Obama stumps spinners

It's really hard being a Republican these days. They're having trouble figuring out how to attack Obama and how to spin their defeat. So far, Obama is out-Tefloning Ronald Reagen. They tried so hard to make something out of his connection with Blagojevich. Then, when they had not a shred to challenge his statement that he hadn't talked with him, they tried to insinuate something sinister out of the delay in releasing the internal review of his entire staff's contacts with Blago and his aides. Turns out there was nothing there either. In fact, the report was so comprehensive, even including minor meetings like Valerie Jarrett's chance encounter with Blago at the governor's conference, that the report reeks of transparency rather than cover-up. So now the FOXNews and talk radio guys -- as well as many of the MSM -- have eggs all over their faces.

Now the Repubs are really reaching to spin their own demise. My two finalists for the prize, so far, go to: (1) the pundit (I've lost the source) who claimed that the Iraqi journalist throwing shoes at Bush is proof of the success of the Iraq war. See, he was exercising his freedom of speech that is the result of toppling Sadaam, who would have had him drawn and quartered on the spot. Of course, the fact that he was exercising the Iraqi's worst insult to the person who ordered their 'liberation,' and that that sentiment has been echoed and celebrated not only in Iraq, but all over the Muslim world, is beside the point.

And (2) Karl Rove for his claim that Joe Biden has demanded more power as VP than Cheney ever did. See, Biden "demands" that he be in on every major discussion and be part of every major decision. Cheney never "made that demand." No, he didn't have to "demand" it; that's not his style. He just slyly insinuated himself and took advantage of a clueless Prez, besides ordering that all emails to the National Security Adviser be routed, first, through his office. Cheney did it slyly behind everybody's back, including Bush's. And Cheney claimed that his office was not even in the Executive Branch, and therefore he did not have to obey laws governing record-keeping -- prompting jokes that he was creating a fourth branch of government.

In contrast, Biden quite openly and up front, told Obama that if he were his VP, he would want to be sitting at his side in every major decision and have the opportunity to give his input -- whether or not it was accepted. Obama agreed that he wanted that, too -- and they announced it openly in the press. So Cheney grabs power by subterfuge and secrecy (Condi didn't even know her emails were first being read by Cheney); Biden and Obama made their relationship transparent in defining Biden's role.

Cheney, for his part, is throwing caution to the winds in his exit interviews -- seeming to dare his critics to hold him accountable. In short, he has admitted to rewriting the press talking points that indicated Valerie Plame was a CIA operative, thus blowing her cover; he has acknowledged his role in the torture debates but still insists that "we do not torture;" and he has claimed that "anything the President does in a time of war is not illegal." Not quite as sweeping a claim as Richard Nixon made, since he limits it to "time of war." But the thinking is the same: the President is above the law and above the power of Congress and the Courts to overrule him. And then, in his customary arrogant assumption that he knows better than anyone else, he predicts that the Obama team will, in time, come to appreciate the enhanced executive power they have forged, "once they see what we were dealing with." Get the message: our critics are just naive, uninformed; if they knew what we know, they would agree with us -- and they eventually will. Because we are, of course, right.

I don't think any thinking people are buying this malarkey; unfortunately, not many are even paying attention, when we should be running them out of town with tar and feathers.

Only 27 more days !!! Happy Days Are Here Again !!!

Ralph

Fake smoke doesn't mean there's a fire

My trying to ignore the blaring news of the day didn't last long. Today it's back to my rant against the sorry state of journalism: TV news is the worst (right-wing radio doesn't even count as news; it's entertainment), with newpapers next, and even the liberal blogosphere is beginning to slip.

The latest example of that is a headline on Huffington Post: "Obama tainted by Blagojevich scandal." In fact, from the article itself, the headline should have read "Obama had no connection with the Blagojevich scandal." When even liberal voices feel the need to sensationalize, we're in deep trouble.

Last night, I was eating dinner in a cafe where I couldn’t avoid the TV screen, with Wolf Blitzer doing the news. This was CNN — not FOX News — but they couldn’t stop speculating about the motives behind all this. “What’s Firzgerald up to, asking Obama to delay releasing his internal review?" But they went on and on about how this delay will be to Obama's advantage because it allows them to release the review on Christmas Eve, when no one would be paying attention. And of course we know that this is the tactic of those with something they're trying to sneak past the public's attention. And did Fitzgerald really make it that specific as to how many days to wait, or did the Obama folks ask him to say that, so they could release when it would make the least news?
Obviously newspeople have been trained to be suspicious and cynical by past experience with politicians, especially in the Bush/Rove years. So who is now piously pronouncing moral judgment? Karl Rove chimed in from his perch at Fox, saying Obama has not been transparent enough in this affair. Who annointed him spokesman for moral rectitude?
I just hope Obama releases the report and there’s absolutely nothing in it of any concern whatsoever. News people need to have repeated experiences of winding up with egg on their faces from trying to make something out of nothing.
The problem is that, when the newpeople create smoke, people begin to believe there’s a fire. Now there's a poll out showing that nearly half believe that Obama or his aides were involved with Blago and his crimes. And that will stick in minds long past the exoneration of this made-up "taint" of scandal.
Bah, humbug, indeed !
Ralph

Interesting idea

The news cycles never cease to amaze: an Iraqi newsman throws his shoes at Bush, shouting "Here's a goodbye kiss, you dog!" A respected financier turns out to have been a major fraud and bilked the rich and powerful of billions. A disgraced and perhaps deranged governor defies calls for resignation. Bush continues to spin his legacy. Obama continues to amaze with his appointments.

