knocked down the door using a police battering ram and then deputies went in with guns drawn, forcing people to the ground.

The group says they are now accused of a fire code violation and the theater was boarded shut on orders of Fletcher. This last action also upset Thune, who said the sheriff had no authority to order city staff to keep people out of a building.

Thune said he would be working with city officials today to re-open the building. Demonstrators said later Saturday that the building was being re-opened.

Abby Simons • 612-673-4921

Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis

Glenn Greenwald, August 30, 2008 Salon.com

[updated below (with video) - Update II - Update III]

Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff's department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than "fire code violations," and early this morning, the Sheriff's department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

Jane Hamsher and I were at two of those homes this morning -- one which had just been raided and one which was in the process of being raided. Each of the raided houses is known by neighbors as a "hippie house," where 5-10 college-aged individuals live in a communal setting, and everyone we spoke with said that there had never been any problems of any kind in those houses, that they were filled with "peaceful kids" who are politically active but entirely unthreatening and friendly. Posted below is the video of the scene, including various interviews, which convey a very clear sense of what is actually going on here.

In the house that had just been raided, those inside described how a team of roughly 25 officers had barged into their homes with masks and black swat gear, holding large semi-automatic rifles, and ordered them to lie on the floor, where they were handcuffed and ordered not to move. The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. They were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house. One of the individuals renting the house, an 18-year-old woman, was extremely shaken as she and others described how the officers were deliberately making intimidating statements such as "Do you have Terminator ready?" as they lay on the floor in handcuffs. The 10 or so individuals in the house all said that though they found the experience very jarring, they still intended to protest against the GOP Convention, and several said that being subjected to raids of that sort made them more emboldened than ever to do so.

Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. Nestor said that last night's raid involved a meeting of a group calling itself the "RNC Welcoming Committee", and that this morning's raids appeared to target members of "Food Not Bombs," which he described as an anti-war, anti-authoritarian protest group. There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.

Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emeptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.

There is clearly an intent on the part of law enforcement authorities here to engage in extreme and highly intimidating raids against those who are planning to protest the Convention. The DNC in Denver was the site of several quite ugly incidents where law enforcement acted on behalf of Democratic Party officials and the corporate elite that funded the Convention to keep the media and protesters from doing anything remotely off-script. But the massive and plainly excessive preemptive police raids in Minnesota are of a different order altogether. Targeting people with automatic-weapons-carrying SWAT teams and mass raids in their homes, who are suspected of nothing more than planning dissident political protests at a political convention and who have engaged in no illegal activity whatsoever, is about as redolent of the worst tactics of a police state as can be imagined.

UPDATE: Here is the first of the videos, from the house that had just been raided:



Jane Hamsher has more here, and The Minnesota Independent has a report on another one of the raided houses, here.

UPDATE II: Here is the video we took from the second house as the raid was occurring. We were barred from entering but spoke with neighbors outside as well as with Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota Lawyer's Guild, regarding these raids:



Over at FDL, Lindsay Beyerstein spoke with the property owner whose house -- the fourth one we now know of -- was being raided while the raid was in progress, and Lindsay has details here ("About an hour and a half ago 20 to 30 heavily armed police officers surrounded the house. One of my roommates said 'I want to see a warrant' and she was immediately detained"). Meanwhile, Indy Media of Twin Cities -- an association of independent journalists in the area -- just told me that several of their journalists have been detained while trying to cover these raids. Their site, with ongoing updates, is here.

The Uptake also has several reports of the various raids, including video of the raid at the property whose owner Bernstein spoke with as the raid occurred. That video includes an interview with a lawyer from the National Lawyer's Guild who was detained and put in handcufffs, explaining that the surrounded house is one where various journalists are staying. Additionally, a photojournalist with Democracy Now was detained at that house as well. So, both journalists and lawyers -- in addition to protesters -- have been detained and arrested even though not a single violent or criminal act has occurred.

UPDATE III: FDL has the transcript of part of my discussion about these raids with the National Lawyer Guild's Minnesota President -- here.

The Uptake has this amazing video interview with the Democracy Now producer who was detained today. As the DN producer explains, she was present at a meeting of a group called "I-Witness" -- which videotaped police behavior at the 2004 GOP Convention in New York and helped get charges dismissed against hundreds of protesters who were arrested. The police surrounded the St. Paul house where they were meeting even though they had no warrant, told them that anyone who exited the house would be arrested, and then -- even though they finally, after several hours, obtained a warrant only for the house next door -- basically broke into the house, pointed weapons at everyone inside, handcuffed them, searched the house, and then left. Here is a blog post from one of the members of I-Witness asking for help during the time when they were forced to stay inside the house (see the second post -- it reads like a note from a hostage crying out for help). This is truly repugnant, extreme police behavior designed to intimidate protesters, police critics and others, and it ought to infuriate anyone and everyone who cares about basic liberties.

PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY: Motion for Emergency Restraining Order Against Police

---

mgresist, August 31, 2008 http://twincities.indymedia.org

MEDIA RELEASE

For Immediate Release
Contact: Michelle Gross 612-793-1612
Geneva Finn 612-387-0965

PRESS CONFERENCE:
CUAPB, NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD AND OTHERS FILE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

DATE: Sunday, August 31, 2008

TIME: 3:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Hennepin County Government Center Outdoor Plaza
5th Street between 3rd and 4th Ave S, Minneapolis

In the aftermath of a series of raids on the homes of activists and journalists, the National Lawyers Guild and Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB) filed an emergency motion late yesterday asking weekend signing judge Mark Wernick to grant injunctive relief to prevent police from seizing video equipment and cellular phones used to document their conduct.

Examples of police interference with the right to document their conduct include the beating of CUAPB vice president Darryl Robinson while copwatching, seizure of equipment of three journalists with Glass Bead Collective, and the targeting of journalists during a raid on 951 Iglehart in St. Paul yesterday afternoon.

Another example is the action of Ramsey County Sheriff’s Deputies, who deliberately shut off CUAPB president Michelle Gross’ video camera while she was documenting Friday night’s raid from inside the convergence space. This action prevented her from documenting the incident in its entirety. Despite their actions, Ms. Gross was able to capture about 7 ½ minutes of video and audio of the beginning of the raid, including use by deputies of a battering ram to force open the door to a upstairs theater where families were watching a film. Copies of this footage will be provided to media representatives in attendance at the press conference.

.

Billl Fletcher: Riveted-The Barack Obama Acceptance Speech

Riveted-The Barack Obama Acceptance Speech
Bill Fletcher Jr, August 30, 2008 www.BlackCommentator.com

The evening of August 28th, 2008 I put aside my reservations and criticisms of Senator Obama. In fact, i refused to do an interview with a media outlet because i did not wish to critique Obama's speech. I wanted to sit there and take it in; i wanted to sit there with my wife and feel the currents of history.

During Senator Obama's speech, CNN posted the fact that in 1888, 120 years ago, Frederick Douglas received one vote in the Republican Party Convention when his name was put in for nomination for President of the United States. So, here we are in 2008 and a Black man has finally, and quite proudly, secured the nomination for President of the United States of America.

I am a critical supporter of Senator Obama, but this one particular evening i did not wish to focus on the criticism. I wanted to think about the significance of a Black person leading one of the two main parties into battle for the presidency. I wanted to think, more importantly, about the way in which this candidacy materializes the racial dialogue that this country consistently seeks to avoid.

So, for those of us of African descent, this was a highly emotional evening. An evening that most of us probably never thought that we would ever live to see. An evening during which our eyes saw Senator Obama, and our mind's eyes saw the history of our freedom struggle almost as if it were a film being shown in slow motion. At each moment that Senator Obama spoke, we were experiencing the sensation of watching two events on separate screens, all playing out in real time.

For those of us who this society has classified as white, this evening probably brings with it a different experience and a fundamental challenge. Those whites who ideologically unite with John McCain have every reason to oppose Barack Obama. But for those who find themselves among the groups about who Barack Obama spoke--the workers who have lost their jobs, the homeowners who have witnessed their homes go to foreclosure, the parents who have watched their children go off to illegal and immoral wars--they have a tough call. If they have concluded that this society is stepping on them and crushing their dreams, can they find it in themselves to vote for a Black man? Or, in the alternative, will they conclude that it is better to have their lives and dreams, and those of their children, obliterated than to take the chance of crossing the racial divide?

BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is the Executive Editor of BlackCommentator.com, a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and co-author of the book, Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice (University of California Press), which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA. Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher.

Unions, Racism and Obama

Unions stress over racism in the ranks

Alexander Bolton August 25, 2008 TheHill.com Alexander reports how some senior union leaders are concerned about some union members not voting for Obama for reasons of racism.

Who's Afraid of Race?
Cao Anh Quan August 23, 2008 Asian American Action Fund
Cao talks about how AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Richard Trumka is taking on the issue of racism head-on.


__________________________________________________
Unions stress over racism in the ranks

Alexander Bolton August 25, 2008 TheHill.com

DENVER — Racial prejudice is being cited among senior union leaders to explain Sen. Barack Obama’s difficulty in winning over support from white rank-and-file members. Obama (D-Ill.) is counting on organized labor to help win him key electoral votes in Ohio, Michigan and other battleground Karen Ackerman, political director for the AFL-CIO, acknowledged that Obama’s race is an important factor for some union members. “This race is very complicated because there is an African-American candidate for president,” said Ackerman. “We feel there is a racial component for some union members, but we’re confident we can overcome that.” Some in the labor movement say that Obama’s race has made it difficult for a significant number of union members to support him over Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee. Twenty percent of voters who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the primary now say they favor McCain, the expected Republican nominee, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. Asked to comment, the Obama campaign responded in an email that economic issues will determine the presidential race. "Barack Obama is going to give95 percent of Americans a tax cut, while John McCain's plan would provide no tax relief for 100 middle class families while giving nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to big oil companies," a campaign spokesman said in an email. "Those are the issues that are going to decide this campaign." Obama’s difficulties with white, working-class voters, who make up much of the ranks of organized labor, became apparent during the Democratic primary. Clinton beat Obama by large margins in states such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, which have high concentrations of lower-income white voters. “I think there’s more resistance than people want to admit,” said Edward Finkelstein, publisher of the Labor Tribune, a weekly publication distributed in about 80,000 union households in St. Louis and southern Illinois. “It’s ingrained that voting for a black is anathema to everything in their core.” Finkelstein recounted a conversation he had with a female union member who has voted Democrat for years and stunned him by declaring that she would vote for McCain. “I just can’t vote for that …” said the longtime Democrat, letting her words trail off. Finkelstein said union members offer him different reasons for their reluctance to vote for a black president — even those who profess to having black friends. “Everybody’s got a different reason,” said Finkelstein. “She’s afraid blacks are going to take over the country.” Finkelstein, a member of the newspaper guild, said that fear is absurd. Peggy Cochran, a former executive director of the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, a 3.2 million-member teachers’ union, also said racial bias has made some teachers slow to back Obama. Cochran, a Clinton delegate who is charged with whipping Clinton’s other delegates from Missouri, said that Obama has met resistance from her union members. “We hope to move them [into Obama’s camp],” she said. “There are various and assorted reasons why they are slow to move.” “I think there’s a bias, a racial bias,” she said. “For some, there’s a bias for [Obama’s] youth.” Obama, whose father was African, turned 47 at the beginning of August. Ackerman said that the AFL-CIO strategists believe they can win wavering union members over to Obama by emphasizing his support of working-class issues and painting McCain as out of touch with their concerns. “Economic issues are dominant, and that’s what we talk about,” she said. The union sent out a mail piece to 1 million union voters in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania this week stressing Obama’s work in both the Illinois and U.S. Senate to cut taxes for the middle class and extend healthcare benefits for wounded veterans. In an apparent effort to embarrass union members into voting for the Democrat, Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO’s secretary-treasurer, for months has warned that union members might vote against Obama because of his race. “There’s not a single good reason for any worker — especially any union member — to vote against Barack Obama,” he told members of the United Steelworkers union earlier this summer. “There’s only one really bad reason to vote against him: because he’s not white,” said Trumka, who made similar remarks on Sunday in Denver. Despite the leadership of senior AFL-CIO officials, a significant number of members in the middle and lower ranks of unions that endorsed Clinton have been slow to back Obama, said a senior union official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “There’s been some reluctance on the part of a couple of unions,” said the official, who cited unionized teachers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The machinists’ union endorsed Clinton and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) during the Democratic and Republican primaries.

Who's Afraid of Race?
Cao Anh Quan August 23, 2008 Asian American Action Fund

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka is taking the issue of race head on.

Beginning with a recent speech to the United Steelworkers and continuing in other union venues, Trumka directly addresses how working people can, and must, combat the racism of those who say they will not vote for a black man as president. In addressing union leaders, Trumka also speaks to all of America’s workers:

There’s not a single good reason for any worker — especially any union member — to vote against Barack Obama. There’s only one really bad reason to vote against him: because he’s not white.

A lot of good union people just can’t get past the idea that there’s something wrong with voting for a black man. Well, those of us who know better can’t afford to look the other way.

[There’s] no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.

Trumka urges union leaders, and all of us with a stake in the economic policies of the next president, to confront, head on, our inchoate and irrational fear of black Americans:

When you hear someone say America isn’t ready for a black president, you have to get in their face and say: “You may not be ready for Barack Obama, but I sure as hell am!”

His initial speech was greeted by surprise — surprise that someone of his rank took on the issue — and praised as the opening of a long-needed dialogue. And, yes, his words were not universally welcomed, a reaction he addresses in an open letter to union members here.

Yet, in experiencing firsthand how divisions of race and ethnicity have been used by employers to undermine worker solidarity on the job, many union members have a visceral understanding of how and why Obama opponents are subtly and not so subtly seeking to attack him. And having already fought these battles, union members are well prepared to do so again. As Trumka puts it:

We’ve seen how companies set worker against worker — how they throw whites a few extra crumbs off the table and how it’s black and Latino workers who get the dirtiest, most-dangerous jobs. But we’ve seen something else, too. We’ve seen that when we cross that color line and stand together, no one — and I mean no one — can keep us down. That’s why, imperfect as we are, the labor movement today is the most integrated institution in American life.

When he headed up the Mine Workers union, Trumka led two major strikes against the Pittston Coal Co. and the Bituminous Coal Operators Association. The actions resulted in significant advances in employee-employer cooperation and the enhancement of mine workers’ job security, pensions and benefits. Such victories of workers over hard-bitten and often brutal employers will be far fewer going forward unless we dramatically change the anti-worker culture that has been created in this country over the past eight years.

The bottom line, says Trumka, is nothing less than the future of our nation:

I don’t think we should be out there pointing fingers in peoples’ faces and calling them racist. Instead we need to educate them that if they care about holding onto their jobs, their health care, their pensions, and their homes.

If they care about creating good jobs with clean energy, child care, pay equity for women workers, there’s only going to be one candidate on the ballot this fall who’s on our side, only one candidate who’s going to stand up for our families, only one candidate who’s earned our votes … and his name is Barack Obama!

Do you think John McCain will do these things for America?

I don’t.

Even Pat Buchanan Was Awed by Obama's Convention Speech

Pat Buchanan commenting on Obama's Acceptance Speech at the DNC

Palin's Buchanan Problem

Palin's Buchanan Problem

Jonathan Singer, Sat Aug 30, 2008 MyDD

This year John McCain is reprising the Republican Party's quadrennial effort of trying to woo Jewish voters, a group that overwhelmingly supports the Democratic Party and which is currently backing Barack Obama by a 2-to-1 margin (though I'd suspect that estimation is a little low). But if the GOP were truly serious about this outreach, would they really have put someone who appears to be a disciple of Pat Buchanan -- Sarah Palin -- on their ticket for November.

The Nation's Chris Hayes scored a big scoop this morning, unearthing a report from 1999 of Palin's support of then-Independent Presidential candidate Buchanan. And per Ben Smith, Buchanan said today on MSNBC that Palin was "brigader [for his campaign] back in 1996." Take a look:

As Smith notes, Buchanan's statements and actions over the years have earned him his own page on the Anti-Defamation League's website, highlighting statements ranging from "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory" from 1990 and "If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where real power is at..." from just last year.

And yet from multiple sources, both contemporaneous and more recent from those intimately involved, Palin appears to have been a long-time supporter of Buchanan. This is the way McCain and the Republicans expect to court Jewish voters (as well as the roughly 90 to 95 percent of Americans who are to the left of Buchanan)?

Palin and Orientals: The Failure of Identity

Photo: San Francisco State University Third World Liberation Front Strike Picketline (AAPA Newspaper 1969)

Palin And Orientals: The Failure of Identity

John Delloro August 29, 2008 Originally posted on Asian American Action Fund

The Identity Politics of the late 20th century fails to meet the challenges of the 21st century. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin for VP highlights this truth. Pundits have begun to speculate about the direction of the women’s vote. I am immediately reminded of Asian American political action committee 80-20’s commitment to revisit their endorsement of Obama should McCain choose South Asian Bobby Jindal as VP. Identity politics has become the shallow practice of cosmetic change, than a politics of substance.

The hollowing of the term “Asian American” further illustrates the bankruptcy of the special interest game. Originally, “Asian American” was coined by the late professor Yuji Ichioka, during the emergence of the Black Power Movement in the 1960s and the spread of revolutions across the “Third World,” to supplant “Oriental” and to signify a specific political agenda. It sent the message that we would name ourselves and stand in alliance with a transformative program that builds power for all oppressed groups around the globe.

One of the successes of the Asian American Movement was the eventual entrance of “Asian American” into mainstream nomenclature. The Movement’s failure is its reduction to the exercise of self-love and pride in one’s culture and heritage and engaging in cosmetic politics.

This realization raises the question, “What is an Asian American Pacific Islander Agenda for the 21 Century?”

However, even this attempt to define the political agenda for Asian American Pacific Islanders is a self-limiting exercise. We fool ourselves in thinking that by choosing specific issues unique to us, we will build power.

I would challenge us as a community to revisit the original spirit of “Asian American” and lead a struggle that clearly benefits all disempowered people. For example, considering the large and growing number of Asian American Pacific Islanders (AAPI) in the healthcare industry, how come AAPIs have not taken a central public lead in fighting for universal healthcare? AAPIs have the largest wealth disparity within itself out of all racial groups. Yet, how come issues of labor were not a priority topic discussed in the Asian Pacific Caucus meeting on the first day at the recent Democratic National Convention (unlike the African American and Latina/o caucuses)?

