"This country that I love"

Barack Obama’s speech yesterday on race was excellent. As those who have come to support Obama’s bid for the presidency expected, he did more than respond to the wild-eyed images of his former preacher that had been playing on all channels over the past week. He put them in context, sure, and said he disagreed with them, but he went further. He discussed the country’s past and its present, the bitterness and anger and resentment on all sides of the racial divide that may be grounded on legitimate concerns and injustices, but that also flows from ignorance and insulation. By placing both the legitimate gripes and the damaging bitterness right there on the table, Obama both contextualized those issues without excusing them, and provided a basis for discussions and possibly even some eventual healing. It was a good speech indeed.

Those who do not like Obama will not be swayed by that speech. Those who want to find flaws or quibbles will always be able to do so. They will try to recast the speech as not going far enough, or going too far, or not sufficiently damning Rev. Wright, or who knows what else they will come up with. But the question that had been floated out there by Rev. Wright’s comments, and by Michelle Obama’s comments about the country which some had found bitter, was where did Obama really stand on the notion of America as a country? Was he secretly an angry, tear down the walls kind of guy who was just good at posing as a relaxed and thoughtful fellow?

And that’s why, to me, the real heart and soul of the speech was encapsulated in that one little line Obama uttered, “this country that I love.”

Obama sees the country the way many progressives do. He doesn’t have any blinders on, and he recognizes the major challenges we face. He sees the bitterness and the anger and the way some of the more dubious corporate interests have pitted the people against each other. But he is, above and beyond all that, a man of hope, who sees the promise of America, the ideals enshrined in our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, and believes we can continue to work toward a more perfect nation. He seems to be coming from the same place we are -- his heart is in the right place -- and that’s probably why we’re all so comfortable with him. Good job, Obama!

It's 3 a.m. all over again

There is an excellent opinion piece in today’s New York Times entitled “The Red Phone in Black and White.” It’s by Harvard Sociology Professor Orlando Patterson, and it points out something about Hillary Clinton’s 3 am add that, once you hear it, is kind of an “aha” moment.

As you probably recall, the 3 am add shows a bunch of sleeping, light-skinned children, ostensibly being checked on by a vulnerable, white mother. All the while, a telephone is ringing, unanswered, in the background. The message of the visuals is that these innocent, light-skinned folk (first white and blond, then vaguely Latino) are being threatened by some dark, predatory character, perhaps just outside, perhaps already in the house. The unanswered phone shows that there’s nobody coming to help these poor folk. It’s classic racism. Pure and simple.

Meanwhile, continuing her trek into the world of the disingenuous, Clinton also said she and likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain both had experience to answer that 3 a.m. call, but Obama only had a speech.

Tying racism and inexperience together, Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro has now repeatedly stated (including on Fox News) that Obama is only in the position of being able to run for President because he is black. Not in spite of the fact that he is black, which would be more accurate, but because of it. As if the citizens of Illinois and all of us who voted for Obama are being duped into some sort of silly, affirmative action vote. And as if that argument couldn't be turned right back on Clinton and her status as a woman. Failing to see how silly the argument is, the Clinton camp appears to be arguing that, in addition to being black and inexperienced, Obama is also an outsider who doesn’t know what he’s doing and can’t be trusted with our precious, pure children and white women. Give me a break!

Says Clinton on answering that 3 a.m. phone call: “Now I think you will be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He has never been the president. He will put forth his experience. I will put forth my experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

There is no reason that being a partner in a big law form or sitting on the board of Wal-Mart or being married to a politician or eight years as an elected official (Clinton’s resume) should count as experience relevant to answering that 3 am call, where Obama’s community organization and voting rights work, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years as an elected official should not. Clinton’s argument doesn’t make a lick of sense.

For that matter, McCain’s one hundred fifty five years in the Senate doesn’t make him any better suited to answer that 3 am call either. Senators are not called on to make split-second, life and death decisions. Governors do face those situations on rare occasions, but none of the three of them (Clinton, Obama or McCain) has ever been a governor or even in law enforcement. All three of them are legislators.