We've heard enough of all that. Here's an interesting idea from Steven Kornacki, writing in the New York Observer, "Here's How McCain Could Break the Presidential-Loser Mold." http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/why-mccain-could-break-presidential-loser-mold

Unlike others who recently lost their presidential races, John McCain is both still in office and too old to consider running again (John Kerry was still in office but kept running). This gives him a freedom to concentrate on rebuilding his reputation as an independent, non-ideological senator who can truly be a bipartisan bridge. He has already taken some steps, chiding his Republican colleagues for trying to tie Obama to Blagojevich.

What an opportunity both for McCain to redeem himself after a very ugly Rove-style campaign and to be a real asset across the aisle to help get Obama's agenda passed. And wouldn't it be ironic if he became the 60th vote that would allow the Democrats to move some crucial legislation, after he campaigned in Georgia to help defeat Jim Martin, the Democrat's last best hope for that 60th vote?

As their losing candidate and as one they never much liked anyway, he will not be the leading Republican voice. And it would burnish the image he seems most to cherish: maverick. It's up to McCain himself, of course. But, if he's a wise man and wants to be remembered for something other than his nasty smear campaign and for giving us Sarah Palin, he would do well to consider this way back to respect and self-respect.

Ralph

New hero

OK. I know Richard and I said we were going to downsize to a once-a-week, Monday blog. But Obama is creating such excitement (forget the troubles Rod Blogojevich has stirred up) with his cabinet and other top choices that I don't want to wait until Monday to comment.

My new hero is his choice for Energy Secretary: Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr. Steven Chu, who has impeccable credentials as an academic physicist, a world-class researcher in alternative energy, and an experienced administrator of high level physicist/energy/research organizations.

He's also a clear thinker and a practical innovator. In a talk he gave last year about the importance of simple energy efficiency, he described what happened when California passed a law requiring manufacturers to make more efficient refrigerators. They initially said it couldn't be done for a price people could afford. But California imposed the standards anyway. It was so successful that now those standards have been adopted nationwide. The result? Refrigerators are now 10% larger, energy used has dropped by 67%, and prices have been cut by 50%.

And Chu summarizes: What happens when manufacturers realize their lobbyists are not going to be able to sway the lawmakers, they shift their funding to their engineers instead of their lobbyists -- and they get the job done. The new efficient refrigerators have saved more energy than extra energy developed by all the wind turbines and solar cells in the country. It's important to do those too, but don't underestimate how much energy we can save simply by efficiency.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2008/12/note-to-detroit-consider-the-r.html

What a difference it's going to make to have this man in charge instead of a Bush Energy Secretary who tries to sabotage any effort to require energy efficiency.

I'm waiting for Ralph Nader to eat crow and retract his statement that there's not much difference in the Democrats' and the Republicans' policies, so you should vote for him.

Ralph

More right notes from Obama

President-elect Barak Obama continues to amaze me by hitting almost all the right notes in the planning for his presidency. Although some progressives are disappointed by some of his nominees thus far, I think Tom Daschel is a great choice as Secretary of Health/Human Services with his ability to get health care reform pushed through Congress.

Obama seems to be choosing experience and stability for national defense and the economy. If his picks for those spots tended to be establisment, at least it's Clinton establishment, not Bush establishment. And his picking Rumsfeld's nemesis Gen. Shenseki for VA chief is very satisfying. I fully expect to see more progressive picks in his nominations for the other domestic policy posts: Energy, Labor, Interior, Environment, HUD, Transportation.

He continues to amaze with his latest announcement, this time by reaching out to the Muslim world. From today's Chicago Tribune:

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.

And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. [He later explained that he was not trying to make a statement one way or the other; simply that it's traditional to be sworn in using your full name, and he's not concerned about what people try to make of his middle name.]

"I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,'' Obama said Tuesday, promising an "unrelenting" desire to "create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together."

The world, he said, "is ready for that message."

What a world of difference from divide-and-conquer, with-us-or-against-us, bring-'em-on George Bush. The contrast makes him look worse by the day, despite his pathetic but despicable attempts to create a positive spin for his legacy: Iraq was a success, No Child Left Behind was a great boon to education, he is most proud that "I did not sell my soul," and -- get this -- he says he restored dignity to the Oval Office. Well, if your only criterion for dignity is not having sex with female groupie-interns, maybe so. But otherwise, I just don't see any dignity in his performance or his image. How can a frat-boy impersonating a president create a sense of dignity? Obama has already, pre-inauguration, restored dignity to the office that George Bush could never accomplish.

Ralph

Echoes of Camelot

With our wise choice of Barak and Michelle Obama as our new First Family gradually becoming a reality, we're beginning to see with stark clarity what we've been missing in the White House. Not that Laura Bush didn't represent segments of Middle America -- she even had poetry readings (although one of the best, Sharon Olds, refused to participate because of Bush's Iraq war).

But it is so refreshing to look forward to the elevation of knowledge, science, and art again and also to an emphasis on a different kind of family values and national character. And to a President and First Lady who can articulate these things. It reminds me of the heady days of Camelot, when Jack and Jackie Kennedy turned the White House into an intellectual and artistic center following the days of Ike's decent ordinariness.

What Barak Obama said at the end of his Meet the Press interivew with Tom Brokaw yesterday literally brought tears of joy to my eyes and to several other friends:

MR. BROKAW: Let me ask you as we conclude this program this morning about whether you and Michelle have had any discussions about the impact that you're going to have on this country in other ways besides international and domestic policies. You're going to have a huge impact, culturally, in terms of the tone of the country.

PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Right.

MR. BROKAW: Who are the kinds of artists that you would like to bring to the White House?

PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Oh, well, you know, we have thought about this because part of what we want to do is to open up the White House and, and remind people this is, this is the people's house. There is an incredible bully pulpit to be used when it comes to, for example, education. Yes, we're going to have an education policy. Yes, we're going to be putting more money into school construction. But, ultimately, we want to talk about parents reading to their kids. We want to invite kids from local schools into the White House. When it comes to science, elevating science once again, and having lectures in the White House where people are talking about traveling to the stars or breaking down atoms, inspiring our youth to get a sense of what discovery is all about. Thinking about the diversity of our culture and, and inviting jazz musicians and classical musicians and poetry readings in the White House so that, once again, we appreciate this incredible tapestry that's America. I--you know, that, I think, is, is going to be incredibly important, particularly because we're going through hard times. And, historically, what has always brought us through hard times is that national character, that sense of optimism, that willingness to look forward, that, that sense that better days are ahead. I think that our art and our culture, our science, you know, that's the essence of what makes America special, and, and we want to project that as much as possible in the White House.

Ralph

April Fool's Day ??

My first thought, when I saw the headlines, was that it must be April Fool's Day or a page from The Onion. Huffington Post headlined two articles, side by side:

"Bush to Receive First-ever International Medal of Peace."

"I Was Unprepared for War . . . I'm sorry about the economy."

The Peace Medal is given by the Global PEACE Coalition in recognition of Bush's initiative to treat AIDS and malaria in Africa. This is perhaps the one area that he can take some credit for, although it's marred by his demand that one-third of the money be spent on abstinence-only sex eduation. He claims that it helped treat two million people; but that's a relatively small percent of those infected with AIDS in Africa, every single one of whom could be treated for a year with the money we spend in nine days of our war in Iraq.

The second headline touts an interview with Bush by Charlie Gibson. But don't let the headline fool you. Bush is expressing regrets about some things "that happened," but he's not taking an iota of responsibility. For example, he "regrets" that he was given "incorrect intelligence" that led to war. He takes no responsibility for not knowing what many of us on the street knew at the time.

On the economy: "I'm sorry it's happening, of course. . . . Obviously I don't like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401(k)s. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. I mean, we're in. And if we need to be in more, we will."

Again, regrets that "it's happening." But no responsibility. We WILL safeguard the system, Sir? Why DIDN'T you safeguard the system when it would have mattered? And do you now support replacing the safeguards you and your Republican scrooges tore down?

No, I didn't think so. Please spare us the crocodile tears, Mr. Almost-Ex President. Go peddle your "regrets" for "things that happened" somewhere else.

Ralph

Obama's emergence as a strong president

Forget "inexperienced." It's been trumped by intelligence and competence. Forget Hillary's secret quote "he can't win." He won by bigger margins than Bill Clinton. Forget the attempt to smear with "socialism." Bailing out Wall Street is being called "corporate socialism," and the Republicans did it. Forget "most liberal senator." Thus far in his appointments, competence trumps ideology.

If anyone, at this point, has reason for concern, it is his liberal, progressive supporters. I don't share that concern. I have such confidence in Obama's judgment and his assessment of what is possible that I'm willing to relax and let him run the show. He doesn't need advice from me.

That may be short-sighted, but it is such a relief after eight years of gnashing my teeth over everything Bush/Cheney/Rove & Co. did. Still, Obama needs us progressives to keep the pressure on him to push forward -- despite the economy -- and at least make a start, by outlining plans for progressive legislation. He intends to do it; but faced with opposition in Congress, he will need a strong, grassroots pressure to back him up.

Thus far, Obama has assembled a team that will govern with intelligence, expertise, and pragmatism in the important areas of economy and national defense and law enforcement. Expect to see more liberal ideology showing up in later appointments: Health and Human Services (Daschle), Commerce (Richardson), and others such as Labor, EPA, Energy, Housing, Interior. Those are the areas for progressive policies and legislation.

So many myths the Repubs invented about the dangers of an Obama presidency are evaporating. I felt a rush of satisfaction as one more bit the dust: that the military will not respect him. He's already trumped that one too by quickly winning over the top military brass. He had a sit-down with Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other day. According to the Washington Post, Adm. Mullen "came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman 'felt very good, very positive,' according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby."

The Post continued:

"But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials . . . is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council of Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Sooner or later, Obama is going to make some missteps. Or he will run out of trump cards. But so far, his emergence as the President has been as nearly flawless as his campaign.

Ralph

I Hate to Agree with George Will, but...

As conservatives go, George Will is certainly intelligent, thoughtful, and well-spoken. (He's also supposed to be a bit arrogant - people here tell a story about a reading at a book store in Raleigh where he allegedly threw a pen across the room because it was a Bic, and so not classy enough for him).

So there are times I feel his analysis of the situation is accurate. I think that's the case with his comments on the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

"She's run two things in her life," Will said, "her campaign, that did not go so well. It was faction ridden, it leaked a lot. And before that, the health care event that they could not even get to a vote in a congress they controlled. Her record as a manager raises caution signs."

Caution signs? How about whopping red flags? Hillary made a debacle of the health care plan, and that at a time when the country supported change. I remember feeling deeply troubled at the time with the way she handled it. Despite clear legal guidelines, she refused to keep records of who she met with, and what they said. She excluded primary care physicians from any significant input, and catered to the desires of the health care industry over the needs of citizen consumers.

She has always been secretive, controlling, and self-serving. In health care, in Travelgate, in the primaries, and generally throughout her career. Her campaign was a disaster, and full of factionalism and finger-pointing.

I'm afraid her position as Secretary of State could easily turn into a platform for making a run against Obama in 2012. At the first sign of a 'mistake', the behind-the-scenes whisper campaign could start a chatter about how the job is beyond him, he doesn't really know what he's doing, if only Hillary had won the primary, and for the good of the country and the Democratic party she will just have to go against him in 2012.