Revisiting the original spirit of “Asian American” does mean we begin to challenge each other as a community. But in our history in the US dating back to the 1800s, this has always been the case. Remember it was Asian American Republican, English-only proponent and former State Senator S.I Hayakawa who tried to stop the burgeoning Asian American Movement of the 1960s and fought ethnic studies and the inclusion of our history and literally pulled the wires out of the speakers of a student rally at San Francisco State University.

Just like McCain choosing a woman for VP doesn’t change his conservative agenda that would continue the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few and does not restore our global leadership as a nation, electing an Asian American Pacific Islander without regard to his or her progressive politics accomplishes very little for us as a community.

Maybe, we need to bring back the term “Oriental” to define the failure of identify politics and restore meaning to “Asian American Pacific Islander.”

David Sirota & Christopher Hayes: "Palin Is A Smart Choice" and a Buchananite

At First Glance, Palin Is A Smart Choice
David Sirota August 29, 2008 Huffington Post

Sarah Palin: Buchananite
Christopher Hayes 08/29/2008 The Nation

----------------------

At First Glance, Palin Is A Smart Choice
David Sirota August 29, 2008 Huffington Post

I can't say I'm all that surprised by John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) as his runningmate. At first glance - and this will be negated if bad scandals come out - the choice is a very smart one, so smart, in fact, that, as an Obama supporter, it scares me.

Here's four reasons why this is a pretty smart choice - and for progressives, I think its a good idea that we look at these factors as we head into the final stretch of the campaign:

1. Putting a woman on the ticket is McCain's best hope to peel off some disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. I'm not saying it's going to work all that well, as I don't think most women simply vote for women, regardless of their positions on issues. But if McCain really does have a chance to win over Clinton supporters, picking Palin is as good a shot as any to try to do that.

2. Palin comes from an energy state, and specifically, an oil and gas state. With Democrats' pathetically (yet predictably) tepid behavior on the drilling issue, the GOP senses an opportunity to exploit it, and you can bet Palin will be making the drilling case, with first-person narratives and anecdotes.

3. It will be difficult - though not impossible - for the Obama campaign to make an experience argument against Palin. Even though Palin is probably the most inexperienced candidate for vice president in contemporary American history, the Republicans have spent months attacking Obama's supposed lack of experience. So when gnats like Rahm Emanuel issue silly, over-the-top press releases about Palin's career, they re-open an experience debate that John McCain probably wants to have with Obama.

4. As the Nation's Chris Hayes reports, Palin is a die-hard right-winger who could help McCain solidify the Republican base.

Again, all of these assets could be negated by things that come out about Palin's career and/or gaffes she makes on the campaign trail. I'm sure hoping that's what happens, and we'll need to really help examine and publicize the most odious parts of her record, as well as make the case that the experience of a 72-year-old candidate's VP choice is especially important. But we underestimate her - and the McCain operation - at our peril.

Finally, let's step back a moment, take off the partisan blinders, and celebrate. Palin's nomination all but guarantees that the United States will either have its first African American president or its first female vice-president. I desperately hope its the former, and not the latter - but the historic nature of either is something to be pretty happy about.

Sarah Palin: Buchananite

Christopher Hayes 08/29/2008 The Nation

Very quickly. Remember when Pat Buchanan ran a number of hard-right, fringe campaigns for president in the late 1980s, 1990s and 2000? Well, guess who was supporting him:

From an AP report in 1999:

"Pat Buchanan brought his conservative message of a smaller government and an America First foreign policy to Fairbanks and Wasilla on Friday as he continued a campaign swing through Alaska. Buchanan's strong message championing states rights resonated with the roughly 85 people gathered for an Interior Republican luncheon in Fairbanks. … Among those sporting Buchanan buttons were Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin and state Sen. Jerry Ward, R-Anchorage."

In fact, Buchanan himself told me he was thrilled by the choice, saying as soon as I mentioned it: "It's great for the base. I'm pretty sure she's a Buchananite!"

People seem to be missing the fact that this is a classic, Rovian appease-the-base choice.

UPDATE: James Antle at the American Spectator rightly points out that while Buchanan considered a 1988 run for the presidency he didn't pursue it. My bad.

Is Obama a Savior for Labor?

Is Obama a savior for labor?

Steve Early
From The Modesto (California) Bee, August 25, 2008. (Article distributed by the Progressive Media Project)

On this Labor Day, unions are thinking about Election Day. They're looking for a candidate who will enforce their rights, expand their legal protections and not buckle under pressure. Many are betting on Sen. Barack Obama. But even if he wins, their job will not be over.

Over the last few decades, companies have increasingly opposed unions, and many have gone to great - and illegal - lengths to block workers' right to organize. But the federal government has punished only a handful of companies - and then with just a slap on the wrist.

As a result, the percentage of the U.S. work force that's unionized today is only 7.5 percent in the private sector, and 12 percent overall. It's not that workers don't want to join unions. Some 60 million workers would join a union if they safely could, according to a December 2006 poll by Peter Hart.

So to make joining a union easier, labor is now calling for a different method of establishing new union bargaining units.

Legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act - which Sen. John McCain opposes and Obama supports - passed the House in 2007 but Republican senators blocked it from coming to a vote. It's likely to come back up for a vote next year. Under this bill, employers would be required to bargain with their employees as soon as a majority of them sign union authorization cards, eliminating the procedural delays and opportunities for interference that exist under the current law. Unions and employers unable to agree on a first contract would submit the dispute to binding arbitration.
The bill would also put some teeth into the law. Workers fired for union organizing would be eligible for "treble damages" - three times their lost pay - rather than just back pay. And other serious unfair labor practices would be punishable by $20,000 fines.

If Democrats gain additional Senate seats in November and Obama wins the White House, labor law reform will have its first real chance of passage in 30 years. That's why unions are pushing Democratic candidates at labor rallies all over the country this weekend.

But labor activists need to remember that elections aren't a panacea. In 1977-78, President Carter half-heartedly pushed for pro-worker amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, only to see them killed in a Senate filibuster. Fourteen years later, President Clinton appointed a presidential commission to study labor law reform, thereby wasting the only two years during his presidency when Democrats controlled the House and Senate and could have introduced new legislation.
Will Obama be any different? If he wins, he may try to avoid a knock-down, drag-out fight with corporate America during his first few months in office. Only grassroots pressure, now and then, can ensure that this bout occurs - and ends favorably for labor.

Then, next Labor Day, workers would have something to celebrate.

© 2008, Steve Early
Steve Early is a Boston-based labor journalist and lawyer who worked for many years as a union organizer. Readers may write to the author care of The Progressive Media

Sarah Palin, Web Invention: How a college sophomore put Alaska's governor on the map.

Sarah Palin, Web Invention

How a college sophomore put Alaska's governor on the map.

Timothy Noah August 29, 2008 Slate
Posted Friday, Aug. 29, 2008, at 1:52 PM ET Adam Brickley

According to both the Aug. 29 Anchorage Daily News and the June 13 Colorado Springs Gazette, Sarah Palin became John McCain's vice presidential candidate largely through the machinations of someone even younger and less experienced than herself. From the Anchorage Daily News:

The hype can probably be traced to the Web site of a 21-year-old college senior majoring in political science at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. Adam Brickley, a political buff who will graduate in May, started a "Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President" blog last year and has relentlessly promoted the idea ever since.

Brickley has never been to Alaska or met Palin. But while researching potential vice presidents, he stumbled on Palin and thought she would be a good No. 2 to just about all of the major Republican candidates in the race at the time. …The "Draft Palin" movement picked up momentum in more mainstream media, including a column last summer by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard. Others followed, including talk over the past couple weeks from conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. [Actually, Limbaugh's been chatting up Palin since February 2008; Brickley created his blog in February 2007, during his sophomore year, a mere two months after Palin assumed the governorship. Click here to see him talk up Palin this past May on YouTube.]

Brickley (aka "Elephantman") supported Rudy Giuliani in the primaries, according to his blog. According to his "Blogger" profile, Brickley's interests include politics, Zionism, and "fighting socialism." ZoomInfo adds that he's a leader in University of Colorado-Colorado Springs College Republicans and the founder of a political blog called ConservaGlobe; that he made dean's list; and that he receives a $7,500 Ronald Reagan College Leaders scholarship annually from the conservative Phillips Foundation. At the moment, he appears to be interning for a young conservative commentator on TownHall.com named Matt Lewis. "WE DID IT!!!!!!" crows Brickley's latest entry on the Draft Sarah Palin blog. "I'll have a lot more later, but needless to say I am positively elated."

McCain's Choice Inspires Evangelicals

Under God
David Waters
Washington Post blog

In a CBSNews.com interview earlier this month, Southern Baptist heavyweight Richard Land said John McCain's choice of a running mate would be crucial to conservative evangelicals who have their doubts about him.

"I think that the vice presidential choice that John McCain makes is probably the most important choice he's going to make in this entire campaign," Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said Aug. 8. "Because he has no room for error, no margin for doubt. If he picks a pro-choice running mate, it will confirm the unease and the mistrust that some evangelicals--and don't forget this, social conservative Catholics--feel about McCain."

So who did Land think McCain should choose?

"Probably Governor (Sarah) Palin of Alaska, because she's a person of strong faith," Land said. "She just had her fifth child, a Downs Syndrome child. And there's a wonderful quote that she gave about her baby, and the fact that she would never, ever consider having an abortion just because her child had Downs Syndrome. She's strongly pro-life."

"She's a virtual lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. She would ring so many bells. And I just think it would help with independents because she's a woman. She's a reform Governor. I think that, from what I hear, that would be the choice that would probably ring the most bells, along with Mike Huckabee, of course, who's a Southern Baptist."

Land got his wish Friday when McCain chose Palin as his running mate. If Palin's presence on the GOP ticket inspires white evangelicals and pro-life Catholics to put their full weight behind McCain's candidacy, it could prove disastrous for the Democrats.

In 2004, President Bush's re-election was sealed with the support he got from white evangelicals and Catholics. Bush won nearly 80 percent of the white evangelical vote and 52 percent of the Catholic vote -- including 55 percent in the key swing state of Ohio. A recent Time magazine poll showed that nearly 60 percent of Catholic voters consider themselves pro-life voters.

As megachurch pastor Rick Warren told the Wall Street Journal, the abortion issue is just as important to evangelicals. "A lot of people hear (about a broader evangelicla agenda) and they think, 'Oh, evangelicals are giving up on believing that life begins at conception. They're not giving up on that at all. Not at all."

Evangelical leaders were elated Friday.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council:

"Sarah Palin clearly addresses the issues so many conservatives are concerned about. It balances out the ticket," said Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. "She's also really a checkmate for the Democratic Party because folks who were looking to make history for Barack Obama can make history by voting for John McCain in seeing the first woman elected to the vice-presidency. It was a very strategic move by John McCain."

Pro-life advocates and website were buzzing Friday about McCain's choice.

"Sarah Palin is the whole package. There couldn't be a better vice presidential pick," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an influential pro-life PAC. "By choosing the boldly pro-life Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has taken his stand as the one true, authentic pro-life ticket."

Authentic and historic. The Democrats have the first presidential ticket to include an African American. The Republicans now have the first presidential ticket to include a woman.

The fact that this particular woman is "boldly pro-life" and "a person of strong faith" who led her high school's chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes should inspire conservative evangelicals and Catholics.

[Note: Among major parties, Palin is the second woman to run on a presidential ticket, but the first as a Republican. -ey]

The Post's "Capitol Briefing" blogger Ben Pershing points out another factor in Palin's appeal to evangelicals: Her support for the teaching of creationism in public schools, which created a bit of a stir when she ran for governor in 2006.

Proof of the Failure of Identity Politics: Governor Sarah Palin as Republican VP '08

Proof of the Failure of Identity Politics: Governor Sarah Palin as Republican VP '08

McCain has just announced Governor Sarah Palin as his Republican VP candidate.

Women's Right to Choose foe Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition stated, “They’re beyond ecstatic...This is a home run. She is a reformer governor who is solidly pro-life and a person of deep Christian faith. And she is really one of the bright shining new stars in the Republican firmament.”

Her selection reminds me of when Hawaiian plantation owners in the early 1900s would hire Asian overseers to supervise the Asian workers in the field.

To quote an African American woman porter I met during a union drive at the MGM hotel in 1995, "Remember it was an African brother that helped load up African people onto the slave ships heading to America."

The evolution of Identity Politics has been a longtime coming.

Bill Fletcher: "Obama--A Candidate for Change, not of a Candidate of a Social Movement"

Bill raises some good points, especially the importance of building an effective grassroots organization, but it still begs the question--"what do you call it when the number of young people voting increased 100% from the last election?" "Is it a social movement only when majority of people involved embrace the agenda of the Left?"

Born in the 1970s, I was too young to understand or experience the Civil Rights Movement, Third World Movement, and the Anti-War Movement during the Vietnam War. Social movement always seemed more of an abstraction for me. I just know that I have never seen anything in my adult lifetime move and involve young people like the Obama campaign. I have not seen anything give so many young people so much hope.

I just know that it is tiring seeing the same people at different progressive events and actions. In fact, I now see most of these events as reunions and a chance to catch up with people with similar politics.

Out of respect to all my mentors and veterans of the movements of the 60s and 70s, sometimes the criticisms of the Obama campaign don't seem rooted or speak to majority of new young people who simply want a better world. It resonates with the some of the same young people who attend all the same rallies and meetings but not the majority who sincerely want change and have never been politically involved.

Criticisms such as the ones issued by Bill and others are very thought-provoking and illuminating. I have learned from the recent writings on this campaign by the number of folks on the Left. However, their analysis can be applied if Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee. Majority of pieces on the Left have not addressed what is unique about Obama's campaign and why it resonates with young people in particular (I mean articles that do not take a paternalistic and condescending tone towards young people). I mean no disrespect for the veterans of the movements of the 60s and 70s but it sometimes sounds like the whining and the grumblings of the aging jaded.

I am unable to articulate it but something is sorely missing from the progressive discourse and discussion. I originally started this blog to look for this absent piece. Unfortunately, I am still looking. JD

A Candidate for Change, not of a Candidate of a Social Movement

Bill Fletcher Jr., August 28, 2008 www.BlackCommentator.com

Probably like many of you, I have found myself reflecting on Senator Obama's choice of Senator Joseph Biden as his Vice Presidential running mate. From the standpoint of campaign strategy, I must say that it was a brilliant decision. Obama, sensing his own vulnerability on matters of foreign policy - in mainstream circles - picked a running mate with nearly impeccable credentials.

Yet, and we must be clear about this, the choice of Senator Biden clarifies two critical points: one, that the actual politics of this team are “liberal/centrist” and not what one would describe as progressive. The politics are, in other words, well within the mainstream and certainly within the realm of foreign policy, and yet do not represent a fundamental break from the past. While I would argue that there is potential for a break, such an argument is purely speculative.

The second critical point is that we can now settle the question that Obama is not a candidate of a social movement. This does not mean that the Obama candidacy lacks for a mass base. Neither does it mean that the Obama candidacy has not tapped into significant mass sentiment for a rejection of the politics of both Bush and Clinton. What it does mean is that the recent shifts by Senator Obama, plus the choice of Joe Biden, while making a good degree of sense from the standpoint of mainstream campaign strategy, do not reflect a movement toward a new politics.

That said, I remain steadfast in support of the Obama candidacy. I do so because I am clear what the candidacy represents and what it does not. One does not have to support a candidate only because s/he represents a fundamental break with the past. Supporting candidates must be decided based upon an assessment of the moment, specifically, the overall balance of forces and the openings that can emerge through the victory of a specific candidate. In that regard, real politics are not the politics of anger and symbolism, but are the politics of coalition building with a long-term objective of changing the balance of power and, ultimately, introducing a new practice of politics.

In order to construct a real strategy, we have to be clear as to what stands before us. Throughout the months of the Obama campaign many activists - myself included - have cautioned against the deification of Barack Obama. Not only has the deification been a problem, it has led to the failure to recognize that receiving mass attention and gaining mass excitement does not equate with a social movement. Yes, people are in motion, but the motion is far from clear. They are looking for something different, but the objectives have not solidified. Rather, the mass base for the campaign rejects the corruption of the last eight years, but also rejects the velvet-covered steel bat of the Clinton era. This, however, does not translate, for example, into a movement against neo-liberal globalization. It is a sentiment for change. This is what distinguishes the candidacy - and its supporters - from a mass social movement.

We, on the Left side of the aisle, can build upon this sentiment if we reject symbolic politics of anger, and, if we are prepared to actually build progressive, grassroots electoral organizations that ally with other social movements. With regard to the symbolic politics of anger, frankly, we should have had enough of 3rd party candidacies that express our outrage with the two mainstream parties. Of course we are outraged, but our outrage, whether through third party candidacies or even many of our street demonstrations, is simply not enough. If we are really angry, then this must translate into a strategy based on the actual conditions we face in the USA.

To do any of this means building an electoral organization, something that too many of us shy away from, perhaps because we do not believe that it amounts to REALLY progressive political work. Lacking organization, we are condemned to howling in the dark, hoping to get someone's attention.

Certainly I would have preferred a more progressive VP nominee. And certainly I continue to have my misgivings, if not outright criticisms, regarding various stands that Senator Obama has taken. But I also realize that in the absence of an organized mass base, Senator Obama, like so many other liberals, will continue to vacillate and take stands that invariably cave into the political Right. Accountability can be demanded when behind the door to his Left are forces that can change the political balance on the ground, rather than just being mouths that roar.

BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is the Executive Editor of BlackCommentator.com, a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and co-author of the book, Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice (University of California Press), which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA. Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher.

Immigration Inspires Hope, Fear and Debate Among Convention Delegates

Immigration Inspires Hope, Fear and Debate Among Convention Delegates

Roberto Lovato August 28, 2008 www.BlackCommentator.com

Denver, Colorado - On the eve of the official nomination of Presidential candidate Barack Obama, the son of an immigrant, some of the leading voices shaping the Democratic Party’s immigration reform platform reveal a mix of reserved optimism and pragmatism.

While the Blue Dog Democrats - a group of 47 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives - support a position on immigration that bears more than a passing resemblance to the “enforcement only” approach of many Republicans, other Democrats support a combination of legalization and major reforms as alternative to raids and detentions that defined the Bush era of immigration.

In between these two positions are a significant number of Democrats and their supporters who want to focus primarily on legalization without including without any significant changes to the policies that enable raids and massive detention like this week’s raid in Mississippi.

Outside the Pepsi Convention Center are hundreds of immigrant rights groups, planning a major mobilization this Thursday – the day of Obama’s acceptance speech. They will protest what they believe is the unwillingness of Democrats and their Washington-based immigrant rights allies to seriously support what the press release of the March 25th Coalition calls “Human legalization and a moratorium on raids and deportations.”