And it’s not like it’s rocket science figuring out how to answer that late night distress call. The process should be relatively the same for anyone in that situation:

1. Pick up the damn phone before the sixth ring, and find out what is going on.
2. If it’s an attack or disaster, figure out how to stop the attack and prevent further damage to the country and its people, and then do it.
3. Move to help those people who may have been harmed or affected.
4. If it is an attack, strike back. (Note, that’s “strike back”, not “strike Iraq”! They rhyme, but otherwise have entirely different meanings.)
   

And the president doesn’t have to do those things one at a time or all by him/herself. The president has a team, his cabinet, and each is in charge of a different arm of the government. Get each of them working on whatever portion of the response their section of government is responsible for. And do it quickly and expertly.

Now, all of that would seem a no-brainer, but the Bush Administration has shown otherwise. Their first goal, protect their own ass. Second goal, use the attack/disaster to push some political goal, like attacking Iraq. Third, … well, there is no third, because everyone they put in place is an incompetent hack. Let the states/cities/democrats figure it out, that’s the third response, along with the typical Republican “tough luck, suckers.”

So the whole 3 am phone call thing really highlights the importance of having the most competent, expert advisors, cabinet and staff that a president can find. With a functioning government, the 3 am call is already planned for.

Obama is a smart guy who appreciates practical expertise, knowledge and skill, even when it disagrees or contradicts with his own positions. You don’t get good advice from “yes” men, and Obama knows that. All you have to do is read his book to confirm this. And that trait sets him apart from both Clinton and McCain, that’s the whole point of his campaign – let’s get the best out of everyone. Would I trust Obama and his team with that 3 am call? Hell yeah!

Lastly, if you’re a Clinton supporter, let her campaign know how upset you are by their recent tactics.

The Experience Straw Man and Hillary's Turn to the Dark Side

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have repeatedly hit Barack Obama over his supposed lack of experience. Sen. Clinton’s campaign highlighted this stance of their attack (which has turned singularly ugly and dishonorable) in a silly, but apparently effective, 3:00 am advertisement. Obama is all talk and no action, they say, he’s a novice, and he will freeze or not know what to do when push comes to shove. But let’s face it, Obama is 46 years old; he may not yet be a wizened sage, but he is no spring chicken either.

While Sen. Clinton derides his lack of experience, Obama has in fact been an elected official for far longer than Sen. Clinton has.

Here’s a rundown of Obama’s experience:

Obama received his Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from Columbia University. After a brief stint in New York, me moved to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer. As Director of the Developing Communities Project (a management job – hello!), Obama worked with low-income residents.

Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988 and graduated in 1991.
He returned to Chicago and spent two years working on voter registration. In 1993, he joined the law firm Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he continued his career working at the community level, representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and (of course) voting rights cases.
On a parallel track, in 1993, Obama also became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He taught constitutional law for about ten years, until his election to the United States Senate in 2004.
Obama ran for, and was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. He was reelected in 1998 and 2002. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.
Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004, and has been there since that date.

So, that’s five years as a community organizer dealing with voting rights, three years as an associate at a big law firm, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years now as an elected official. Based on Hillarymath, Obama has twenty-two years of experience!

John McCain has more years as an elected official, and Hillary Clinton has less.

Despite the fact that Obama actually has a significant amount of relevant experience, Clinton has engaged in a scorched earth tactics to attempt to vilify and infantilize Obama with half-truths and outright lies. It is hard for me to believe I supported her as recently as six months ago – I am really sickened and angered by her decision to go Rove. The reality is that Clinton won in Ohio and Texas not because of any positive message she has, but through the same old false smears and fear tactics Rove and Bush and Cheney have been using for the past eight years. Sad indeed. Where’s the honor? Where’s the trustworthiness?

To this day, Clinton has not come forward with a compelling reason to support her. She has a number of interesting policy proposals, but has expressed absolutely no governing philosophy at all. Why does she advocate the things she does? How does she see the world? What does she view as the role of government? Obama has answered these types of questions, at length, in several books. Clinton, not so much. If Clinton doesn’t come up with a positive, compelling message, she should not win. If she takes the nomination anyway, the democrats will lose, and it will be entirely on her shoulders.