The Clintons have always put their interests ahead of the party. What makes anyone think they wouldn't do so again? Hillary and Bill are arrogant enough to believe they could unseat a sitting president from their own party and win the White House.

I'm hoping I'm wrong, that we see a new Hillary, Hillary the Team Player. But it's hard to believe she's nto going to be looking out for her own interests first, and last.

A primer on the economy

Anyone like me, whose mind glazes over in trying to understand what has happened to our economy, could do no better than to read the clear and concise series on The Depression and on Deregulation by my friend Michey Nardo on his blog at http://1boringoldman.com/

I gleaned a couple of lessons from thinking about this:

1. Any system that lets people get rich by investing in loss is ultimately going to fail. It should be self-evident: if you can get rich by investing in others’ loss without taking any risk yourself, then it’s going to encourage loss in the system rather than success.

2. The ultimate result of deregulation and de-firewall-ization is the creation of financial institutions that become “too big to fail.” Then the taxpayers have to bail them out in order to keep the whole economy from collapsing (i.e., where we are now). Without these enabling measures, the market would punish smaller lenders when they take too much risk, some small institutions would fail, and others would learn the lesson

Instead, the loss-swap measures and the conglomeration of financial institutions kept the market from working to self-correct. I’m not advocating total free markets, like Ayn Rand does, because I think that ignores humanistic values that a humane society wants to insure.

Instead of a really free market or an effectively managed economy, we created a hybrid monster that pretended to be freeing up the markets, while also protecting them both from regulation and from self-correcting forces that would operate in a real free market.

So both governmental regulation and free-market self-correction were eliminated, while encouraging rampant piling up of "assets" that had no real value, only trading value.

I don’t need a PhD in economics to know that’s a formula for ultimate disaster.

Ralph

Humor for the Holidays, and Obama the Buddhist

With Thanksgiving coming up, I decided to forego my usual rant and just pass along two long pieces - one a humor wrap-up from late night TV, the other a discussion of Obama from a Buddhist perspective.

"Pres-elect Obama's looking for a new White House dog. The search is on.
He's spent more time selecting a dog than McCain did selecting a running
mate."
- Jay Leno


"Pres-elect Obama met w/ former political rival McCain.
Both men said it's a relief to put their differences aside, sit down, &
make fun of Palin."
- Conan O'Brien


"According to the NY Post, Palin may appear in the season finale of
Desperate Housewives.
Palin said she's seen the show several times, which qualifies her as an
actress."
- Jay Leno


"Sen. McCain & Pres-elect Obama met, got together & had a nice visit.
Obama thanked McCain for choosing that nutty Alaskan chick.
And Obama said to McCain, 'I'm catching up with you. I just got a 2nd
home.'"
- David Letterman


"Obama agreed to sit down & talk to McCain without preconditions.
When Palin heard about McCain meeting w/ Obama, she accused McCain of
palling around w/ terrorists."
- Jay Leno


"There was a big meeting today btwn. Vice Pres-elect Biden & Vice Pres.
Cheney, or as they're calling it, plugged hair meets plugged arteries.
That does seem cruel.
I prefer to call them foot-in-mouth meets shoot-in-face."
- Jay Leno


"Cheney gave Biden tour of the vice president's living quarters.
Biden said he loves the house, & he'll probably turn the dungeon back
into a rec room."
- Conan O'Brien


"According to MSNBC, Palin could get $7 million when she signs her book
deal.
You know who's really excited about this? Neiman Marcus."
- Jay Leno


"Rumor is that General Motors will run out of money soon, unless the
govt. helps them w/ a bailout.
Isn't that amazing?
All those times a car salesman told you he was losing money on the deal,
he wasn't lying."
- Jay Leno


"Pres-elect Obama's meeting every day w/ his transition team, or in
Beltway lingo, his trannies.
They're helping him pick who'll be in his new govt.
7,000 presidential appts. are up for grabs. The Obama administration's
making history again, by being the only place in America that's
currently hiring."
- Stephen Colbert



THE MINDFUL CANDIDATE

Seeing Barack Obama's historic campaign in a Buddhist light

NASH SIAMWALLA

Barack Obama himself stressed throughout his campaign that he himself was not perfect and that he expected to make mistakes as president. This is a fundamental understanding of human nature and of dhamma.