As she anxiously awaits the end of Bush era, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, says she sees real change on the immigration horizon. “I’m confident that with an Obama presidency we will have comprehensive immigration reform in the first term-but it’s not going to be easy.” Lofgren, a former immigration attorney, and other panelists speaking at one of the few from among the hundreds of Convention events at which immigration was even discussed, were cautiously optimistic, but they also expressed a number of different interpretations of what the sorts of policies define “comprehensive immigration reform.”

For her part, Lofgren, who did not support the McCain-Kennedy bill, which combined policies legalizing the more than 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. with policies increasing the number of ways to persecute, prosecute, jail and deport future undocumented immigrants, believes that “an important part of the answer is not to have so many people who do not have legal status.” But at the same time, she believes that something must be done to about a “whole [detention] system that is wrong and causing lots of suffering.” Lofgren and a number of other Democrats in Congress cite the recent case of the Chinese immigrant Hui Lui Ng, who died while in immigration detention, just two weeks before the Convention.

Though he too decries the raids, detention and deportation issues criticized by Lofgren and others as the “least humane part of the broken immigration system”, Simon Rosenberg, President and Founder of the New Democrat Network (NDN), which sponsored the panel, is not optimistic that these issues will be included in whatever reform package gets introduced next. “Although desirable, I think it would be difficult to include fixing the detention and [immigration] judicial system in comprehensive immigration reform because it really wasn’t a critical part of what came about last time,” said Rosenberg. “It doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t get done. I’m just not sure if that’s the best vehicle for it. If the goal is to include these issues in comprehensive immigration reform, then we have lots of work to do to make them front and center in this debate.”

Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a Washington-based immigration reform group, admitted that he and others supporters of the McCain-Kennedy legislation failed because they “made concessions” on detention, enforcement and other issues in order to woo Republicans, who, Sharry said, “failed to bring any votes.”

“We knew the senate [McCain-Kenney Bill] was deeply flawed but we believed the legalization component for the 12 million immigrants was decent and the family reunification provisions could be fixed before the final passage.

Sharry also stated that he and others were “hopeful” they could change some of the more than700 pages of enforcement language in the McCain-Kennedy legislation. Sharry said he is “self-critical” about the expectations but also said he and others will continue to support an approach to immigration reform that calls for legalization that “doesn’t fear the rule of law”, from which other advocates, he said, shy away.

For his part, Congressman Raul M. Grijalva, whose district in John McCain’s home state of Arizona was referred to during hallway talk at the Convention as “ground zero” for the immigration reform debate, said he has been pushing for his colleagues to place a priority not just on legalization, but on detention, raids and issues as well. “We can’t wait any more when it comes to demilitarizing and improving enforcement and detention. It’s what I hear in my district all the time, all the time. And things have gotten better for us [Democrats] in the past 5 years,” said Grijalva. As he received word of the ICE raid in Mississippi, Grijelva said, “Our side has to get tougher. We can’t afford to be as muted this time.”

BlackCommentator.com Guest Commentator, Roberto Lovato, is a contributing Associate Editor with New America Media. He is also a frequent contributor to The Nation and his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Salon, Der Spiegel, Utne Magazine, La Opinion, and other national and international media outlets. Prior to becoming a writer, Roberto was the Executive Director of the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), then the country’s largest immigrant rights organization. Click here to contact him or via his Of América blog.

John Lewis's Democratic National Convention Speech (video and transcript) and MLK Tribute at DNC

John Lewis Speech at DNC

On this day 45 years ago, a son of America, a citizen of the world, a peaceful warrior, Martin Luther King Jr., stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and said, "I have a dream today, a dream deeply rooted in the American dream."

He recalled that, "when the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence," they issued a call for justice. And they founded our democracy on a mandate for freedom, equality and human dignity.

I was there that day when Dr. King delivered his historic speech before an audience of more than 250,000. I am the last remaining speaker from the March on Washington, and I was there when Dr. King urged this nation to lay down the burden of discrimination and segregation and move toward the creation of a more perfect union.

On that day, his words and his example inspired an entire generation of the young and old, the rich and poor — people of all faiths, races, cultures and backgrounds — to believe that we had the power, we had the ability, and we had the capacity to make that dream a reality.

Tonight, we have gathered here in this magnificent stadium in Denver because we still have a dream. As a participant in the civil rights movement, I can tell you the road to victory will not be easy. Some of us were beaten, arrested, taken to jail, and some of us were even killed trying to register to vote.

But with the nomination of Sen. Barack Obama tonight, the man who will lead the Democratic Party in its march toward the White House, we are making a major down payment on the fulfillment of that dream. We prove that a dream still burns in the hearts of every American, that this dream was too right, too necessary, too noble to ever die.

But this night is not an ending. It is not even a beginning. It is the continuation of a struggle that began centuries ago in Lexington and Concord, in Gettysburg and Appomattox, in Farmville, Virginia, and Topeka, Kansas, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and Selma, Alabama.

Democracy is not a state. It is an act. It is a series of actions we must take to build what Martin Luther King Jr. called the beloved community — a society based on simple justice that values the dignity and the worth of every human being.

We've come a long way, but we still have a distance to go. We've come a long way, but we must march again. On November 4, we must march in every state, in every city, in every village, in every hamlet; we must march to the ballot box. We must march like we have never marched before to elect the next president of the United States, Sen. Barack Obama.

For those of us who stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, or who in the years that followed may have lost hope, this moment is a testament to the power and vision of Martin Luther King Jr. It is a testament to the ability of a committed and determined people to make a difference in our society. It is a testament to the promise of America.

Tonight, we have put together a tribute to the man and his message. Let us take a moment to reflect on the legacy and the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. on this 45th anniversary of the historic march on Washington.

MLK Tribute at DNC

Obama DNC Speech Reactions

Huffington Post | August 28, 2008

Andrew Sullivan:

It was a deeply substantive speech, full of policy detail, full of people other than the candidate, centered overwhelmingly on domestic economic anxiety. It was a liberal speech, more unabashedly, unashamedly liberal than any Democratic acceptance speech since the great era of American liberalism. But it made the case for that liberalism - in the context of the decline of the American dream, and the rise of cynicism and the collapse of cultural unity. His ability to portray that liberalism as a patriotic, unifying, ennobling tradition makes him the most lethal and remarkable Democratic figure since John F Kennedy.

What he didn't do was give an airy, abstract, dreamy confection of rhetoric. The McCain campaign set Obama up as a celebrity airhead, a Paris Hilton of wealth and elitism. And he let them portray him that way, and let them over-reach, and let them punch him again and again ... and then he turned around and destroyed them. If the Rove Republicans thought they were playing with a patsy, they just got a reality check.

Chris Cillizza:

The optics of the event - the first national party convention to be held outdoors since John F. Kennedy accepted the Democratic nomination at the Los Angeles Coliseum in 1960 -- were breathtaking. Television screens filled with images of Obama supporters dancing in the aisles to the tunes of Stevie Wonder and Sheryl Crow; a blazing orange sun set on an arid Colorado night as Obama prepared to take the stage. The speech ended with fireworks and confetti, as Obama, his runningmate, Sen. Joe Biden, and their families stood together waving to the crowd of delegates and supporters, at the climax of the Democratic National Convention.

Senator Hillary Clinton:

"Barack Obama's speech tonight laid out his specific, bold solutions and optimistic vision for our nation and our children's future.

"His speech crystallized the clear choice between he and Senator McCain. Four more years of the same failed policies or a leader who can tackle the great challenges we face: revitalizing our economy and restoring our standing in the world. I am proud to support Senator Obama, our next President of the United States and Joe Biden, our next Vice President of the United States."

Meaning of Obama Nomination to African Americans

Our Stage, Our Speech, Our Time
Artur Davis August 28, 2008 TheRoot.com

For a generation of young black Americans, Obama has unveiled the deeper promises of American life.


Aug. 28, 2008--Yes, I did think this moment would happen. I believed that an aging, maturing democracy was capable of separating itself from race to evaluate the merits of an exemplary candidate. I believed that while the Clintons are formidable, my party would not resist the chance to capture lightning in a bottle. I believed from the first rumblings in Springfield, Ill. in February 2007, that the 2008 election is Barack Obama's time.

By now, most Americans are aware of the improbable historic accident of today, that Barack Obama's acceptance of the Democratic Party's nomination for president comes 45 years to the day after Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. The historic arc is stunning from any vantage point. But for black Americans, especially those in the post-civil rights generation, those who, like Obama, are beneficiaries of the struggle and inheritors of the dream, tonight is not merely a night to recognize how far we've come. It is a night very much about the arc forward from this moment.

I am not naïve enough to think that the election of Obama would mean the disappearance of racism or racial disparity. Higher African-American rates of chronic disease, of incarceration, of economic deprivation are attributable to generations of neglect—the choice of one candidate cannot be expected to cancel out these slow-burning fuses. In fact, it is quite possible that the work of public persuasion on matters of inequality could become even harder under an Obama presidency. It would be wrong, but very much like us as a nation, to convince ourselves that instruments like affirmative action would become outdated with a black man ensconced in the White House.

It is arguable that the tightening gap between Obama and McCain—a curious event given the insubstantial nature of John McCain's campaign and the country's hunger for new policy directions—is proof that race is still burdening Obama. And yes, there are pockets of Democratic-leaning America that resist this one Democrat a little too loudly.

So I am not a blind optimist. But it is significant that one of the things Obama will produce as he takes the stage to accept the Democratic Party's nomination is a novelty we have not seen as Americans: a generation of 18-29-year-old black men and women who feel that American politics, and the deeper promise of American life, is not closed to them. At black college commencements this year, there was a stirring passion when speakers uttered Obama, and "yes, you can." That passion will lead young black people to choose different paths over the tried and true route of focusing on the ways in which they are victims.

It matters that Obama the role model is not an athlete, because the athlete's talents are too hard to emulate. It matters that the gift of oratory is his signature. If being well-spoken becomes "cool," let us celebrate that progress. It makes all the difference that he honors his wife and venerates his children—a counterpoint to the promiscuity glamorized by too much of hip-hop culture.

Obama's upending of the Democratic establishment reveals a path to power that relies on grassroots organizing and the tools of 21st century technology. This is a good thing, a very good thing, for young black politicians who are trying to dismantle their own home-grown political machines. The best imitators of his strategy will be congressmen and congresswomen by the time Obama stands for a second term.

On issues like affirmative action, Obama offers the promise for direct and indirect action. I believe that he would be an eloquent opponent of race-blind admissions that would destroy diversity on our elite campuses. I hope that Obama, in his way, would do what Bill Clinton did in 1995: make a case that diversity is a necessary goal in a society that prizes the common good. I know, at a minimum, that the most vicious debates over quotas and entitlements arise in the most polarized and divided places. An Obama administration would make our ties to each other stronger, not weaker.

Historical trends suggest that in America, dramatic progress on one front begets dramatic progress in other sectors. It is not unreasonable to believe that a country energized by Obama would write a new social contract on health insurance and on the urgency of reducing poverty. A Democratic Party led by Obama would not be the same interest-group-dominated infrastructure that resists innovation in any number of areas.

But, however this campaign ends, whatever kind of country Obama could lead us to, it cannot leave the black community unchanged. It is certain that it will move more than a few black Americans to tears when Barack Obama takes the stage in Denver.

Artur Davis is a congressman from the 7th District of Alabama, which includes Birmingham and Selma

Obama Speech: Convention Address Makes Economic Populism Central Thrust of Election 2008

David Sirota August 28, 2008 Huffington Post

If his convention speech tonight is any indication, Barack Obama has (finally) signaled that progressive economic populism is going to be the central thrust of Democrats campaign in the stretch run of the 2008 election.

The speech is probably the most populist national speech Obama has given.

Here are the key snippets:

"We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work...

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

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road...

I will make certain those [health care] companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most...

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses..."

This is strong stuff - the kind of thing I was talking about when I wrote a newspaper column back in June entitled "Countering Race With Class." That column said the only way for Obama to counter the GOP's cultural populism is with a full-throated economic populist message.

For a while now, I have wondered why it has taken him this long to get back to this same economic language that he used in the Democratic primary. It probably is a mix of factors: The Wall Streeters whispering in his ear, Democrats' typical (self-defeating) move to the right in general elections, and the virulent free-market fundamentalism that the New York Times says he embraced at the University of Chicago.

But now, he has to win an election - and he knows that Democrats have won red-states like Ohio not by pretending to be Royalist Republicans, but by being economic populists and tapping into the uprising that I described in my new book (in fact, Obama himself invoked uprising language explicitly tonight, saying, "Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up.")

That his newfound courage is partially rooted in election opportunism doesn't negate its value. If he continues with this kind of posture, he not only will win the election, but will create a mandate that helps force an Obama administration to fulfill the economic promises it is making. And that more than anything would, indeed, mean real change.

Angry about FISA vote but "Obama Brought Me Home"

Obama brought me home

by Yalin Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:46:11 PM PDT Daily Kos

Many of you know me as someone who has been outspoken and driven to rage over the gutting of our constitutional rights vis a vis FISA. I have written numerous statements (ex: here, here, here) and even a hard hitting diary expressing this. I even went so far as to retrieve the $450 I donated to the Obama campaign and cut my ties on the Obama website and LinkedIn as much as possible.

Tonight, though, Obama brought me home.

I largely stepped away from the DKos community for a couple of months for several reasons. I needed time away from the political machinery to think about the future I wanted for my cousins who are 8 and 10 years old. The future I wanted for my husband and myself as two gay men making their way through life together. The future I wanted for my friends and family who aren't doing as well as we are, who worry about the job they may lose in the financial sector as it implodes, or the healthcare my grandmother desperately needed now to treat the same rectal cancer that took the life of my grandfather just 5 years ago.

I was so angry after FISA, not because I'm a single issue voter, but because I see the constitution as the gateway to all of the rights that I hold dear, whether it's women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, the rights of individuals to due process, the rights we all possess to not be tortured or arrested for disagreeing with our government.

That fundamental love of this country and the foundation upon which it is built is why I was so devastated by Obama's FISA vote several months ago.

But he reminded me tonight why I became involved in his campaign in the first place. Why I canvassed for him for the first time in my life. Why I donated for the first time in my life to a political campaign.

I'm not a man who cries easily, and yet I sat in my living room, looking at my sleeping husband who was too tired to stay awake after a hard day's work, with tears nearly streaming down my face.

Thoughts of my 79yr old grandmother who will see an african american president flew threw my mind.

Thoughts of my cousins, brother, uncles, aunts, friends, all of the people who have suffered during the past 8 years even while I and my husband have prospered.

I thought of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who did not live to see the fulfillment of his dream that much closer to fruition.

And then I thought of the feelings of contempt and disgust that filled my heart as the foundation of those dreams, our constitutional rights, was ripped asunder under President Bush.

In that moment, I realized that to see President McCain would be to see the entirety of what I hold dear torn to shreds. Not because a President McCain wouldn't love this country and its rights, but because a President McCain would be overcome with fear. Fear would lead him to the willing disembowelment of our constitutional rights as it led President Bush. Instead of holding fast to our constitutional rights as a source of strength, the republicans see them at this time as a source of weakness in our fight against terrorism.

That is the only way to explain how they are so willing to give up our rights here at home while yelling from the rooftops about the need to protect them abroad.

While Obama is not perfect in this regard, he has proven to me that he will not let fear drive his decision making. And that, my friends, is why I am home today.

I thank those of you who listened, consoled, and yes even those of you who berated me for "straying" from the flock. I think all of these differing viewpoints strengthen the community, and I'm glad to be part of it again.

Tonight, I'm home.

Obama's Acceptance Speech (video and transcript) & Video Bio

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
"The American Promise"
Democratic National Convention
August 28, 2008
Denver, Colorado


To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation;

With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.
.
Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest - a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia - I love you so much, and I'm so proud of all of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story - of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives - on health care and education and the economy - Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors - the man who wrote his economic plan - was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is that promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.
.
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America, now is not the time for small plans.

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

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

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

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

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

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You make a big election about small things.

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

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

Video Biography of Obama Shown at DNC:

Obama's Pragamatism Explained

The Empiricist Strikes Back

Obama's pragmatism explained.

Cass R. Sunstein, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, September 10, 2008

In the last few weeks, a number of people on the left have expressed disappointment with Barack Obama. Obama has said that the death penalty may be appropriate for child rape. He has applauded the Supreme Court's recognition of an individual right to own guns. He has voted for wiretapping reform that includes retroactive immunity for telephone companies. Having raised doubts about NAFTA during the primary, Obama recently said that he does not want to reopen negotiations unilaterally.

Perhaps because of Obama's strong and early opposition to the Iraq war, and because he has not been on the national scene long, some people on the left have projected their own views onto him. They think that his recent departures from left-wing orthodoxy are a form of flip-flopping or some kind of betrayal.

These objections miss the mark. Obama has not betrayed anyone. The real problem lies in the assumption, still widespread on both the left and the right, that Obama is a doctrinaire liberal whose positions can be deduced simply by asking what the left thinks.

Of course Obama is a progressive. From health care to assistance for low-income families to education to environmental protection, he emphasizes that Americans have duties to one another, and that government should be taking active steps to provide equal opportunity and to help those who need help. But, by nature, he is also an independent thinker, and he listens to all sides. One of his most distinctive features is that he is a minimalist, not in the sense that he always favors small steps (he doesn't), but because he prefers solutions that can be accepted by people with a wide variety of theoretical inclinations.

When he offers visionary approaches, he does so as a visionary minimalist--that is, as someone who attempts to accommodate, rather than to repudiate, the defining beliefs of most Americans. His reluctance to challenge people's deepest commitments might turn out to be what makes ambitious plans possible--notwithstanding the hopes of the far left and the cartoons of the far right.

Obama's views have never been simple to characterize. For a number of years, Obama has expressed his support for capital punishment. As a teacher of constitutional law, he does believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to have guns and said so well before the Supreme Court ruled to that effect. While he emphasizes the need for environmental and labor safeguards, Obama is no protectionist. He understands the power of markets, and, in principle, he is committed to free trade. Reiterating these long-held positions does not exactly count as flip-flopping or "tacking to the center."