It is my belief that Barack Obama's successful presidential campaign, which was based on the concept of "change we can believe in," and its underlying message are synonymous with Buddhist self-transformation. In Buddhism, people who are transformed become selfless and dedicated to serving others. This is what many people felt when they watched the broadcast of Obama giving his somber, determined victory speech in Chicago on election night. Something in the back of our minds said that we were witnessing history, and that we seemed to have arrived at the dawn of another chapter in a more principled humanity. In the candidate himself, there is a powerful lesson that we can learn from. It is not just for politicians who dream of running a successful campaign=2 0and a landslide victory; the lesson is equally valuable for the rest of us. It would be ideal, though, if the world's politicians could learn the underlying message that Obama delivers, and the values that drove him and shaped his character. As we now know, the global following of Obama's campaign was unprecedented. The American press attributed it to their country's position as the leader of the consumer economy: whatever America decides, the repercussions will be felt by the world. This is straightforward enough, but Lord Buddha also taught that every being and phenomenon in this world is interconnected, hence the need for us to always have good will and act accordingly towards one another for continuous peaceful co-existence. But in addition to that, a Buddhist view offers another explanation for the Obama phenomenon; it was not merely the result of economic dependence on America. For those who believe that what are important in this world are power and money, we beg you to consider the following facts and think again, as there are more profound things that Obama offers. Let's first admit, there was something about Obama that we were drawn to, and it was not just his charisma or his inspired oratory. What was it? Mindful candidates always stand out Looking at Obama's historic campaign, what strikes us most is how consistently mindful this candidate has been. By mindfulness, Buddhism refers to the ability to be totally aware of the nature of things as they are, in the present moment, without pre-formed judgment or emotional partiality. Obama, as we saw, was always able to remain calm and composed in any situation. He was always mindful of his thoughts, his words and his deeds. He never showed hate or anger. The only time he allowed himself to show his human side is only when he talked passionately about the well-being of his family. Even when the political process got heated with the opponent's campaign throwing aggressive comments at him, Obama refused to retaliate in a similar manner. Repeatedly, he made it clear he would not take, in his own words, "the low road." Mindfulness leads to clean politics By being constantly mindful, Obama was able to look at issues objectively. The result is a proof that human beings feel more comfortable with objectivity than with mud-slinging, name-calling politics. For example, Obama preferred to refer to the current problems as resulting from "failed policies" rather than "failed individuals." This brings to mind a Christian saying, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." Buddhism has a similar teaching which encourages us to address the mental defilements as separate, conquerable entities from beings, who, in fact, suffer from unknowingly harbouring such defilements. Obama also went out of his way to show his constant respect for fellow human beings, even when he has been the target of disappointing or harmful words and actions by some of them. In other words, we know that he values forgiveness and unity because he actually practices them. Accepting the congratulatory phone call from McCain, Obama was able to say, "I need your help. You are such a great leader in many areas." Obama also praised McCain for waging such a tough campaign, and he did not lie: McCain did deliver a tough campaign, which probably forced Obama to try harder to sharpen his own thinking. McCain must have felt exactly the same. McCain's sincere, heartfelt and gracious concession speech on election night, despite more than a year of gruelling campaigning as a political foe, is a testament to how Obama's mindful leadership and humility won over McCain's tough, war-veteran heart. Obama's values in a Buddhist perspective Obama was able to achieve this formidable feat simply because he believed in the virtues and capability of every human. How could a politician achieve such an ethical outcome? From a Buddhist point of view, it is because Obama has a firm grasp on the fundamentals of dhamma, the nature of things, as well as karma, the law of cause and effect of action. Obama himself stressed throughout his campaign that he himself was not perfect and that he expected to make mistakes as president. This is a fundamental understanding of human nature and of dhamma. And how did he plan to address this common-man drawback? In Obama's=2 0own words: by being humble and listening to advice and criticism of others. Humility is another admirable trait of this mindful candidate, stemming from his encompassing awareness of how things are. For example, in his victory speech, Obama appeared somber rather than self-satisfied, arrogant and triumphalist. He told the hyped-up Democrat crowd that they should accept this victory humbly, especially so because he simply followed the footsteps of one great Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. That reference to Lincoln alone is enough to make people realise that what really matters is the shared humanitarian values and not antagonistic divisions along party lines. Another important aspect we can learn from Obama's campaign is how he could inspire people. He could easily have taken advantage of the poor condition of the US economy to rev up the negative emotions of the crowd towards the current US administration, but he refused to do so. Instead, he inspired people to sacrifice themselves, to do more together and for each other so that they all would be lifted out of this troubled time together, Democrats or otherwise. This is the understanding of the law of karma. Everything in life is related to what we do now in the present moment. Lamenting and blaming each other for things past would not help us out of current suffering. The American press also gave Obama lavish praise regarding his steadfast refusal to run a "negative campaign" agai nst his opponents, even sometimes at his own cost. Lesson learned: mindful leaders who set their minds solely on the benefits of the people sacrifice themselves and bravely sustain the low blows while continuing to hold on firmly, never losing sight of their original purpose. Obama's call is not just idealistic, but an earnest call for action. By performing good deeds, good karma, together for society, Obama believes that good effects would naturally follow. What breeds mindful leaders? How could a relatively young presidential candidate have so much wisdom on life? A wisdom, we may add, that is usually associated with respected old sages. Looking at his formative years through a Buddhist lens, we understand why. Despite growing up with a loving family, Obama has experienced hardship at first hand. There were times when his mother had to rely on food stamps to feed the family. Obama himself recalled in a voice stirred with emotion how she had to spend the last few months of her life studying health insurance forms to make sure her medical expenses were covered. This is why the young Obama is so driven to provide affordable healthcare to all. Hardship, or, in Buddhist terms, suffering, apparently drove Obama to strive to work hard in all areas for the underprivileged. He apparently turned down offers from prestigious law firms and to go into politics because he wanted to work for the benefit of others rather than for himself. 0A In Buddhism, understanding suffering is the first requirement towards acquiring wisdom. Having goodwill to all and living life to serve others mindfully is integral to Buddhist Enlightenment. In Thailand, HM the King exemplifies such virtues. Elsewhere, Mahatma Gandhi gives us the example. Want to be like Obama? It's not beyond our human capacity. To be able to achieve this level of maha sati, Great Mindfulness, Buddhism prescribes vipassana practice with a detailed step-by-step guidance for anyone who cares to learn. Mindful leaders are transformational leaders Academically, Obama's type of leadership is known as transformational leadership. It is when the leader and followers inspire each other to rise to a higher moral level by sacrificing themselves for society, for a cause higher than themselves. In practice, transformational leaders are mindful people who transform themselves before going on to transform the life of others. By being constantly mindful, research shows that transformational leaders function better than other leadership models in time of change or crisis. The author had the privilege of being at Harvard Law School at the same time as Barack Obama, although Obama was a year ahead and we were in different programmes. We might have occupied adjacent cubicles in the library or even taken the same international law classes together. Certainly, we went through similar "suffering" for a period of time. Gruelling study aside, the author also recalled how classes were cancelled as students staged sit-in protests, demanding that a tenure position be given to an African-American female faculty. It was a cause Obama was known to support. Although we do not have evidence if Obama indeed had some mindfulness training at Harvard Law, we do know that mindfulness meditation is now a regular fixture at the school. The initial workshop was so successful it has grown into a full-fledged programme called Harvard Negotiation Insight Initiative, aiming, among others, to train people to listen mindfully to others, which is doubtlessly the required basis of successful negotiations. If a predominantly Christian country can incorporate this Buddhist wisdom into its top law school's curriculum and in effect producing great leaders, so can we. Yes, we can. (Sorry, couldn't resist it!) Wakeup call for world leaders It may seem incredible that a person with such a humble beginning as Obama could have made it this far. Yet, when looking through the lens of Buddhism, it should not come as a surprise. This is a mindful and humble candidate with a deep understanding of dhamma running a thoughtful and honourable campaign, encouraging people to be selfless and join forces to create good karma for the purpose of lifting others out of suffering. It is precisely because of this that people all over the world were drawn to this campaign. It is not only about the economy, but also because the human mind responds naturally to inspiring virtue. The world cannot have enough of transformational leaders. Mindfulness, non-aggression, the understanding of true nature of things, recognition of the Buddha-nature in every human and tangible, action-based selflessness for the benefit of others, the campaign could not have been more Zen-like than this. As a Buddhist country, we should be happy to see mindfulness in action on a global scale, and Obama's embodiment of Buddhist values should be a wakeup call to us. A mindful candidate can surely achieve great things for society. This, inevitably, brings us to ask ourselves if this kind of clean, honourable campaign and mindful, selfless and focussed politician who enters politics to serve others is too much to ask for in a traditional Buddhist country like ours. Where and how should we start? How about some wise words from Obama himself as quoted in Time magazine, "We need to start over," he said, "speak gently, listen carefully, find solutions and keep our words." Mindful advice is always context-free. Surely, Obama's insightful advice can be applied everywhere and anywhere, not just to the current American political and economical mess. The answer depends on how soon we could say, "Yes, we can!" To make sure we reach that day sooner than later, perhaps it would help to at least mindfully refrain ourselves from the usual politics of, "No, we20can't!" The author is currently writing a dissertation on the role of mindfulness in transformational leadership development. Questions, comments and recommendations are welcome at http://zen-sense.blogspot.com