No politician, and no human being, is fully consistent, and it is true that Obama's emphases have sometimes changed over time and that he has been willing to compromise. Having suggested that he would filibuster a measure granting the telecom companies retroactive immunity, Obama strongly favored a substitute bill that rejected such immunity. In the end, however, he was willing to vote for a bill with immunity. He did so on the grounds that it strengthens the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (thus rejecting the Bush administration's most ambitious claims of inherent presidential authority)--while also specifically requiring (for the first time) judicial warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas and increasing protection against abuse in various ways, such as by mandating reports by the inspectors general. To be sure, reasonable people rejected the compromise. But, in the end, even Morton Halperin, among the nation's strongest defenders of privacy, declared that the bill "provides important safeguards for civil liberties."

There is a much larger issue here, and it has to do with the distinctive nature of this particular candidate. Obama really means it when he deplores red-state-blue-state divisions and claims to draw ideas from Republicans as well as Democrats. Just as he resists ideological templates, Obama does not believe in "triangulation"; his skepticism about conventional ideological categories is principled, not strategic. It is revealing, and entirely characteristic, that Obama admires Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, in which Goodwin describes Lincoln's self-conscious decision to assemble a contentious, bipartisan cabinet. By nature, Obama does not follow old-line political orthodoxies. Above all, Obama's form of pragmatism is heavily empirical; he wants to know what will work.

Consider his domestic agenda. Favoring aggressive action to control greenhouse-gas emissions, he is open to considering nuclear power and has explicitly credited Republicans for promoting market-oriented approaches to environmental problems (and he has attracted the scorn of some on the left for doing so). A sharp critic of No Child Left Behind, he has spoken favorably about merit pay for teachers. Offering an ambitious health care plan, he would not require adults to purchase health insurance. His goal is to make health care available, not to force people to buy it--a judgment that reflects Obama's commitment to freedom of choice, his pragmatic nature (an enforcement question: Would those without health care be fined or jailed?), and his desire to produce a plan that might actually obtain a consensus. And, while he would raise taxes on the very richest Americans, he is hardly anti-business; indeed, he proposes to eliminate the capital gains tax for start-ups and small companies.

Many people on the left want Obama to be the anti-Bush. But what, exactly, does this mean? To some, it means a kind of left-wing Bushism--the mirror image of the Bush administration, with its rigidity, its insistence on enduring political divisions, and its ruthlessly Manichean approach to political life. If so, the left is likely to be disappointed. Obama wants politicians, including Democrats, to accept "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point." Obama does not demonize his opponents. For instance, he strongly favors the right to abortion, but he speaks respectfully and sympathetically of those who are pro-life. He does not like to attack people's motives. Speaking on what may be the most divisive issue of our time, he has often said that "there are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

But in his empiricism, his curiosity, his insistence on nuance, and his lack of dogmatism, Obama is indeed a sort of anti-Bush--and perhaps the best kind. If the Bush administration has often operated on the basis of the president's "instinct," we should expect to see, from Obama, a rigorously evidence-based government. If the Bush administration has rejected internal dissent and viewed disagreement as disloyalty, Obama is likely to seek advisers who will reflect diverse views and challenge his own inclinations. In the Senate, one of Obama's proudest accomplishments has been the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, for which he worked closely with archconservative Tom Coburn to create an Internet database of federal spending.

The larger point is that Obama's departures from left-wing orthodoxy should not be understood as a betrayal of his own beliefs, or as a kind of "tacking to the center." Instead, they reflect something altogether different: an independence of mind, and a rejection of doctrinal filters, that we do not often see in candidates for public office.

Cass R. Sunstein is co-author of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. He has been an occasional, informal adviser to Barack Obama.

Video- will.i.am. & John Legend Live at DNC: "Yes We Can!"

Video- will.i.am. & John Legend Live at DNC: "Yes We Can!"

Stop Dreaming and Do the Right Thing

Joe Lauria
Huffington Post

If I hear the word "dream" again during this Democratic Convention, I think I'll fling something at the screen. The time for dreaming is over. Harry Truman tried to bring us national health insurance and we're still dreaming about it. Europe has had public health care, free universities and a greener economy for decades now. But in America we still dream of such things.

Joe Biden couldn't stay away from the word either. It is particularly irritating with "American" attached before it. Biden wants it restored. He says Bush killed it. Biden wants what we dream of but never seem to get for everyone.

"Today that American dream feels as if it's slowly slipping away. I don't need to tell you that," Biden said, but he did anyway.

All this talk about dreams, realized elsewhere in the world, reminds me of a medieval peasant putting up with his present misery because the priest told him he'd get it all in the next world.

"He keeps talking about the same issues, family values," a Delaware delegate told CNN's Suzanne Malveaux in praise of Biden, whom the delegate has known all these years. That's the problem. He keeps talking about it. If these things were accomplished we wouldn't have to talk about them any more. We would just enjoy them like people in other countries do.

In his speech, Biden promised that Obama would improve health care and education. But Biden then wittingly or unwittingly gave away the reason why we haven't been able to achieve these things yet when he signed off with: "May God bless America and protect our troops."

Until we give up on glorifying militarism we won't solve any of these pressing social issues. We don't have the money for both.

But the Democrats won't face this. They won't level with the American people.

Instead Biden regurgitated the propaganda passing for news when he said Russia was challenging the "free and democratic country of Georgia," vowing that Obama and he would "hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we'll help the people of Georgia rebuild."

In fact it has been the reverse: neo-conservative foreign policy has challenged Russia right up to its borders with American client states, such as Georgia. The US runs pipelines through them. Central Asia is the battleground of the future as oil supplies dwindle and America keeps flexing its muscles.

The Cold War never ended for the neocons. Bush's father made a deal with Gorbachev that the US would not encroach on Russia, but his son's crowd reneged on that. They believe winning the Cold War was an opportunity to expand American power into former Soviet territory, a very dangerous policy that has led to the current crisis. Biden's words indicate an Obama administration would continue this neocon game plan laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski 13 years ago in The Grand Chessboard. Brzezinski of course is Obama's chief foreign policy adviser.

One of Biden's applause lines was praising Obama, "who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan." Is sending even more troops to Central Asia really something to celebrate? Is it wise to praise the military when we have no real enemy that can challenge us? When we should be taking care of terrorism with international police work, not war?

Social progress is put off as long as America maintains its military empire. Until troops around the world are brought home, foreign bases are closed and the defense budget is cut in half, we will keep hearing about dreams at political conventions.

Europe achieved social advancement only because it lost its empires, was exhausted by wars and then began spending the people's money solving problems at home. America is not yet exhausted by wars, but it will be. The loss of empire is not voluntary and it won't be for us either. In the meantime our military presence abroad will stir up more resentment and terrorism.

I've long heard the American-centric argument that it was the Marshall Plan and U.S. bases in Europe that permitted social democracy there. The Marshall Plan was set up to benefit American companies in Europe and provide a market for US goods more than out of the altruistic motives many Americans have been led to believe.

Since the first three CIA National Intelligence Estimates ever issued in the late 1940s said the Soviet Union was no threat to Europe or the United States, there was no need to turn Europe into an armed American camp either--except that it was good for the armaments business.

Until we stop worshiping the military and believing the myths of its benign motives abroad our social problems will grow worse. In the meantime, the Democrats have dreams to run on.

Obama Team Begins Planning Legislative Agenda

Obama's team has already begun to plan their legislative agenda should Obama be elected president. What are grassroot progressives doing now to prepare for an Obama presidency and continuing building power from the bottom-up? The significance of an Obama presidency is the opportunity it presents for everyday people to begin to build real power beyond electing candidates.

Obama Team Works With Hill Democrats

Jonathan Weisman
Thursday, August 28, 2008; A01 Washington Post

Eager to avoid the missteps that plagued the first months of the Clinton administration, aides to Barack Obama have begun working in concert with top Democrats in Congress to craft a preliminary legislative agenda that would guide the senator from Illinois should he capture the White House in November.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has assigned her committee chairmen to begin with low-hanging fruit to build confidence and provide a new, young president quick legislative victories, then pivot to more challenging issues, from ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq to broadening health-care coverage. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said his policy staffs and Obama's have been working together for more than a month.

"This is my last chance," Rangel, 78, said of his opportunity to make a lasting legislative imprint. "This is the big one."

Pelosi's priorities begin, in order, with ending the war in Iraq, expanding access to health care, rebuilding infrastructure and weaning the nation off oil. But with economic problems looming ever larger, she and other Democrats say providing relief could be their first target: "I'll just use a four-letter word," Pelosi said. "Jobs."

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill hope to dramatically expand their ranks in the fall election and are even allowing themselves to contemplate securing a potentially filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Their enthusiasm is tempered by some Democrats' caution against overreaching for fear that an agenda geared too much to the party's most liberal elements could make the 2010 elections a repeat of 1994, when Democrats were exiled from power on Capitol Hill for 12 years.

With Republican retirements and a political playing field still tilting away from the GOP, most independent political analysts predict the Democrats will expand their majority in the House by at least 10 seats and maybe twice that number. But a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate -- which would require a nine-seat Democratic gain -- is a long shot.

"The odds are pretty high we won't get to 60, but it's not out of the question," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Recent polling has shown that the seat of Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) is in more jeopardy than it was just weeks ago. The indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has imperiled the longest-held Republican Senate seat in history. New numbers indicate that Republican-held seats in states that have been little more than an afterthought for Democrats in most election years -- including those of Sen. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, Sen. Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Sen. Roger Wicker in Mississippi and even Sen. James M. Inhofe in Oklahoma -- are becoming more competitive.

"The chatter about whether Democrats can pick up enough seats in November to hit the magic number of 60 and a filibuster-proof majority is getting louder," the nonpartisan Cook Political Report said last week.

Even if the Democrats fall short, moderate Republicans such as Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), and possible survivors, such as Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Gordon Smith (Ore.), could still provide the votes next year to break Republican filibusters. "It's not as good as 60, but it's close enough to get a lot done," Schumer said.

If Obama prevails, Democrats hope to revive legislation that was vetoed by President Bush or filibustered in the Senate. Among the bills that would be pushed within days of the opening of the next Congress would be a significant expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, paid for with an increase in the federal tobacco tax, and an extension of tax credits for renewable energy sources, financed largely by the repeal of recent tax breaks for oil companies.

"You start small and build confidence," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.).

Congress would also likely take up Obama's economic stimulus package quickly, which includes one-time tax rebates to help offset rising energy costs, and money for state and local governments to fund infrastructure projects and cope with rising health-care spending. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he recently spoke to Obama and that the agenda would include Iraq, health care and global warming. But, Durbin added, "his mind is really fixed on the economy. That might eclipse everything."

After those first bills, Democrats are split. Some Democratic leaders are already fretting about the lessons of 1993, when Bill Clinton took office with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and immediately moved to try to enact deficit reduction through tax increases, universal health care, an overhaul of the nation's welfare laws and new gun controls. Democrats lost control of Congress the next year in a wave of voter discontent and anger.

"Normally, when all your dreams are realized in an election, that's when it becomes a nightmare," Moran said. "2008 could be a dream election. 2010 could be a disaster."

Those Democrats worry that the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq alone could leave Democrats politically vulnerable in 2010, especially if violence flares. Committee chairmen have been advised to steer clear of troop withdrawal legislation until the spring, to give Obama time to mobilize a diplomatic offensive and get the Iraqi government and its neighbors more involved in maintaining regional stability.

In tandem with that challenge, the prospect of defeat on an issue as big as universal health insurance is already kindling memories of 1994. Some Democrats argue that Obama should start with universal health insurance for children and a federally backed catastrophic health insurance fund that would lower the costs of traditional insurance policies and take the pressure off businesses tempted to drop employee coverage.

Schumer said they should stick to the "vowels": energy, immigration, education and Iraq. But other Democrats say they need to think big and move fast.

"My experience is the president's best chance for a big idea is his first year. After that, you're already into another election cycle," Durbin said.

Rangel said: "All I know is, I want to see America educated, healthy and with enough money in their pockets to go out and get a good job and raise a family. And we're going to have a ball doing that."

One challenge that seems destined for the back burner is balancing a federal budget that has been swimming in red ink for eight years. Obama and leaders in the House and Senate insist they will stick to the party's reinstituted rules to pay for new spending or tax cuts with offsetting tax hikes or spending cuts. But that would only stabilize the deficit, approaching $500 billion, not reduce it.

"People have to understand how far the road back is to sea level," Pelosi said.

How all this unfolds will depend at first on the scope of a Democratic victory in November, leaders say. A strong win for Obama and congressional Democrats would force Republicans into the new president's camp and allow him to be more aggressive. A narrow win would force him to make good on his promises to meet Republicans halfway and find truly bipartisan compromise.

"As whip, I am just praying for a number as close to 60 as possible," Durbin said. "I don't know if we can reach it, but it's possible."

Staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.

Acceptance Speech Preview: Obama To Unveil Massive Voter Registration Drive

Acceptance Speech Preview: Obama To Unveil Massive Voter Registration Drive

Aswini Anburajan August 27, 2008 Feet in Two Worlds

Offering a glimpse of Sen. Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field tomorrow in Denver, a top campaign official said Obama will announce an unprecedented effort to enroll new voters before the November election. Obama’s Latino Outreach Director, Temo Figueroa told Feet in 2 Worlds, “You’re going to be hearing tomorrow from Barack Obama the kick-off of the largest voter registration drive ever in a presidential campaign.”

Figueroa’s remarks followed a presentation to the Hispanic Caucus this morning in Denver where he characterized the resources the campaign will put into the program as, “mind boggling.”

“Tomorrow (in his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination) you are going to hear Sen. Barack Obama talk about voter registration and he’s going to mention some numbers that we’re going to be spending on voter registration through the month of September that will be mind boggling. That’s going to be a focus of his speech at Invesco,” Figueroa promised.

Figueroa also told FI2W that unlike past elections, the campaign will not “contract out” the job of registering voters.

“But we’re doing it in-house. We’re doing it with our own volunteers, with our own staff,” he said.

“We’re already making a dent,” he said. “The numbers are already showing what we’re doing in Virginia, what we’re doing in New Mexico, what we’re doing in Colorado and Nevada. It’s amazing.”

The Obama campaign’s emphasis on voter registration started even before Obama had won the primaries. On May 10th the campaign launched Vote for Change, a 50-state voter registration drive which was intended to lay the groundwork for a general election campaign.

“I believe the only way Barack Obama can win is we have to play in states we normally, as Democrats, never played in, and we have to bring new people in,” Figueroa said.

While Obama’s voter registration drive will target Americans all of backgrounds, the Obama campaign has previously pledged 20 million dollars on Latino outreach efforts including voter registration and paid media. The campaign has 400 Latino organizers and is training hundreds of volunteers to increase turnout among Latinos in key battleground states. In New Mexico alone, where an estimated 40,000 registered Latino voters didn’t got to the polls in 2004, Figueroa said the campaign has 29 field offices staffed by Latinos.

Stressing the point to the delegates at the Hispanic Caucus, Figueroa gave a Power Point presentation - complete with slides, maps and electoral math - that showed that Latinos can even make a difference in battleground states like Virginia if turnout is driven up just among currently registered voters. But he stressed repeatedly that even in Virginia there is a large group of unregistered Latinos that the campaign hopes to tap.

Acknowledging that many Latinos are still not familiar with Obama, Figueroa told the crowd that starting next week the campaign will go on air with Spanish-language ads in New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and Colorado to present Obama’s message and biography to Latino voters.

Progressives for Obama's Denver Diary: DNC Day 5

A DNC Victory: For the Iraq Vets And 'Rage Youth'
Carl Davidson August 28, 2008 Progressives for Obama

I start the day early loading leaflets and joining Leslie Cagan, Judith LeBlanc and five other United for Peace and Justice volunteers headed to the Denver Coliseum on the North Side of town before 9:00AM.

We're going to the 'Rage Against the Machine' benefit for Iraq Veterans Against the War, organized by the Tent State kids and their allies, and we're expecting about 10,000 young people. It's a beautiful day-sunny, not too hot, blue skies with a few clouds, and the first range of the Rockies clear on the horizon. The concert is to be followed by a mass march to the Pepsi Center, led by the vets, to press their antiwar demands on the Democrats. Since there's no permit, and the Pepsi Center is restricted with 'protest pens' no one intends to enter, there's a sense of tension in the air.

Our UFPJ leaflet has a simple message: Join us Sept. 20 to knock on a million doors for peace. Get signatures on petitions, get to know your neighbors, get outside your 'comfort zones' into new neighborhoods and help us double the size of our movement with new names, addresses and emails.


Since the lines are long and organized, we quickly get out thousands of flyers. A brief rap, and most people say, 'Oh, this is cool. I can do this.' Some don't want to be bothered, interested only in the bands, and a few kids are rather spaced out early since no intoxicants other than the music are permitted on the grounds.

I get a 'workfare' pass into the concert with terrific seats. This means I'm on the security team for IVAW inside the concert and along the line of march. We get our special chartreuse armbands and blue wristbands, a quick training in nonviolent methods in dealing with problems. Then we're into the cavernous space, with a local Denver band, Flobots, which is decidedly left and high-energy hip-hop. IVAW speakers appear between numbers and keep the politics of the day clear and focused.

They have three demands: 'Out Now,' full benefits for returning vets, and reparations for Iraq. They have no great love for the Democrats who keep voting to fund the war, they're angry with Obama for not taking a harder line, but they see McCain as more dangerous, both to the world and to vets. They want militancy, but they insist on nonviolence for the day, and demand a resolute respect for their leadership and ground rules.

When "Rage" comes on the stage and gets itself and the crowd wound up, one thing becomes crystal clear. If you're interested in radical and democratic social change from below, here is one powerful engine for it. You dismiss, ignore or demoralize the high energy and critical force of these young people at your peril. This is a multiclass, multinational force of youth, and on this day, they are accepting the lead of the working class, even if it's taking the form of the politics, militancy, organization and discipline of the Iraq vets.

The beautiful thing is how well it all worked.

The vets marched in formation with cadence at the front, dozens of them in uniform, some in full dress with a chest full of medals. They wanted us to keep a short space for media behind them, then everyone else another few yards back behind a large banner supporting GI resistance to the war. No breakaways and no nonsense. If arrest situations came up, we had our instructions on how to keep those who didn't want to risk arrest still involved, but out of the immediate reach of the police.

I'd guess that at least two-thirds of the 10,000 Rage fans joined us, then we picked up other youth, a few workers, and even Convention delegates along the way. The banners and signs and costume were colorful, the chants imaginative and militant, and the energy infected everyone, even the crowds of bystanders, many of whom broke into applause.

I had one of the harder jobs, keeping people from breaking the front ranks and jumping the banner. But with the vets leadership, we kept the spirit both upbeat and disciplined. Denver's overkill police presence was everywhere, but everything remained civil. Some even felt some sympathy for them, sweltering on a hot sunny day in their new Black Ninja Turtle outfits, which must have been unbearable.