HolyJoe's diminishment

As our readers know from my past blogs, I have an intense dislike of Joe Lieberman. One reason is his sanctimoniousness; hence, "HolyJoe."

I was outraged that the Senate Dems let him keep his chairmanship of Homeland Security, which I saw as kowtowing to HolyJoe's threat to have a temper tantrum and go join the Repubs if they didn't. I know the importance of the 6o vote filibuster-proof majority; but my rage was such that I was willing to let that go. Call his bluff. Just say No, and force him to decide if he really wants to join the losing side.

Yes, I know that Obama let it be known that he wanted HolyJoe to stay in the Dem Caucus, altho he didn't say (at least not publicly) that he should be allowed to keep his chair. I had about come to terms with that, thinking that Obama is a bigger man than I am and, quite properly, more interested in getting his agenda passed than in racking up vengeance.

A blog by Bob Cesca on Huffington Post a couple of days ago gave me a new perspective on it, however. He excoriates HolyJoe for his negative campaigning against Obama, especially questioning his patriotism. To me, that was unforgivable.

But then Cesca addresses HolyJoe directly, saying "you think you got away with it, right?":

Not so fast.

I submit to you, Senator Lieberman, that you were punished yesterday more than you realize. . .

In sharp contrast to your behavior, President-elect Obama hasn't shown any predilection for pettiness or disloyalty, nor has he undermined his allies for the sake of political expedience. He's proved himself to be a man of great character. . . .

You, on the other hand, have shown an unapologetic contempt for the party that once nominated you for the vice presidency -- . . . . You've betrayed your fellow liberals to settle a political score, Senator. . . .

This is behavior President-elect Obama doesn't appear to be capable of. Because he's clearly better than you. In fact, it's not difficult to hypothesize that had you possessed a fraction of his political instincts or any small measure of his morality, you would absolutely not be in this position, Senator.

See, by allowing you to keep your precious chairmanship -- by letting you off the hook -- President-elect Obama, through his political bigness, punished you without punishing you. He beat you yesterday, Senator. He beat you because he let you be you, and underscored it with his demonstrably better angels and strength of character.

In the final analysis, the hard reality is that by not choosing retribution, he made you look...

...small.

And that, Senator, is good enough for me.

Cheers!
Bob Cesca

Now that almost makes it tolerable for me. When you add that this also gives the Dems the upper hand for making demands on him for votes or for actually doing something useful with his committee -- maybe it is tolerable. Just as long as they keep him away from TV cameras. I don't want to have to look at HolyJoe's kewpie doll face ever again.

Ralph

Stop Blaming the Unions

Predictably, the right wingers are blaming workers, not management for the US auto industry problems. The problem with that is that it isn't true.

The Detroit Free press ran this article disputing the allegation that unioin wages are out of line for American carmakers.

The UAW is losing its edge in pay compared with non-unionized U.S. assembly plant workers for foreign companies, even as Detroit automakers aim for deeper benefit cuts to trim their losses.

In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies.

In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year. Toyota would not provide a U.S. average, but said its 7,000-worker Georgetown plant is representative of its U.S. operations.

Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. are not far behind Toyota and UAW pay levels. Comparable wages have long been one way foreign companies fight off UAW organizing efforts.

But Toyota workers' pay topping that of UAW members comes as the union faces contract negotiations this year with struggling Detroit companies that will seek billions in concessions, partly because they face higher costs for retiree health care and pensions than their foreign-owned competitors.