It was a long march, nearly five miles. One problem was keeping everyone hydrated, but cases of water kept showing up at critical points. The best energy was downtown Denver, with the cheering and applause from Convention delegates. But we all knew there were trouble spots ahead.

Denver's security rules meant you couldn't get closer to the Pepsi center than several hundred yards, and then you were to be put in fenced 'protest pens.'

The vets would have none of it. They hadn't risked their lives, supposedly defending the Constitution, to be treated this way. They were going to march until they were stopped and then we'd seen what would happen. As we got closer to the skirmish line, they stopped several times, and the vets took turns giving heart-rending stories to the press, which, by this time, was everywhere, and driving us nuts trying to keep them to respect our lines and discipline.

At the final stopping point, a decorated Marine told the cops they would get no violence from us, and we expected none from them. The three demands were read to Obama's campaign and the Democratic Party. The vets demanded a response, and were determined to wait for one.

So now we had the problem of keeping thousands of people, encircled by police and barricades, in an upbeat, but patient and calm state of mind.

One young Black kid from Denver of our security team rose to the occasion. He starts doing his raps, and those of others as well. The crowd loves it, especially when he gets on their case for not being too good at 'call and response.' So he starts an on-the-spot workshop on how we can all become better rappers.

Next two young African American women start softly singing an old church-based civil rights song 'Those Who Love Freedom…" The lyrics are simple and lyrical, and soon hundreds are singing it, over and over. For me, powerful memories come up from my days on Freedom Marches in Mississippi, when we sang this same song in the face of the Klan and cops. When I start to sing along, my eyes fill with tears from long-buried emotions. To hell with it, I decide, let the tears flow, and I sing along.

Finally, we get the word. The other side blinked. The Obama campaign's top veterans affairs people ask the Vets to send two reps into the Pepsi center to discuss their demands. Moreover, they want an ongoing series of discussions to make sure all veterans concerns are heard and dealt with. That's enough for IVAW to call a victory, even if a partial one, and work out a way to bring the day to a close. It's decided that we part the crowd down the middle, opening a path. The vets do an about face, march in formation though the crowd, and as they pass, to many cheers, we fall in behind, get back to the downtown area, and go our various ways.

I find a way to get to my car, then back to 'tent city' to secure our display in preparations for leaving. I meet up with my team in a Taco joint, where they, along with some of the new media people working with Laura Flanders, are watching Joe Biden's speech. I'll have to read it tomorrow, because given everything we've been through, right now it seems rather trivia

Deconstructing the Ethnic Vote

August 27th, 2008 KGNU Staff Posted in Audio, Media | ShareThis

New York Community Media Alliance and Feet in Two Worlds hosted a panel discussion on the impact of ethnic voters, which coincided with the Democratic National Convention.

This panel discussion was hosted by John Rudolph, Executive Producer of Feet in Two Worlds. The panel included Jehangir Khattack, a U.S.-Pakistani reporter with the Defense Journal Dawn; Raymond Dean Jones, Political Columnist, Denver Urban Spectrum; Lotus Chau, Chief Reporter, Sing Tao Daily; and Pilar Marrero, Senior Political Writer and Columnist, La Opinion.

Deconstructing the Ethnic Vote Part 1 [16:15m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup

Deconstructing the Ethnic Vote Part 2 [14:21m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup

African American Leaders Comment on Meaning of Obama's Nomination

Voices speak about Obama's nomination
Lisa Lerer August 28, 2008 Politico

In 1961, Robert F. Kennedy predicted that the country could elect a black president in the next 40 years. That’s how fast race relations were changing in America, said the attorney general at the time.

Now, 47 years later, Barack Obama stands at the precipice of fulfilling Kennedy’s eerily prescient forecast. On Thursday, he’ll become the first minority to win the presidential nomination, achieving what many thought was impossible given our national obsession with race.

To call this a historic moment feels like understatement. Obama’s nomination represents a sea change, a psychological shift in a country that still struggles with the painful and complicated legacy of slavery.

Fifty-five years ago, whites and blacks learned in separate schools, ate at separate lunch counters and sat in different parts of the bus. Forty-one years ago, Massachusetts elected the first black man to the Senate. Just 18 years ago, Virginia welcomed the first black governor.

And on Thursday, a black man will step up to the podium and accept the nomination of a party that only 44 years ago debated whether to seat black delegates from Mississippi at the 1964 convention.

The timing is particularly acute: Obama’s acceptance speech falls on the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” address.

Thursday’s singular, symbolic moment both thrills and worries African-American leaders, many of whom never expected to see a black president in their lifetime. Obama’s success exposes the slow shift away from the political leadership of civil rights heroes to those who have come of age in a not yet post-racial, but decidedly mixed-racial, world.

Obama is the crown prince of a new generation of elected black leaders who never drank from a segregated water fountain. They attended the best universities, excelled professionally and came of age with awareness of the world’s diversity. These leaders are part of the civil rights advocacy community but are not owned by it. In public office, they strive to use their identity to build diverse coalitions that stretch across both racial and ideological lines.

Politico talked to dozens of black leaders from across the country, asking them to assess the impact of the Obama nomination and what it says about the state of race in America today.

The panel had as many opinions as Politico had questions. But almost everyone could agree on at least one word, an expression they all believed King would have used to describe Obama’s nomination: “Hallelujah.”

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)

“A few days ago, I was speaking to a group, and one young lady asked me, ‘What do you think Dr. King would say about Barack Obama’s nomination?’ I said, ‘Young lady, I don’t know, but I have a feeling he would look down and say, ‘Hallelujah.’”

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.)

“I think my most emotional moment came the night of South Dakota and Montana. ... I was thinking about all those times I was telling people, ‘Be what you want to be when you grow up’ and, hell, I didn’t believe it. ... It’s a big moment and, with these sorts of things, you usually don’t expect to see the day.”

The Rev. Floyd Flake, pastor of Greater Allen AME Cathedral of New York, who served in Congress from 1986 to 1997

“I don’t think it will draw out latent racism because of the characteristics that define Barack Obama. He is not a traditional black out of the civil rights movement. He is a combo of African-American and white. I think America is at a place today where it is ready to move knowing that, with its population balance shifting, it is no longer about dominance by any particular one race.”

Debra Lee, CEO of BET Holdings Inc.

“I think [after Iowa], for the first time, a lot of black people said, ‘Wow this could happen. ... The black community for the first time has a choice.’”

Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker

“The reality is, Obama’s not alone. There’s a wave of African-American leaders who just excite. I see in my own city people in their 20s who are just incredible. Just like the foray of blacks into baseball. Yeah, there was a Jackie Robinson, but after him there were dozens of players who changed the game. There are glass ceilings that will be shattered in statehouses and party leadership positions. Obama’s been a game changer.”

Richmond, Va., Mayor Douglas Wilder, governor of Virginia from 1990 to 1994

“I thought [in 1984 when Jesse Jackson ran for president] that in order for a [African-American] person to become the president of the United States that person would first have to become vice president. I don’t think that now. ...

“What this does for so many people of so many people of different colors and strides and stripe and genders is that if Barack Obama can do it, anybody in this country can do it.”

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference

“I think that, while it doesn’t mean we’ve gotten to heaven, ... we are on our way as the old song goes. We are on the highway to a racial justice or at least towards eliminating race as a factor for putting people in political office in high places. ...

“It’s been a spiritual experience for me personally, and I think it’s a spiritual movement that has taken the whole country.”

Robert Johnson, founder of BET and first African-American billionaire

“Selecting Sen. Obama as president of the United States would exceed in its import and its impact what Abraham Lincoln did in 1863 when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. African-Americans to a man, woman and child feel that way.”

Beverly Tatum, president of Spelman College, a historically black college for women founded in 1881

“I was born in 1954, and in 1954 we would not be having this conversation. So the fact that we have come to a place in our society where there are enough people willing to endorse, through their votes, financial support and political capital, a black male candidate is very significant in terms of how society has evolved.”

Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP

“I think this would be something that [civil rights leaders such as King] would have hoped for, but I don’t believe they would have imagined it happening now, so quickly, so soon.”

Van Jones, civil rights and environmental advocate

“I don’t think anyone looks at Barack Obama and thinks that this guy is speaking for black Americans. There’s a danger that white people will say that the fact that Barack Obama is president means any black person can be president, without any further reform of the system. That’s a big fear: that his success will be used to reduced sympathies for those who did not succeed.”

Harvey Gantt, first black mayor of Charlotte, N.C., from 1983 to 1987

“As we mature in the political process, we are developing a whole cadre of a new type of politician who wants to appeal more broadly to an entire society. They’ve got to appeal across the board. That’s just a sign to me of the maturing of the African-American politician in this country.”

J.C. Watts, former Oklahoma Republican congressman from 1995 to 2003

“In spite of the fact that I might disagree ideological or politically, I think it’s helpful for my daughter. My 8-year-old daughter asked me during my second term, when we were getting sworn in, she asked me, ‘Daddy, do you have women congressmen?’ So, I think there is a psychological benefit. It is good to see an African-American nominee for major political party. Now it’s not going to shock us as much. No more than to see the female reporter or black quarterback or black Republican or the Hispanic head coach.”

Marc Morial, CEO of the National Urban League and mayor of New Orleans from 1994 to 2002

“Barack Obama is like the first African-Americans who ran for mayors of major American cities. He’s an extraordinary candidate. ...

“His candidacy is a reflection of — it’s a fruit of the civil rights movement. But the civil rights movement doesn’t ‘own’ him. We may ‘co-own’ him; we are maybe shareholders in his success.”

Roger Wilkins, civil rights activist and assistant attorney general for President Lyndon B. Johnson

“I’m 76 years old, and I have participated in one aspect of the struggle or another since I was a teenager in high school. After I grew up, I understood that this wasn’t an effort that you accomplished in one lifetime or one great magic movement, as we held in the 1950s and 1960s. It was long-range project. You know that you have to keep pushing and you know that you have to keep struggling. And you don’t know exactly how it will come out, but you believe the struggle is worth it because you know there is more decency in the country then the status quo has it. ... Well, I never, back in the ‘60s, I never pushed with the idea that sometime in my lifetime a black person would get to be president of the United States. It never occurred to me.”

Jeff Johnson, BET political commentator on the “The Truth With Jeff Johnson”

“Barack Obama has never been a black leader. He is a leader that happens to be black. He has never carried the black agenda. The responsibility for African-Americans will be as, if not more, paramount to address these issues than before his campaign began.”

Tatsha Robertson, deputy editor at Essence magazine

“The country really has evolved, and that’s a wonderful thing. Who would have though four years ago that an African-American man could be the nominee of the Democratic Party. [His nomination] means it can happen and will happen likely in our lifetime.”

Amie Parnes, Helena Andrews, Ben Adler, Richard T. Cullen, Avi Zenilman and David Paul Kuhn contributed to this story.

August 28, 2008: Today's Schedule for Democratic National Convention

Thursday, August 28 2008: Change You Can Believe In
Time Shown as local – Denver, Colorado MST

3:00 PM – 5:00 PM (LOCAL)

Live Performances (before gavel)
Yonder Mountain String Band Performance
Jeff Austin, Adam Aijala, Ben Kaufmann, Dave Johnston

Voter Registration Presentation

Remarks
The Honorable Luis Gutierrez
Member of the US House of Representatives, Illinois

David Plouffe
Obama Campaign Manager

Ray Rivera
Obama State Director, Colorado

Call to Order
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Permanent Chair, Democratic National Convention
Member and Speaker of the US House of Representatives, California

Invocation
Rabbi David Saperstein
Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism – Washington, DC

Presentation of Colors
Disabled American Veterans

Pledge of Allegiance
Shawn Johnson
US Olympic Gymnast

National Anthem
Jennifer Hudson
Academy award-winning singer and Broadway performer

Welcome
Elbra Wedgeworth
President/Chair, Denver Host Committee

Presentation of Resolutions
Democratic National Committee Vice-Chairs
Mark Brewer
The Honorable Linda Chavez-Thompson
The Honorable Mike Honda
The Honorable Lottie Shackelford
Susan Turnbull

Remarks
Honorable Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor of Colorado

The Honorable Ed Perlmutter
Member of the US House of Representatives, Colorado

The Honorable John Salazar
Member of the US House of Representatives, Colorado

The Honorable Diana DeGette
Member of the US House of Representatives, Colorado

5:00 PM – 6:00 PM (LOCAL)

Video & Remarks
The Honorable Howard Dean
Former Governor of Vermont
Chair of the Democratic Party

Video & Remarks: Tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King
The Honorable John Lewis
Member of the US House of Representatives, Georgia
Rev. Bernice King
Daughter of the late Dr. King
Martin Luther King III
Oldest son of the late Dr. King

Remarks
The Honorable Bill Richardson
Governor, New Mexico

Live Performances
will.i.am
Accompanied by John Legend (piano), Agape Choir, and band

Sheryl Crow
Singer/songwriter

Remarks
Ray Rivera
Obama State Director, Colorado

6:00 PM – 7:00 PM (LOCAL)

Remarks
The Honorable Jan Schakowsky
Member of the US House of Representatives, Illinois

The Honorable Mark Udall
Member of the US House of Representatives, Colorado

The Honorable Tim Kaine
Governor of Virginia

Live Performance
Stevie Wonder

Remarks
The Honorable Al Gore
Former Vice President of the United States

7:00 PM - 8:00 PM (LOCAL)

Remarks
John Kuniholm
Wounded Iraq veteran

Live Performance
Michael McDonald
Singer/songwriter

Remarks
Susan Eisenhower
Granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Retired Generals Tribute
Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration (Ret)
Accompanied by additional generals

American Voices Program
Roy Gross
Monica Early
Wes Moore
Janet Lynn Monacco
Nate Flick
Teresa Asenap
Pamela Cash-Roper
Barney Smith

Remarks
The Honorable Dick Durbin
US Senator, Illinois

8:00 PM – 9:00 PM (LOCAL)

Video/Remarks
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Benediction
Pastor Joel Hunter
Senior Pastor of Northland in Central Florida

Adjournment
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Permanent Chair, Democratic National Convention

Thousands March In Protest Against War at DNC

Thousands March In Protest Against War at DNC
Hunter Weeks August 27, 2008 Huffington Post

Thousands of vocal Denver citizens showed up to express their disapproval for the war. I marched with them and caught some of the scene. The feeling on the street was electric and people all around were buzzing about the energy this march was producing.

Tomorrow, I'll have a more extensive video piece on the march.

The New Democratic Party

The New Party
Thomas B. Edsall August 28, 2008 Huffington Post

The nomination of Barack Obama will test whether the new Democratic coalition has grown strong enough to fend off Republican assaults to produce the first presidential victory for a non-Southern candidate in 44 years - and the first victory for a black in the history of the nation.

The Obama campaign has accelerated a transformation already underway in the Democratic electorate. 2008 appears likely to mark the death knell for what remained of the New Deal coalition - the coalition that was crucial to the early elections of such politicians as Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy.

In its place is a Democratic alliance that initially emerged during George McGovern's 1972 campaign, became competitive in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, and that now appears to be solidifying as the core of the party: a combination of "haves" -- socially liberal, well-educated whites, especially the young, and "have-nots" -- black and Hispanic minority voters.

This new Democratic Party lacks the economic coherence of "the party of the working man and women" that united under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and remained powerful through the 1964 election of Lyndon Johnson. On the one hand, in the new Democratic alliance, minorities generally place top priority on traditional bread and butter issues, while relatively well-off whites are more concerned with 'post-materialist' issues such as abortion, women's rights, sexual autonomy, self- expression, and a shared hostility to evangelical and other traditional religious agendas seen as repressive.

As the new center-left coalition has formed, it has proven repeatedly vulnerable to Republican attacks, capitalizing on backlash against the socially liberal, pro-civil rights, and anti-war views of Democratic activists. Using issues ranging from affirmative action to gay marriage, from black rates of crime to Democratic distaste for the use of force (national defense, gun control, mandatory sentencing, etc.) -- the GOP has pushed socially conservative and conventionally patriotic working-class and Southern whites into the Republican fold.

Democratic presidential victories over the past 48 years have been restricted to white male nominees from below the Mason-Dixon line: Johnson in '64, Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

University of Maryland political scientist Thomas Schaller, author of the 2006 book Whistling Past Dixie, argued to the Huffington Post that Obama "has a chance to peel away more upscale, well-educated, environmentally friendly whites, including some men," but he risks losing "downscale whites."

Schaller is a leading advocate of a Democratic strategy that effectively abandons much of the South. "Republicans have squeezed every last vote out of their mostly white, largely Southern, highly divisive, screw-the-coasts national strategy," Schaller contends. "The changes to come [benefiting Democrats] will be brought from the three-quarters of America found [in the north] or "west of the Mississippi River."

As a wealthy Ivy league graduate/Harvard trained lawyer and an African American, Obama -- and his similarly situated Princeton/Harvard educated wife Michelle - may bridge and/or unite the two wings of the Democratic party - upscale and downscale -- two wings whose material and post-material interests have in the past often diverged.

While Obama is strengthening this new Democratic coalition, there is some evidence that he may renew the party's diminished salience for working and lower-middle class whites.

The Democracy Corps, under the guidance of Stanley Greenberg, earlier this year polled and conducted focus groups in Macomb County, Michigan, home of many autoworkers and laid-off or retired members of the United Automobile Workers (UAW). The county has become the emblematic case study for so-called Reagan Democrats - a white working class population which cast decisive majorities for JFK in 1960 but then overwhelmingly rejected Walter Mondale in favor of Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Now, in 2008, according to Greenberg's survey data, the response of these voters and their children to Obama is lukewarm at best. While racial issues dominated the concerns of such voters two decades ago when they saw the Democratic Party as working to help African Americans at the expense of whites, today, the Democracy Corps study found, the biggest concern is "about Obama on national security, patriotism and keeping America strong....These are strong-defense Democrats who give Obama remarkably low marks on national security and have great trouble dismissing what Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright said about America."

In addition, according to the Democracy Corps, there are concerns among these voters that are "racial but not necessarily racist. These voters want to know that Obama will be a president for the whole country and not mainly represent African Americans - and for many this is a threshold issue.... Only 19 percent think he is similar to Jesse Jackson. However, these voters do not understand how Obama could sit in Reverend Wright's pews for 20 years."

While warning of white working class defections, the Democracy Corps conducted a separate study of young voters showing overwhelming support for Obama and, in what will be very important over the long haul, for the Democratic Party: "Barack Obama's support among young people is stable and convincing (currently 57-29 percent Obama). This stability rests in part on the strong belief among young people that Barack Obama can change things in this country."

The Corps found that "Impressive majorities of young people defy the cynical stereotypes of this generation and predict major changes on the economy, on Iraq, on health care, on energy, even gas prices....Young people do not believe John McCain can bring about change." The following chart -- tracking the favorability ratings among young voters -- suggests that Obama's strength will likely grow.

The Obama campaign is banking on solid backing among such young voters, combined - crucially - with stronger turnout and broader margins among black voters to compensate for losses among working-class whites, especially in such states as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania where the "Reagan Democrat" vote can be significant.

Black turnout this November is almost certain to be significantly higher than in previous elections.

A substantial increase in black turnout, coupled with enthusiastic election day support from the new and growing class of socially liberal 'new class" or 'knowledge work' voters -- whom the Obamas also represent exceptionally well -- may reduce the importance of white high-school-only, low and middle income desertion.

An analysis by Nate Silver at the polling web site 538 found that increasing black turnout will have significant consequences:

"For each 10 percent increase in African-American turnout, Obama gains approximately 13 electoral votes, and 1 percent in his popular vote margin against John McCain. Even a 10 percent increase is enough to take him from a slight underdog against McCain to a slight favorite, while at higher levels of turnout improvement, Obama becomes the strong favorite."

Regardless of the outcome on November 4, the long-range issue for the Democratic Party is whether the new coalition has staying power, or whether the gains made this year evaporate in the future without Obama at the top of the ticket -- inspiring the surge of support he has produced among blacks and those under the age of 35. Conversely, the issue for the Republican Party, regardless of whether it holds or loses the White House, is whether it can make adjustments to accommodate the demographic changes - the growth in the number of Hispanics, unmarried, and well-educated voters - so that such trends do not work only to the advantage of the Democrats.

Joe Biden's Democratic Convention Speech

Beau Biden's Speech Introducing His Dad, Joe Biden transcript

Joe Biden's Acceptance Speech video and transcript

-----------------------------------------------

Beau Biden's Speech Introducing His Dad, Joe Biden

Good evening, I'm Beau Biden. And Joe Biden is my dad.

Many of you know him as a distinguished and accomplished senator. I know him as an incredible father and a loving grandfather. A man who hustled home to Delaware after the last vote so he wouldn't miss me and my brother's games. Who, after returning from some war-torn region of the world, would tiptoe into our room and kiss us goodnight. Who turns down some fancy cocktail party in Washington so he won't miss my daughter Natalie's birthday party.

The truth is, he almost wasn't a senator at all. In 1972, shortly after his improbable victory, but before he took the oath of office, my father went to Washington to look at his new office space. My mom took us to go buy a Christmas tree. On the way home, we were in an automobile accident. My mom, Neilia, and sister, Naomi, were killed. My brother, Hunter, and I were seriously injured and hospitalized for weeks. I was just short of 4 years old. One of my earliest memories was being in that hospital, Dad always at our side. We, not the Senate, were all he cared about.

He decided not to take the oath of office. He said, "Delaware can get another senator, but my boys can't get another father." However, great men like Ted Kennedy, Mike Mansfield, Hubert Humphrey - men who had been tested themselves - convinced him to serve. So he was sworn in, in the hospital, at my bedside. As a single parent, he decided to be there to put us to bed, to be there when we woke from a bad dream, to make us breakfast, so he'd travel to and from Washington, four hours a day.

Five years later, we married my mom, Jill. They together rebuilt our family. And 36 years later, he still makes that trip. So even though Dad worked in Washington, he's never been part of Washington. He always sounded like the kid from Scranton, Pennsylvania, he is. And even that is a story of overcoming.

Now some people poke fun at my dad talking too much. What a lot of people don't know is that, when he was young, he had a severe stutter. The kids called him Dash not because he was fast on the football field, which he was, but like a dash at the end of a sentence you can't finish. But now he speaks with a clear and strong voice. He says what needs to be said. And he does what needs to be done.

When domestic violence was often a dark secret, Dad wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which gave countless women support, protection and a new chance at life. When crime was spiking in our communities, Dad wrote the crime bill that put 100,000 cops on the streets and led to an eight-year drop in crime across the country. When Serbian thugs were committing genocide in the Balkans, Dad didn't hesitate to call Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal to his face, and to convince Congress and our allies to act. He's willing to speak truth to power: to the White House and to world leaders.

I know my father will be a great vice president. As I mentioned, my dad has always been there for me, my brother and my sister, every day. But because of other duties, it won't be possible for me to be here this fall to stand by him the way he stood by me. So I have something to ask of you. Be there for my dad like he was for me.

Be there for Barack Obama because our country needs him. Be there for both of them because millions of families need to know that their best days aren't behind them, but ahead of them. Be there for both of them because millions of people are trying to overcome, just like my dad overcame. Be there. Be there because Barack Obama and Joe Biden will deliver America the change we so desperately need. Please join me in welcoming my friend, my father, my hero and the next Vice President of the United States: Joe Biden.





Beau, I love you. I am so proud of you. Proud of the son you are. Proud of the father you've become. And I'm so proud of my son Hunter, my daughter Ashley, and my wife Jill, the only one who leaves me breathless and speechless at the same time.

It is an honor to share this stage tonight with President Clinton. And last night, it was moving to watch Hillary, one of the great leaders of our party, a woman who has made history and will continue to make history: my colleague and my friend, Senator Hillary Clinton.

And I am honored to represent our first state--my state--Delaware.

Since I've never been called a man of few words, let me say this as simply as I can: Yes. Yes, I accept your nomination to run and serve alongside our next President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.

Let me make this pledge to you right here and now. For every American who is trying to do the right thing, for all those people in government who are honoring their pledge to uphold the law and respect our Constitution, no longer will the eight most dreaded words in the English language be: "The vice president's office is on the phone."


Barack Obama and I took very different journeys to this destination, but we share a common story. Mine began in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and then Wilmington, Delaware. With a dad who fell on hard economic times, but who always told me: "Champ, when you get knocked down, get up. Get up."

I wish that my dad was here tonight, but I am so grateful that my mom, Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden, is here. You know, she taught her children--all the children who flocked to our house--that you are defined by your sense of honor, and you are redeemed by your loyalty. She believes bravery lives in every heart and her expectation is that it will be summoned.

Failure at some point in everyone's life is inevitable, but giving up is unforgivable. As a child I stuttered, and she lovingly told me it was because I was so bright I couldn't get the thoughts out quickly enough. When I was not as well dressed as others, she told me how handsome she thought I was. When I got knocked down by guys bigger than me, she sent me back out and demanded that I bloody their nose so I could walk down that street the next day.

After the accident, she told me, "Joey, God sends no cross you cannot bear." And when I triumphed, she was quick to remind me it was because of others.

My mother's creed is the American creed: No one is better than you. You are everyone's equal, and everyone is equal to you.

My parents taught us to live our faith, and treasure our family. We learned the dignity of work, and we were told that anyone can make it if they try.

That was America's promise. For those of us who grew up in middle-class neighborhoods like Scranton and Wilmington, that was the American dream and we knew it.

But today that American dream feels as if it's slowly slipping away. I don't need to tell you that. You feel it every single day in your own lives.

I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up. Almost every night, I take the train home to Wilmington, sometimes very late. As I look out the window at the homes we pass, I can almost hear what they're talking about at the kitchen table after they put the kids to bed.

Like millions of Americans, they're asking questions as profound as they are ordinary. Questions they never thought they would have to ask:

* Should mom move in with us now that dad is gone?
* Fifty, sixty, seventy dollars to fill up the car?
* Winter's coming. How we gonna pay the heating bills?
* Another year and no raise?
* Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care?
* Now, we owe more on the house than it's worth. How are we going to send the kids to college?
* How are we gonna be able to retire?

That's the America that George Bush has left us, and that's the future John McCain will give us. These are not isolated discussions among families down on their luck. These are common stories among middle-class people who worked hard and played by the rules on the promise that their tomorrows would be better than their yesterdays.

That promise is the bedrock of America. It defines who we are as a people. And now it's in jeopardy. I know it. You know it. But John McCain doesn't get it.

Barack Obama gets it. Like many of us, Barack worked his way up. His is a great American story.

You know, I believe the measure of a man isn't just the road he's traveled; it's the choices he's made along the way. Barack Obama could have done anything after he graduated from college. With all his talent and promise, he could have written his ticket to Wall Street. But that's not what he chose to do. He chose to go to Chicago. The South Side. There he met men and women who had lost their jobs. Their neighborhood was devastated when the local steel plant closed. Their dreams deferred. Their dignity shattered. Their self-esteem gone.

And he made their lives the work of his life. That's what you do when you've been raised by a single mom, who worked, went to school and raised two kids on her own. That's how you come to believe, to the very core of your being, that work is more than a paycheck. It's dignity. It's respect. It's about whether you can look your children in the eye and say: we're going to be ok.

Because Barack made that choice, 150,000 more children and parents have health care in Illinois. He fought to make that happen. And because Barack made that choice, working families in Illinois pay less taxes and more people have moved from welfare to the dignity of work. He got it done.

And when he came to Washington, I watched him hit the ground running, leading the fight to pass the most sweeping ethics reform in a generation. He reached across party lines to pass a law that helps keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. And he moved Congress and the president to give our wounded veterans the care and dignity they deserve.

You can learn an awful lot about a man campaigning with him, debating him and seeing how he reacts under pressure. You learn about the strength of his mind, but even more importantly, you learn about the quality of his heart.

I watched how he touched people, how he inspired them, and I realized he has tapped into the oldest American belief of all: We don't have to accept a situation we cannot bear.

We have the power to change it. That's Barack Obama, and that's what he will do for this country. He'll change it.

John McCain is my friend. We've known each other for three decades. We've traveled the world together. It's a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me.

But I profoundly disagree with the direction that John wants to take the country. For example,

John thinks that during the Bush years "we've made great progress economically." I think it's been abysmal.

And in the Senate, John sided with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Give me a break. When John McCain proposes $200 billion in new tax breaks for corporate America, $1 billion alone for just eight of the largest companies, but no relief for 100 million American families, that's not change; that's more of the same.

Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history--a half trillion dollars in the last five years--he wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. But he voted time and again against incentives for renewable energy: solar, wind, biofuels. That's not change; that's more of the same.

Millions of jobs have left our shores, yet John continues to support tax breaks for corporations that send them there. That's not change; that's more of the same.

He voted 19 times against raising the minimum wage. For people who are struggling just to get to the next day, that's not change; that's more of the same.

And when he says he will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq when Iraq is sitting on a surplus of nearly $80 billion, that's not change; that's more of the same.

The choice in this election is clear. These times require more than a good soldier; they require a wise leader, a leader who can deliver change--the change everybody knows we need.

Barack Obama will deliver that change. Barack Obama will reform our tax code. He'll cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people who draw a paycheck. That's the change we need.

Barack Obama will transform our economy by making alternative energy a genuine national priority, creating 5 million new jobs and finally freeing us from the grip of foreign oil. That's the change we need.

Barack Obama knows that any country that out teaches us today will out-compete us tomorrow. He'll invest in the next generation of teachers. He'll make college more affordable. That's the change we need.

Barack Obama will bring down health care costs by $2,500 for the typical family, and, at long last, deliver affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. That's the change we need.

Barack Obama will put more cops on the streets, put the "security" back in Social Security and never give up until we achieve equal pay for women. That's the change we need.

As we gather here tonight, our country is less secure and more isolated than at any time in recent history. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has dug us into a very deep hole with very few friends to help us climb out. For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.

In recent days, we've once again seen the consequences of this neglect with Russia's challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia. Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we'll help the people of Georgia rebuild.

I've been on the ground in Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms: this Administration's policy has been an abject failure. America cannot afford four more years of this.

Now, despite being complicit in this catastrophic foreign policy, John McCain says Barack Obama isn't ready to protect our national security. Now, let me ask you: whose judgment should we trust? Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he said only three years ago, "Afghanistan--we don't read about it anymore because it's succeeded"? Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?

The fact is, al-Qaida and the Taliban--the people who actually attacked us on 9/11--have regrouped in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Barack's call for more troops.

John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.

Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked: What is there to talk about? Or Barack Obama, who said we must talk and make it clear to Iran that its conduct must change.

Now, after seven years of denial, even the Bush administration recognizes that we should talk to Iran, because that's the best way to advance our security.

Again, John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.

Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says there can be no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq--that we must stay indefinitely? Or should we listen to Barack Obama, who says shift responsibility to the Iraqis and set a time to bring our combat troops home?

Now, after six long years, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home.

John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.

Again and again, on the most important national security issues of our time, John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was proven right.

Folks, remember when the world used to trust us? When they looked to us for leadership? With Barack Obama as our president, they'll look to us again, they'll trust us again, and we'll be able to lead again.

Jill and I are truly honored to join Barack and Michelle on this journey. When I look at their young children--and when I look at my grandchildren--I realize why I'm here. I'm here for their future.

And I am here for everyone I grew up with in Scranton and Wilmington. I am here for the cops and firefighters, the teachers and assembly line workers--the folks whose lives are the very measure of whether the American dream endures.

Our greatest presidents--from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt to John Kennedy--they all challenged us to embrace change. Now, it's our responsibility to meet that challenge.

Millions of Americans have been knocked down. And this is the time as Americans, together, we get back up. Our people are too good, our debt to our parents and grandparents too great, our obligation to our children is too sacred.

These are extraordinary times. This is an extraordinary election. The American people are ready. I'm ready. Barack Obama is ready. This is his time. This is our time. This is America's time.

May God bless America and protect our troops


video about Joe Biden (shown at Democratic National Convention)

Schweitzer Steals the Show; Hillary Calls for Unity

Schweitzer has always impressed me. In fact, I was hoping that Obama would have chosen him as his VP. Governor Brian Schweitzer reinforces Obama’s post-partisanship approach to issues. He is a Democrat in a largely Republican state and ran with a Republican as his lieutenant governor. His “down to earth” speaking style both matches and complements Obama’s communication skills. His previous experience building infrastructure in the Middle East, scientific expertise on energy alternatives, success at tapping populist fervor and appeal to the working class further strengthens his position to be a Vice President.

David Sirota devoted a whole chapter on Schweitzer in his book Uprising and illustrated how Schweitzer successfully pushed for progressive reforms and changed the terms of the debate in Montana.

I believe we will be hearing more about Schweitzer in the future. JD


Schweitzer Steals the Show; Hillary Calls for Unity
Paul Hogarth August 27, 2008 Huffington Post


Brian Schweitzer is Your Barack Obama
Michelle Cottle, Christopher Orr, Jason Zengerie and TNR staff August 27, 2008 The New Republic
____________________________________

Schweitzer Steals the Show; Hillary Calls for Unity
Paul Hogarth August 27, 2008 Huffington Post

Of course Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention was emphatic and inspiring - as she urged all her supporters to get behind Barack Obama. But Hillary has made this plea before, and the more important speech at "healing the rift" will happen tonight when ex-President Bill Clinton addresses the Convention. The big hit from last night, however, was Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer - who gave a passionate stem-winder about the energy crisis that literally brought delegates to their feet. Unlike Mark Warner, a wannabe future President whose Keynote Address simply did not live up to its hype, most people at the Pepsi Center had never even heard of Brian Schweitzer. But after giving what everyone agreed was a home run, I now understand what my friends Bob Brigham and Markos Moulitsas have been raving about for years.

In 2004, Democrats made a mistake at their Convention to refrain from attacking George Bush - because they were afraid of looking "angry." But this year, speakers are willing to take on John McCain - reminding the crowd that he's just another four years of a failed Administration. And with last night's theme being about economic security and "Renewing America's Promise," there were plenty of opportunities to talk about workers getting laid off in the Bush economy - along with the potential of green collar jobs. And of course, it was just too easy to talk about John McCain and his seven homes.

For example, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius said the following in her speech: "I'm sure you remember a girl from Kansas who said there's no place like home. Well, in John McCain's version, there's no place like home. And a home. And a home. And a home."

But everyone was waiting for Hillary Clinton to forcefully urge her supporters to back Barack Obama - and she did not disappoint. "I ran for President to renew the promise of America," she said. "I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible. This is why I ran for President, and why I now support Barack Obama. I ask those who supported me: were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?"

In other words, Hillary's message was that the stakes were too high in this election - and if her supporters stayed bitter and voted for John McCain out of spite, they were literally undermining everything that her campaign stood for.

But the practical effect of Hillary's speech won't be much. Most of her supporters - especially women and Latinos - already support Obama by wide margins. Only a tiny minority of her supporters are talking about supporting McCain - despite the media's obsession with this "Democrats are divided" myth. And as Eric Alterman reported, many of these people cannot be persuaded by rational arguments.

Frankly, as a participant at this Convention, I'm furious at the media coverage over the past week. First, they focused on a fringe group of protesters and magnified their importance. Then, they wouldn't stop talking about Clinton supporters reluctant to support Obama - which is categorically false. All of this, of course, fits the traditional media's narrative that Democrats are "divided" - regardless of whether that's true.

And as Randy Shaw predicts, any resentments should be gone by tonight - after Bill Clinton addresses the Convention. That's because Hillary already rejected efforts by some renegade supporters not to get behind Obama. But if Bubba urges unity, the "divided" story is effectively over.

History was made last night when Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer addressed the Convention. Most people at the Pepsi Center had never heard of this alfalfa rancher, but he started off slow - and built up to a populist fire that brought the crowd to their feet. "President Kennedy's idealism inspired my parents - who never finished high school - to send all six of their kids to college," he said, as he recounted his humble origins.

But it was when Schweitzer talked about our breaking our "addiction to foreign oil" that his speech turned into a stem-winder. "John McCain offers more of the same," he said. "Four billion dollars in tax breaks for big oil - that's a lot of change, but it's not the change you need." The crowd laughed at the clever sound-bite, but there was more ...

"We simply can't drill our way to energy independence," he thundered. "Even if you drilled in all of John McCain's backyards, including the ones he can't even remember." Schweitzer then talked about how our dependence on foreign oil was feeding foreign dictators - but that renewable energy was the patriotic thing to do. "The petro-dictators will never own America's wind and sunshine," he said.

By the time Schweitzer urged the crowd to stand up - which was good, because my legs were getting sore in the tiny cramped seats - the whole energy at the Pepsi Center was palpable. The people sitting next to me had never heard of Brian Schweitzer, but it was now clear to me that they wanted to learn more.