Who's to blame?

UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel said if Toyota workers were paid more than union workers last year, the blame lies with Detroit's auto executives. The companies have lost market share because of past mistakes, which have translated into fewer bonuses for workers, said Casteel, who is on the union's executive board.

"Our profit-sharing formula, I know, is better than theirs -- if our vehicles are selling," Casteel said.

Ron Lare, a 59-year-old Ford employee on pre-retirement leave, said Toyota workers shouldn't get too excited about their wages because bonuses fluctuate. The only thing consistent, Lare said, is union protection.

"The floor beneath their feet is basically what the UAW has won," said Lare of Detroit, who has worked at Ford for 28 1/2 years. "If the UAW gets beaten down, their pay is going to come down. You let there be a real recession in the auto industry -- that bonus won't be there for Toyota, either."

Union perks vs. nonunion perks

The pay comparisons reflect the relative profitability of the foreign and domestic companies more than shortcomings of the UAW. But the situation chips at the argument that workers united in solidarity can get better wages, benefits and job security -- especially as the UAW shrinks and growing foreign companies continue to ward off organizing efforts.

"How do you convince someone you're better off with the protection of a union when they're making more money than the union employee?" asked Alfred McLean, a 66-year-old hourly UAW member at General Motors Corp.'s Warren Tech Center. He has 28 years of experience.

Workers for foreign automakers don't pay union dues, but they do share the costs of insurance and retirement plans. UAW-represented autoworkers get health insurance and a full pension after 30 years -- valuable perks they will fight to keep during contract negotiations this year.

But even accounting for Toyota employees' health care spending -- $700 per year on average, according to the company -- the Georgetown workers still made more in 2006.

General Motors Corp., which lost $10.6 billion in 2005 and didn't issue profit-sharing checks last year, paid its production workers an average of $27 an hour, GM spokesman Daniel Flores said. That would be a base of about $54,000 a year, based on a 2,000-hour work year. The $30 average at Toyota's Georgetown plant, which includes a bonus, equals $60,000 a year.

Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group representatives said GM's base pay figures are similar to theirs. Only Chrysler, which had a 2005 profit, paid a bonus last year. The $650 bonus was not enough to surpass Toyota's pay.

For years consumers have been asking for fuel efficient vehicles. What has been the response from US carmakers? Build more trucks and SUVs because the profit margin is larger. Unfortunately management failed to provide American consumers with the high mileage vehicles they wanted- which is why Toyota and Honda sold out in the US.

But American carmakers did build them for Europe.

Here are some links to wonderful, fuel efficient cars GM is building in Europe. These would've sold in the US.


http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/european-car-of-the-year-goes-to-general-motors/

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/07/gms-new-europea.html

So enough of the BS about union wages destroying the car industry.

I sail bail out the carmakers - only if their entire management teams step down, or agree to work for free until profitability is restored.

Out with the old -- an update

Well, yes, out with the old Bush administration, in with Obama's team. But there's the rub. By offering Hillary the Secretary of State position (if Bill gets a clean bill), Obama is flirting with keeping too much of the old.

The old team of rivals idea is great, and some say bringing in Hillary shows Obama's confidence that he can still be in charge. With anyone else, I'd agree. But Bill and Hillary are in another class altogether when it comes to dramatically using the media to stir up controversy and cause trouble.

But SoS would put her as the administration's leading voice and policy person in the very area in which they differed most in the primaries. Not only on the Iraq war but in her more hawkish position vis a vis meeting with our enemies and her hardline stance generally internationally. Disagree in private, yes. But will she then be a team player and accept his decisions? Or will she undermine him and subtly push her own views.

But even that concerns me less than the Clintons' affinity for drama and for using the media to promote their view and undermine the administration. And if (when) that happens, it would be a huge political risk for Obama to fire her. That's scenario is playing out even now. Look how they're talking to the media, making it seem inevitable even before Bill has been vetted, thus making it difficult for Obama not to give it to her.

Maybe it's worth it. In some ways, it would be brilliant. And I guess if Obama can forgive her for the primary negativity, I can. But I worry about her and Bill being able to accept being #2.

Ralph

Hillary for Sec. of State??

My first reaction to news that Obama had offered the Secretary of State position to Hillary Clinton was negative. He's already surrounding himself with more people from the Clinton administration than seems consistent with "change." And then there's the over-riding problem of Bill -- his larger than life presence, his foundation contributors, and most troubling of all some of his financial dealings with important figures in other countries that might prove to be conflicts of interest with his wife as SoS (like the Khazakhstan uranium deal, or one with a Chinese internet company, and contributions to his library from several middle east Arab governments).

On the other hand, choosing Hillary suggests that Obama is not afraid of strong opposing voices in his cabinet -- in fact, he is embracing Lincoln's idea of a "team of rivals," in which he brought his political enemies into the cabinet. The Clinton name would definitely be an asset internationally, and Hillary would probably do a great job rebuilding our reputation.

On yet another hand, the messy, barely competent way her campaign was run does not bode well for Hillary as the administrator of the huge State Department organization, which is said to be rather demoralized after eight years of political ideology trumping career service.

Then there is the matter of Hillary's hawkish stance on the Iraq war. How well would that mesh with Obama's diplomacy and withdrawal stance?

Aside from the merits of the appointment (Kissinger has called it "outstanding"), how does it play out politically? Hillary supporters would be delighted. But what about Obama's netroot supporters, for whom Hillary is still something of a pariah after her negative campaign against him?