Of course, Schweitzer has long been a darling of the Netroots. "Now do you guys see why I champion Schweitzer so much," asked Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos. "Before Obama spoke in 2004, I told people to watch, because he would one day be the first black president. He didn't disappoint. Now, I'm feeling the same sense of anticipation with Schweitzer. The man will be president one day."

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Schweitzer's speech rivaled Barack Obama's speech four years ago in Boston - which I was also fortunate to watch live from the Convention. They were both rising stars who were "discovered" that night, but time will tell if Schweitzer gets a similar boost.

But I will state an obvious point: ex-Virginia Governor Mark Warner (who almost ran for President this year and is likely to win a Senate seat in November) gave the Keynote Address earlier last night. It was anticipated to be a knock-out punch to boost his future ambitions. Although I took notes, I really don't remember much from his speech.


Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

Brian Schweitzer is Your Barack Obama
Michelle Cottle, Christopher Orr, Jason Zengerie and TNR staff August 27, 2008 The New Republic

DENVER --Though Hillary Clinton gave an extraordinary address yesterday night--relaxed and emotive and far more impassioned than at the fine auto-eulogy I saw her deliver in June--I'd like to declare Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer the MVP of Tuesday night. Not only was Schweitzer's delivery emphatic and simple--his mien was entirely genuine, a reality only enhanced by his bolo tie. The governor, an irrigation specialist and practicing Catholic, got the meat of these two identities across without being pedantic, speaking of a crucifix in his home and the environmental battles he fights as an executive with fluency. Voters can smell inauthenticity, which perhaps unfairly, plagued Senate candidate Mark Warner during his keynote just prior--and that was not a whiff of that surrounding Schweitzer (in fact, the governor, who described himself off the bat as a "rancher", regularly wears bolo ties).

He really should have been the keynoter--and even without it, could well be the Barack Obama of 2008. When I was reporting out this piece on how Obama landed his 2004 keynote, many strategists told me that demographic considerations are perhaps even more at play than when selecting a vice president. This probably favored Warner, who in his technocratic, dutiful speech seemed to dampen his fighting Dem credentials for the folks watching in Virginia. There's no guarantee Montana goes blue--but it's a shame the networks ran Warner's address (an honor even Obama did not receive at the Boston convention), because Schweitzer really embodied the message Democrats must take to "regular" America.

A quick Google investigation* of the governor reveals an appearance at an American Prospect event in which he lays out the very case for casting him as a major face of the party in future: "[People] like what we Democrats do when we're elected--we just have to be more likeable when we're doing the things they like." And oh, was he. Beyond his endearing tics--the A-OK hand gestures, his references to "industry"--he got off some great jabs at McCain, and his hokey but effective pep-rally techniques were straight from the heartland. ("Is it time for a change?" -- "YESSSS!" "When do we need it?" "NOOOOOW!") He was patient with the crowd, and looked like he'd swallowed the canary when it met his exhortations to "stand up" with an overwhelming ovation at the end.

Further, Schweitzer has solid credentials as a nonpartisan doer. As an extraordinarily popular governor of a "red" state (more like fiercely independent), he laid out pretty early that he'd tapped a Republican as his lieutenant, and that they'd worked to bring bipartisan solutions to their state. He's also got a master's in soil science. As such, and as an energy action zealot myself, I thought Schweitzer was just the person to give a forceful delivery of the environmental platform for the Democrats this year. He's really into the issue--and delivered a strong message, I think in a more credible, unfussy manner than when former Energy Secretary Federico Pena spoke an hour earlier.

The stand of trees imposed on the screen behind Schweitzer fairly shimmered as he said some very, very important things to the American people about energy:

Barack Obama knows there's no single platform for energy independence. It's not a question of either wind or clean coal, solar or hydrogen, oil or geothermal. We need them all to create a strong American energy system, a system built on American innovation.
After eight years of a White House waiting hand and foot on big oil, John McCain offers more of the same. At a time of skyrocketing fuel prices, when American families are struggling to keep their gas tanks full, John McCain voted 25 times against renewable and alternative energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind energy.
...
Even leaders in the oil industry know that Senator McCain has it wrong. We simply can't drill our way to energy independence, even if you drilled in all of John McCain's backyards, including the ones he can't even remember.

That single-answer proposition is a dry well, and here's why. America consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, but has less than 3 percent of the reserves. You don't need a $2 calculator to figure that one out. There just isn't enough oil in America, on land or offshore, to meet America's full energy needs.

Schweitzer's most important line on this topic focused on efficiency, and he milked it: "Barack Obama understands the most important barrel of oil is the one you don't use." After a fleeting hesitation, that, too got a huge cheer from the crowd. Energy conservation and efficiency and indepedence is not over our collective heads, and I think this speech demonstrated as much. That, coupled with the mix of solutions he laid out for the audience, was some fine political messaging. And the last line, clearly ad-libbed: "That's it baby--let's go win this election!" was dynamite.

Bill Clinton's Democratic Convention Speech--"Obama is ready to lead!"

Bill Clinton really gave a very compelling speech. I expected him to go down memory lane of his presidency and talk about the "good old glory days" but instead he probably gave one of the more effective speeches around the future and the need for Obama.JD



I am honored to be here tonight to support Barack Obama. And to warm up the crowd for Joe Biden, though as you'll soon see, he doesn't need any help from me. I love Joe Biden, and America will too.

What a year we Democrats have had. The primary began with an all-star line up and came down to two remarkable Americans locked in a hard fought contest to the very end. The campaign generated so much heat it increased global warming.

In the end, my candidate didn't win. But I'm very proud of the campaign she ran: she never quit on the people she stood up for, on the changes she pushed for, on the future she wants for all our children. And I'm grateful for the chance Chelsea and I had to tell Americans about the person we know and love.

I'm not so grateful for the chance to speak in the wake of her magnificent address last night. But I'll do my best.

Hillary told us in no uncertain terms that she'll do everything she can to elect Barack Obama.

That makes two of us.

Actually that makes 18 million of us - because, like Hillary, I want all of you who supported her to vote for Barack Obama in November.

Here's why.

Our nation is in trouble on two fronts: The American Dream is under siege at home, and America's leadership in the world has been weakened.

Middle class and low-income Americans are hurting, with incomes declining; job losses, poverty and inequality rising; mortgage foreclosures and credit card debt increasing; health care coverage disappearing; and a big spike in the cost of food, utilities, and gasoline.

Our position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation; a perilous dependence on imported oil; a refusal to lead on global warming; a growing indebtedness and a dependence on foreign lenders; a severely burdened military; a backsliding on global non-proliferation and arms control agreements; and a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Central and Eastern Europe.

Clearly, the job of the next President is to rebuild the American Dream and restore America's standing in the world.

Everything I learned in my eight years as President and in the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job.

He has a remarkable ability to inspire people, to raise our hopes and rally us to high purpose. He has the intelligence and curiosity every successful President needs. His policies on the economy, taxes, health care and energy are far superior to the Republican alternatives. He has shown a clear grasp of our foreign policy and national security challenges, and a firm commitment to repair our badly strained military. His family heritage and life experiences have given him a unique capacity to lead our increasingly diverse nation and to restore our leadership in an ever more interdependent world. The long, hard primary tested and strengthened him. And in his first presidential decision, the selection of a running mate, he hit it out of the park.

With Joe Biden's experience and wisdom, supporting Barack Obama's proven understanding, insight, and good instincts, America will have the national security leadership we need.

Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be President of the United States.

He will work for an America with more partners and fewer adversaries. He will rebuild our frayed alliances and revitalize the international institutions which help to share the costs of the world's problems and to leverage our power and influence. He will put us back in the forefront of the world's fight to reduce nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and to stop global warming. He will continue and enhance our nation's global leadership in an area in which I am deeply involved, the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, including a renewal of the battle against HIV/AIDS here at home. He will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort. But in a world troubled by terror; by trafficking in weapons, drugs and people; by human rights abuses; by other threats to our security, our interests, and our values, when he cannot convert adversaries into partners, he will stand up to them.

Barack Obama also will not allow the world's problems to obscure its opportunities. Everywhere, in rich and poor countries alike, hardworking people need good jobs; secure, affordable healthcare, food, and energy; quality education for their children; and economically beneficial ways to fight global warming. These challenges cry out for American ideas and American innovation. When Barack Obama unleashes them, America will save lives, win new allies, open new markets, and create new jobs for our people.

Most important, Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are strong at home. People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

Look at the example the Republicans have set: American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than ¼ as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring health care costs and declining coverage. I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other severe conditions who told me on the campaign trail that they couldn't afford health care and couldn't qualify their kids for Medicaid unless they quit work or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of? What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by unprecedented multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and the unlimited favors for the well connected? What about Katrina and cronyism?

America can do better than that. And Barack Obama will.

But first we have to elect him.

The choice is clear. The Republicans will nominate a good man who served our country heroically and suffered terribly in Vietnam. He loves our country every bit as much as we all do. As a Senator, he has shown his independence on several issues. But on the two great questions of this election, how to rebuild the American Dream and how to restore America's leadership in the world, he still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years, a philosophy we never had a real chance to see in action until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades were implemented.

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22 million new jobs down to 5 million; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8 million Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 and a half million falling into poverty - and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all the evidence, their candidate is promising more of the same: More tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality, and weaken the economy. More band-aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured. More going it alone in the world, instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.

They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. Let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks. In this case, the third time is not the charm.

My fellow Democrats, sixteen years ago, you gave me the profound honor to lead our party to victory and to lead our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity.

Together, we prevailed in a campaign in which the Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief. Sound familiar? It didn't work in 1992, because we were on the right side of history. And it won't work in 2008, because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.

His life is a 21st Century incarnation of the American Dream. His achievements are proof of our continuing progress toward the "more perfect union" of our founders' dreams. The values of freedom and equal opportunity which have given him his historic chance will drive him as president to give all Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability, their chance to build a decent life, and to show our humanity, as well as our strength, to the world.

We see that humanity, that strength, and our future in Barack and Michelle Obama and their beautiful children. We see them reinforced by the partnership with Joe Biden, his wife Jill, a dedicated teacher, and their family.

Barack Obama will lead us away from division and fear of the last eight years back to unity and hope. If, like me, you still believe America must always be a place called Hope, then join Hillary, Chelsea and me in making Senator Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Historic Milestone! Obama is the official nominee!

It is official. Barack Obama is now the Democratic nominee for US President. Regardless of political affiliation, you cannot help but be moved by this major milestone in US history.

The first time a Republican nominated a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

The first time a losing competitor officially called to select her opponent to be the nominee by acclamation.

Most importantly, the first time an African American has become the nominee of a major political party in the US.

As a person of color, I am inspired and hopeful.

I am proud and honored to witness this moment.

JD

Obama and the project of renewal

Obama and the project of renewal
Bong Vergara August 27, 2008



Yesterday, Aug 26, 2008, was the second day of the DNC and as I tuned intently to the coverage by Lehrer NewsHour, I was struck by the underlying theme of the moment. Renewal.



This election year and this moment in US and world history, almost appear to have conspired in favor of Sen Obama's candidacy for change. In the minds of many, the change he talks about is, still, ambiguous; and many critics are only too glad to take advantage.



But as the events of the past year have revealed to us -- the credit crunch, housing crisis, tensions in Eastern Europe, the stark contrast of an ultra modern Asia -- the Obama call for change is right on.



And the Obama message of hope is beginning to impart a shared yearning for real change across communities. It is a yearning for a new direction, not just for the country but for the individual lives we all live courageously each day. And this yearning is catching on like wildfire -- across parties, class, communities-- thanks to the kitchen table issues of our time.



There is much discontent. Much disillusionment. And I am surrounded by family and friends who are adrift in their careers, personal relations and overall direction in life.

It seems, in fact, that the whole country is in some sort of a midlife crisis, more than a malaise, but a deep depression from uncertainty and dashed hopes.



If my sense is right, no doubt this is because of an American identity that has been shaken to its core by 9/11, a waning reputation and status around the globe, and a deep inner turmoil that is fueled by widening lowered expectation for the future.



Akin to the primary purpose of this blog -- which is to comment on the journey of the Phillipines toward First World citizenship -- is the task I feel more and more compelled to do about life in the US, which is to comment on the need for renewal and rediscovery.



Who would have ever thought that the US would find itself in the company of Third World nations: in search for its soul, yearning for renewal, preoccupied with nation-building?



This -- renewal -- in a word, is what works in favor of Sen Obama, who has embraced the need for real change and has inspired so many of us to think about it. May renewal come swiftly.

Wednesday Democratic National Convention Schedule 8/27/08

Note: Today, VP Candidate Joe Biden and Bill Clinton will be speaking. Additionally, presidential nominations will happen as well.

"SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE"
Time shown as local - Denver, Colorado

Hour # 1 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM (LOCAL)
Call to Order
The Honorable Leticia Van de Putte
State Senator from Texas
Co-Chair, Democratic National Convention

Invocation
Archbishop Demetrios
Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America

Presentation of Colors
Colorado Chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
Franz Wedeman, Thomas Chesner, David Shuker, John Harrington

Pledge of Allegiance
Paul Bucha
Ridgefield, Connecticut recipient of the Medal of Honor for distinguished service as a commanding officer in Vietnam

National Anthem
Robert Moore
Distinguished singer from South Dakota and elected council member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Presidential Nomination Process
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Permanent Chair, Democratic National Convention

Nominating speech on behalf of Senator Hillary Clinton

Seconding speeches on behalf of Senator Hillary Clinton (2)

Nominating speech on behalf of Senator Barack Obama

Seconding speeches on behalf of Senator Barack Obama (3)

Call for Roll Call Vote
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Permanent Chair, Democratic National Convention

Roll Call Vote
Alice Travis Germond
Secretary of the Democratic National Committee

Remarks
The Honorable Charles Schumer
US Senator, New York
Chair, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

The Honorable Tom Udall
Member of the US House of Representatives, New Mexico

The Honorable Jean Shaheen
Former Governor of New Hampshire
Candidate for US Senate

Jeff Merkley
Candidate for US Senate from the State of Oregon

Tom Allen
Candidate for the US Senate from the State of Maine

Hour # 4 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM (LOCAL)
Remarks
The Honorable Richard M. Daley
Mayor of Chicago, Illinois

The Honorable Robert Wexler
Member of the US House of Representatives, Florida

Video - The Course of Our Nation
Brittany Washington
A student at Howard University in Washington, DC from Los Angeles, California

Women of the US House of Representatives
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Permanent Chair, Democratic National Convention
The Honorable Rosa DeLauro
Member of the US House of Representatives, Connecticut
The Honorable Nita Lowey
Member of the US House of Representatives, New York
The Honorable Hilda Solis
Member of the US House of Representatives, California
The Honorable Louise Slaughter
Member of the US House of Representatives, New York
The Honorable Maxine Waters
Member of the US House of Representatives, California
The Honorable Kathy Castor
Member of the US House of Representatives, Florida
The Honorable Lois Capps
Member of the US House of Representatives, California

Remarks
The Honorable Elijah Cummings
Member of the US House of Representatives, Maryland

Mark Docherty
Veteran and a firefighter from Sterling Heights, Michigan

The Honorable James Clyburn
Member of the US House of Representatives, South Carolina

The Honorable Manuel Diaz
Mayor of Miami, Florida

The Honorable Jay Rockefeller
US Senator, West Virginia

Live Performance
Melissa Etheridge accompanied by Phillip Sayce (guitar)
Award-winning singer/songwriter

Video - First Time Delegates: Renewing America's Promise

Remarks
The Honorable Harry Reid
US Senator, Nevada
Senate Majority Leader

CSM Michele S. Jones, US Army (Ret.)
First female command sergeant major of the US Army

The Honorable Patrick Murphy
Member of the US House of Representatives, Pennsylvania
Joined by Iraq war veterans

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
Former Secretary of State

America's Town Hall - Economy
Moderator: The Honorable Joe Sestak
Member of the US House of Representatives, Pennsylvania
Panelists: Kathy Roth-Douquet, CSM John Estrada, Collin McMahon,
Representative Ellen Tauscher/California

Remarks
The Honorable Evan Bayh
US Senator, Indiana

Xiomara Rodriguez
Nevada delegate and retired member of the US Coast Guard

The Honorable Jack Reed
US Senator, Rhode Island

The Honorable Tom Daschle
Former US Senator and Senate Minority Leader, South Dakota

Hour # 5 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM (LOCAL)
Remarks
The Honorable Bill Clinton
Former President of the United States

Beth Robinson
Stay-at-home mom from Hampton Roads, Virginia

The Honorable John Kerry
US Senator, Massachusetts

Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, US Army (Ret.)
First woman to achieve the rank of three star general in the US Army

The Honorable Bill Richardson
Governor of New Mexico

Video - Changing The Course of Our Nation
John Melvin
Iraq war veteran from DeWitt, Iowa

Veterans Video and Remarks
The Honorable Chet Edwards
Member of the US House of Representatives, Texas

Hour # 6 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM (LOCAL)
Remarks
Tammy Duckworth
Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs
Helicopter pilot and wounded Iraq war veteran

Vice Presidential Nomination
Remarks and nominating speech
Seconding speech

Vice Presidential Nominee
The Honorable Senator Joe Biden
US Senator, Delaware

Benediction
Sister Catherine Pinkerton
Congregation of St. Joseph's in Cleveland, Ohio

Recess
The Honorable Leticia Van de Putte
State Senator from Texas
Co-Chair, Democratic National Convention

Party's Left Pushes for a Seat at the Table

Party's Left Pushes for a Seat at the Table
Gerald F. Seib August 26, 2008; Page A2 Wall Street Journal

Walk into almost any hotel here this week and you can find an odd sight: Liberal Democrats starting their day by lobbying moderate and conservative Democrats.

The lobbyists are members of the Progressive Democrats of America, an activist group working to keep the party true to liberal priorities, and they have been assigned to every hotel housing Democratic convention delegates.

"At breakfast, where they go to get their talking points [from the national party], we will be there," says Tim Carpenter, a veteran of Democratic campaigns and national director of the PDA.

The fact that Mr. Carpenter and his cohorts feel compelled to buttonhole other Democrats to push a liberal agenda is a sign of a quiet tension lurking within the Democratic Party. That tension is a potential complication for Sen. Barack Obama now, and it is certain to be one for him and his party if he is elected president.

Progressives -- the term of art for the party's liberal wing -- contend, with some justification, that they have provided much of the fuel that could propel the party to win control of the White House and both houses of Congress for the first time in 16 years. They have contributed and raised large amounts of money, fired up their troops on the Internet, and generally are thrilled at the prospect of a Democratic sweep.

Yet they aren't sure the party they think they are leading to victory is really following them. Sen. Obama has been essentially nonideological in his campaign, has made much of his desire to reach across the ideological spectrum to Republicans, and spent several weeks this summer moving away from the left and toward the center on issues ranging from warrantless wiretaps to abortion to gun control.

More than that, liberals realize that if the party expands its control of the House and Senate, it may do so by electing moderate and conservative Democrats who vanquish sitting Republicans. Thus, while Democratic control in Congress could expand, liberal influence may not.

So the progressive wing of the party has gathered in Denver uncertain whether to celebrate or fight for its due.

"The party doesn't get it," says Mr. Carpenter, who worked on the presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson, former California Gov. Jerry Brown and former President Bill Clinton. "That's why organizations like the PDA have to organize and energize."

The big question, of course, is: Exactly what do progressives want? For many, the short answer is: Quick and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, no parallel buildup in Afghanistan, a reduction in the military budget, a broad rollback of the Bush tax cuts, an increase in corporate taxes and a shift of those funds to social spending, a huge government drive for alternative energy sources, and a much bigger government role in providing health care.

Sen. Obama doesn't exactly oppose any of those impulses, but he hasn't fully bought into all of them, either. He'd roll back some but not all Bush tax cuts, for instance, and is a long way from backing the kind of government-funded universal health-insurance system many progressives want.

Rob Kall, a radio host and editor of liberal Web site OpEdNews, says flatly, "Liberals and progressives don't see him as liberal. Universally among liberals and leftists, they seem him as a centrist."

That may be fine with the Obama campaign, which likely calculates that victory hinges more on the candidate's ability to win over independents and former supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton than the party's liberal base, which figures to go along for the ride. Still, Mr. Kall says some members of his Web site are drifting toward third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney or questioning how hard they want to work this fall.

The most likely campaign effect, though, is continued pressure on Sen. Obama through the fall to move left on key issues.

David Sirota, a liberal analyst and author with the Campaign for America's Future, which bills itself as "the strategy center for the progressive movement," expresses particular concern about whether Sen. Obama will attack corporate interests on behalf of the working class. "If we are serious about developing the tactics and strategies to bring about real change after the election, we have to first know if Barack Obama is even with us," he wrote a few days ago on the Campaign for America's Future Web site.

Mr. Sirota expressed particular qualms about the candidate's choice of economic advisers who support free-trade agreements and hail from the investment-banking world.

Perhaps the most immediate impact of the liberal quest to be heard came in the drafting of the Democratic Party platform to be adopted by the convention this week. The experience of Donna Smith is illustrative.

Ms. Smith, a health-policy activist with the National Nurses Association and self-described "middle-aged grandma from Chicago," is pushing for a so-called single-payer national health-insurance system, in which the government essentially would expand the Medicare program to cover all Americans. She and some fellow activists hoped to appear at a platform hearing in Cleveland several weeks ago to make their pitch, but they didn't get on the agenda.

Their goal wasn't to get the party to sign on to national health insurance, which they realized was a bridge too far, but rather to get the platform language call explicitly for "guaranteed health care" for all Americans, without specifics about how that would be achieved.

So Ms. Smith and colleagues from other progressive groups organized a kind of guerrilla campaign for the official platform-writing session that followed, in Chicago. They recruited a sympathetic platform delegate to carry their amendment, pulled liberal Rep. John Conyers of Michigan into action, and they ultimately got their language added to the platform.

Ms. Smith was pleased, but she recognizes that as only one step toward national health care. "We don't think it's anywhere near where it should be in terms of what the platform should say or what our party should stand for," she says.

Michael Yaki, the Democratic Party's national platform director, says the debate over health-care language "was a semantic issue. The progressive forces "pointed out that it was important. ... If that wasn't made as clear as it should have been, then they pointed out something good."

The Obama team has, in fact, been skillful at smoothing the edges of such policy disagreements. Its language on abortion says flatly that the party "unequivocally" supports a woman's right to an abortion -- yet it also nods to the party's conservatives by saying it supports policies to reduce the incidence of abortion.

On gay rights, the platform states in strong terms that the party will fight discrimination because of sexual orientation or "gender identity" -- yet the words "gay" and "lesbian" appear nowhere in the draft.

The balancing act will get tougher if there is an Obama victory this fall and ambiguities have to give way to policies. That, in fact, is a classic problem for a growing party: How to expand the tent to take in newcomers without offending the stalwarts who always have been inside. It was a constant problem for Ronald Reagan, who led Republicans into a majority in 1980 but often was accused by fellow conservatives of compromising too much.

Smart progressives know that's how things work, but they also think they've earned a special place inside the tent.

"A lot of how the party is expanding in this election is with constituencies that are very progressive but have been on the sidelines in the last few elections," says Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, a liberal group that now counts some 3.6 million members.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com¹⁶

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121969145343270091.html

Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) http://www.washwire.com (2) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/25/sen-schumer-obama-needs-a-shield-and-a-sword/ (3) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/25/joe-biden-loves-to-talk-hates-to-ask/ (4) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/25/sen-kennedy-to-appear-at-democratic-convention/ (5) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/25/obama-would-back-a-bailout-for-fannie-freddie/ (6) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/25/clinton-urges-her-supporters-to-back-obama/ (7) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/category/campaign-2008/ (8) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121970803923071113.html (9) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121967989804369499.html (10) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121969738197570373.html (11) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121971435031871565.html (12) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121970654975870971.html (13) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121971501325271597.html (14) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121970667335770977.html (15) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121971109070871363.html (16) mailto:jerry.seib@wsj.com

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer DNC Speech

I’m a rancher who has made my living raising cattle and growing wheat, barley and alfalfa in Montana, a beautiful place with soaring peaks, pristine rivers and endless prairies. I’m probably a little biased, but I think it’s the best place in the world to raise a family, to start and grow a business, and to build a community.

When I ran for governor of Montana, I had never before held elected office. I chose a Republican, John Bohlinger, to be my lieutenant governor, with the simple proposition that we could get more done working together than we could fighting. Because Montana really isn’t a red state or a blue state. As Senator Obama might put it, we’re a united state.

And so in three-and-a-half years, working together-Republicans and Democrats in Montana-we have cut more taxes for more Montanans than any time in history, increased energy production at the fastest rate in the history of Montana, invested more new money in education than ever before and we created the largest budget surplus in the history of Montana. That’s the kind of change we brought to Montana, and that’s the kind of change President Barack Obama is going to bring to America.

Like Senator Obama, my family has roots in the Great Plains. My grandparents were immigrants who came to Montana with nothing more than the clothes on their back, high hopes and faith in God. My family didn’t have much in our little house. But a few things stand out in my memory: a crucifix and, on our kitchen wall, a framed picture of President Kennedy. My parents never even graduated from high school, but President Kennedy’s idealism and spirit of possibility inspired them to send all six of us children to college. And when he said, “we’re going to the moon,” he showed us that no challenge was insurmountable.

A generation later, we face a great new challenge, a world energy crisis that threatens our economy, our security, our climate and our way of life. And until we address that energy crisis, our problems will only get worse. For eight long years, the White House has led us in the wrong direction. And now Senator McCain wants four more years of the same.

Can we afford four more years? Is it time for a change? When do we need it? And who do we need as the next President of the United States of America? That’s right. Barack Obama is the change we need!

Right now, the United States imports about 70 percent of its oil from overseas. At the same time, billions of dollars that we spend on all that foreign oil seems to end up in the bank accounts of those around the world who are openly hostile to American values and our way of life. This costly reliance on fossil fuels threatens America and the world in other ways, too. CO2 emissions are increasing global temperatures, sea levels are rising and storms are getting worse.

We need to break America’s addiction to foreign oil. We need a new energy system that is clean, green and American-made. And we need a president who can marshal our nation’s resources, get the job done and deliver the change we need.

That leader is Barack Obama. Barack Obama knows there’s no single platform for energy independence. It’s not a question of either wind or clean coal, solar or hydrogen, oil or geothermal. We need them all to create a strong American energy system, a system built on American innovation.

After eight years of a White House waiting hand and foot on big oil, John McCain offers more of the same. At a time of skyrocketing fuel prices, when American families are struggling to keep their gas tanks full, John McCain voted 25 times against renewable and alternative energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind energy.

This not only hurts America’s energy independence, it could cost American families more than a hundred thousand jobs. At a time when America should be working harder than ever to develop new, clean sources, John McCain wants more of the same and has taken more than a million dollars in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Now he wants to give the oil companies another 4 billion dollars in tax breaks. Four billion in tax breaks for big oil?

That’s a lot of change, but it’s not the change we need.

In Montana, we’re investing in wind farms and we’re drilling in the Bakken formation, one of the most promising oil fields in America. We’re pursuing coal gasification with carbon sequestration and we’re promoting greater energy efficiency in homes and offices.

Even leaders in the oil industry know that Senator McCain has it wrong. We simply can’t drill our way to energy independence, even if you drilled in all of John McCain’s backyards, including the ones he can’t even remember.

That single-answer proposition is a dry well, and here’s why. America consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil, but has less than 3 percent of the reserves. You don’t need a $2 calculator to figure that one out. There just isn’t enough oil in America, on land or offshore, to meet America’s full energy needs.

Barack Obama understands the most important barrel of oil is the one you don’t use. Barack Obama’s energy strategy taps all sources and all possibilities. It will give you a tax credit if you buy a fuel-efficient car or truck, increase fuel-efficiency standards and put a million plug-in hybrids on the road.

Invest $150 billion over the next 10 years in clean, renewable energy technology. This will create up to 5 million new, green jobs and fuel long-term growth and prosperity. Senator Obama’s plan will also invest in a modern transmission grid to deliver this new, clean electricity from wind turbines and solar panels to homes, offices and the batteries in America’s new plug-in hybrid cars.

Progressives for Obama's Denver Diary: DNC Day 4

Exposing Rove, The 'Big Tent', Beat Poets, VetsAnd Denver Streets
Carl Davidson Progressives for Obama


I start the morning by heading straight for the church hosting the week-long series of panels organized by Progressive Democrats of America and The Nation magazine. It's quickly turned into an intellectual headquarters and meeting place for leftists and progressives working the election in various ways, inside and outside the Obama campaign and the Democratic party.

A large crowd is gathering early. The buzz is all about the 100 or so young people busted and dispersed the night before by encirclement by an overwhelming police force combined with tear gas. Most of the city's citizens, let alone those just here for the DNC events, are more than tired of the massive police presence on what seems like every other corner. Add to it traffic foul-ups caused by blocked streets and triple cordons around critical spots, and the most common unifying words you hear are 'unnecessary', 'police state,' and 'overkill.'

I'll wait for the dust to settle for a fuller assessment of the bust. The deeper question is why the radical youth turnout was far less than anyone's expectations-despite a myriad of other well-attended progressive happenings around town. There are probably less than 4000 at the outside, not counting the 17,000 plus locals who signed up for the ticket lottery for 'Rage Against the Machine.


But it still needs to be said, off the bat, that the radical bunch last night had fallen into some serious 'Custerism', as in General George Custer. In planning their action, they billed it, quite openly, as an effort to crash and disrupt a Dem fundraising party at one of the hotels. But they had very few allies for such an endeavor, and were vastly outnumbered by the rather well-informed cops with all their new 'Homeland Security' toys. Needless to say, the only thing that got disrupted was their own project and a little nighttime street traffic.

Back to the opening session at the church.

It began with a fascinating and disturbing speech by Don Siegelman, Alabama's Democratic governor (1999-2003), who was defeated in 2004 by Karl Rove and friends having him indicted on false charges a month before the election, then tried and convicted in rigged trials, haul off to a maximum security prison-“Alabama's worse,” he says-where he is locked up in solitary for nine months. He's finally released only after nearly 50 states attorneys general sign an appeal to a higher court not dominated by Rove cronies, where everything is dismissed.

It's a fabulous introduction to the next speaker, Greg Palast, author of 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.' He not only exposed the fascist machinations of Rove, he went on to offer an excellent exposure of election-stealing in general. His advice? Get ourselves well-trained so we can 'steal our votes back' and get an honest count.

Next is an 'Out of Iraq' dialog between Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Tom Hayden. Mc Dermott was an early opponent of the war, and offers insider advice of how to bring pressure to bear on your Congressman. Hayden expands on his remarks from the day before on how the left-progressives need to take issues like McCain's recent suggestions for a return to the military draft, and press it publicly in a way for the Obama campaign to take it further, to further isolate and expose McCain. Otherwise, he suggests, Obama could lose, since things are very tight.

Hayden has also been passing around sign-up sheets for Progressive for Obama's email group at every appearance. I keep an eye on the sheets, gather them up, and this morning we get another 250 or so.

At the break I decide it's time to hit the streets of Denver.

I want to check out 'The Big Tent', a site near the Pepsi center equipped for 1000 bloggers. It's literally a circus tent over a parking lot, but next to a complex of high-tech 501C3 organizations. Google is a sponsor, as are other third wave firms, and there's some serious money here-plus as a long-time 'cyberMarxist,' I want to be up on these things.

But I decide to walk the distance and take in the sights. Right off the bat, I run into dueling demos and bullhorns. Side by side are the 'Christian' theocrats denouncing abortion, gays and a long list of other violations of the Book of Leviticus, along with the 'World Can't Wait' kids with signs like 'Support Life, Smash Christian Fascism.' Both the local and tourists seem amused, and are snapping photos with their cell phones.

Further along I run into dozens of local African American button and T-Shirt sellers, all doing a brisk business with the widest variety of Obama mottos and slogans I have ever seen. Both DNC delegates and local Black workers seem to be the main customers.

Then comes a contingent of a dozen youth, dressed in black with bandanas, each carrying their own Red Flag, chanting, 'Revolution, the Only Solution! The looks range from bored to quizzical to amused-and the cell phone are snapping pictures again.

Finally I hit the 'Big Tent,' get credential and go inside. Google is offering free ice-cold smoothies in eight flavors-plus they have a machine that will put a free recharge on you cell phone or Blackberry batteries. And inside, indeed, are about 1000 bloggers working away on tables with free WiFi hookups. The implications for the future have my head spinning.

But rather than wait in line, I head for the nearest Starbucks for a large iced coffee, a favored addiction. I see two women, one whose face is familiar, so I wave her over to share the last remaining table. It turns out she's the Beat poet, Anne Waldman, old friend of Allen Ginsburg and now a professor of poetics at The Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetry at Naropa University, up in the mountains not too far away. We have a great time discussing Kerouac's sojourns in Denver, and she leaves me with a recording of her own poems. How's that for serendipity!

As evening arrives, I get a call offering passes to a skybox in Coors Field rented by the Council for a Livable World and VETPAC. It's aim is to offer support and interviews with about six Congressional candidates who are both Iraq vets and supporters of Obama. So I go and talk to several candidates, along with some Military Families Speak Out people. When they get done with shredding McCain's betrayal of recent veterans legislation, there's nothing left. If these guys get their message out, it will help a great deal. It's all very real, down-to-earth and a good end to the day.

Progressives for Obama's Denver Diary: DNC Day 3

Getting Inside The DNC's Gated Communities
Carl Davidson Progressive for Obama

Today I started off heading for the Progressive Democrats of America/The Nation sessions at the 16th and Sherman church downtown. The theme is 'Healthcare not Warfare'-the fight for single payer, with Tim Carpenter firing up the crown and Congressman John Conyers getting into a terrific speech.

But I get pulled aside by an old friend who offers an opportunity to get inside the highly secured Pepsi Center-dubbed 'the Can' locally-for an upscale lunch with progressive writers and editors. The affair is funded by Media Matters, a relatively well-heeled media monitor and fact checker operation that is very useful. I'll spare you the detail of how we got tickets, but my friend said, 'Hey, we're both progressive writers, we got books out, let's go for it.”


So we're off to 'the Can,' and find a decent place to park close by. Then we head through various mazes, bridges and chained linked enclosures, meeting up with checkers at various points, flashing our stuff and getting waved through.

At one checkpoint I run into Todd Gitlin, the writer and sociologist as well as an old SDS friend, who's headed to the same event. We catch up quickly, and in turns out he's chairing the meeting. Once we get past the final check, and up the elevator, I'm in air-conditioned splendor, compared to the sweltering previous day at 'Tent State' eating beans out of a can with lukewarm water from a fountain. Now I've got a wonderful buffet, waiters, and fancy starched and folded napkins in the water glasses.

Attendees are top writers and editors from the New Yorker and the Nation, influential academics like Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power, multimedia people and donors.

The goal of the meeting is very worthy. It's launching a new enterprise, the Progressive Book Club, designed to counter the Conservative Book Club, influential on the right and elsewhere as well.

Gitlin opens the discussion with a challenging question: Is the era of conservative right dominance over? This brings a range of responses showing that the book club is only the tip of the iceberg. The broader agenda is creating and/or building a new progressive cultural and progressive infrastructure for a new politics for the 21st century.

I chime in by noting that in my study of the right over the years, that the brightest of them actually used some of Antonio Gramci's notions of working in cultural and civil society to counter a perceived hegemonism, even if a decadent one, of the liberalism of the late 1960s. It's way past time for us to oppose their 'running it in reverse' and turning it around to build real popular democracy.

Others add to this, and soon we're off discussing whether there really are new progressive solutions out there to the whole range of political, economic and cultural concerns. There's no consensus on that point, but everyone is fired up on the initial concern. All agree it was a good meeting, and new contacts and projects are tosse around as we bring it to a close.

Now that I'm well fed, hydrated and cooled off, I head back to our radical makeshift tent city along the Platte River. Fighting a stiff breeze, I get the 'Progressives for Obama' tent in order and its signs and literature out. I'm open for business.

Soon enough about five young anarchists and radicals show up, some complete in black clothing and bandanas. They're not too hip on voting for anyone, let along Obama, but one figures out that I'm the author of the 1966 'Toward a Student Syndicalist Movement' paper, and the discussion gets far ranging and lively-ranging from Zen, to Beat poets, and election tactics in 1968 and 1972.

Then one kid whips out something looking like a Blackberry and makes a call. “Here, let's do an interview for our radio show.” He presses a few buttons, then tells me, 'just pretend it's a mike, and speak into it as I ask you questions.” It goes on for 15 minutes, and I lay out our approach, while he adds questions with his spin.

It's a good interview. “Give me your card. We'll have it on the air and one the net in a few days, and I'll let you know where to find it on the dial or how to I-Pod it.”

As one of the authors of 'Cyber-Radicalism: A New Left for a Global Age,' I feel like a proud parent. The younger crew here have picked up on things we merely talked about in the future tense, and they now are making them part of their daily lives.