And what's in it for Hillary? She's still too junior in the Senate for a major committee chairmanship, and she's not likely to become majority leader in the foreseeable future. Ted Kennedy turned down her request for a new subcommittee on health care, which would have shifted the leadership on that issue from him to her. Although she's said she just wants to be the best senator for the people of NY, will she be satisfied to end her political career there? If she has any idea of another run for president, might SoS be a better launching platform for 2016 than the Senate? Obama may not be thinking this way, but if things don't go well for him in the next 4 years, it would make it more difficult for her to run against him in 2012 if she has a major cabinet position.

I'm puzzled by the undenied reports that Obama has offered it to her and that she asked for time to consider it -- alongside reports that he's also interviewing Bill Richardson. Now I read online that Richardson was interviewed on Friday, which is definitely after the leaks that Obama had offered it to Hillary. That seems strange. Either he didn't offer it yet but just discussed it, or maybe they both know she can't take it (because of Bill) and the offer is a gesture.

I'm eager to see how this plays out. I'm ambivalent about it myself, seeing both positive and negative factors.

Ralph

Obama's First Mistake

I hope Howard Dean will have an important role in the Obama Administration, otherwise it's a big mistake not to reappoint him to lead the DNC. Without Dean's visionary ideas about politics, Obama would never have been elected. Dean was the first candidate to develop a plan for recruitng volunteers and raising money via the internet. He was the architect of the 50-state strategy, which most Democrats fought.

I don't know where we're headed in future elections, but I would hate to see a visionary removed from a position where he can guide the party where it needs to go. Especially if the pundits are right, Obama wants to replace him with Claire McCaskill of Missouri - a move which harkens back to the traditional notion of appointing people who might win you a state you lost.

Here's hoping Dean is stepping down to lead the push for National Health Care, and not just leaving as part of a traditional political shuffle.

Finding the meaning of the election

I've been trying to capture in words what this election means, as I've experienced it. I think it's going to take a long time for us to fully appreciate the far-reaching significance. But here's a start, some thoughts that are coming into focus for me now.

1. Books will be written about the racial significance. It is indeed a milestone and a defining moment. The image of Jesse Jackson's tear stained face in the crowd listening to Barak's speech in Grant Park says it. It's the look of wonder in the eyes of African-American boys and girls who, even in this day, see this as affirming something new for them. Though legally permissible, the practical reality of one of them becoming president had not felt like a possibility. Now it is. It's what brought so many of us to tears that night, realizing that we hadn't even quite known how much we needed this defining moment until now it's here.

And this, that I didn't catch that night because -- who listens to the announcer? But now we read that Tuesday night with the crowd waiting for the speech and the hour at hand, the announcer did not say: "Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States." No, he said: "Ladies and gentlemen, the next First Family of the United States." And out onto the platform strode that beautiful, vibrant, comfortably assured young family -- Barak, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha -- who are all so devoted to each other and who genuinely find joy and love in their bonds and their time together. It's palpable, even from a distance. They will be a stunning role model as First Family, not just for African-American families, but for all families.

2. The Atlanta newspaper's Pulitzer winning cartoonist Mike Luckovich had another winner on November 5th. It showed President Obama sitting at his desk, taping back together the jigsaw puzzle-like fragments of the United States Constitution. Most of us don't even realize how much the Bush administration has shredded the fabric of our democracy. How fitting that we've elected a former professor of Constitutional Law to put it back together.

3. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was right; it matched Obama's wise plan to campaign in and for all states. Hillary was wrong when she said "He can't win." Not only did he win, he won all age groups except the oldest. He won a majority of both women and, by a narrow margin, men. He won urban votes but also suburban. There were remarkable flips, especially in Hispanics, who went for him by big margins and helped carry FL, CO, and NM. With the exception of the Appalachian region, down through TN, AR, OK, and Northern TX, the whole country shifted toward Democratic candidates. Even in states Obama didn't win, votes were closer than 2004, like Salt Lake City which McCain won by 2,000; Bush had won by 80,000.

4. Obama's popular vote margin of 6.5% and his electoral vote of 365 to 173 is a decisive victory, enough to call a mandate for change: on exit polls, those who put "change" as their most important criterion voted for Obama by 89 to 9. McCain's attempt to co-opt the mantra of "change," to portray himself and Palin as the Two Mavericks, failed to fool the people. In fact, none of their negative tactics worked; at most they activated their own base. One take away lesson from this election: the American electorate is not so easily fooled as it was in 2000 and 2004. Perhaps an economic crisis makes you think more clearly about where your real interests lie.

5. It means, for one thing, that we can trust our government again. I had not realized what a relief this will be. I no longer feel constantly tense, knowing "they" are screwing things up every day and lying about it, feeling it's up to me to do something but without power to do so. How odd that this seems remarkable: we can expect a government that is competent, transparent, honest and trustworthy, and one that respects science and welcomes the knowledge of experts. Now, we can relax and just trust our new president to do the right thing and to choose his administration based on intelligence, knowledge, and competence rather than political loyalty and desire to undermine the department they control.

6. I find it refreshing lately to be able to quote the other side in praise of Obama. Charles Krauthammer is a conservative columnist for the Washington Post and, in my opinion, he is usually offensively wrong. But here's his take on our President-elect; after discussing the mistakes of the McCain campaign, he says:

Which is not to say that Obama did not run a brilliant general election campaign. He did. In its tactically perfect minimalism, it was as well conceived and well executed as the electrifying, highflying, magic carpet ride of his primary victory. By the time of his Denver convention, Obama understood that he had to dispense with the magic and make himself kitchen-table real, accessible and, above all, reassuring. He did that. And when the economic tsunami hit, he understood that all he had to do was get out of the way. He did that, too.

With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.

7. One reason Obama's campaign was so drama-free and so successful is that he knew who he was and what he wanted to do, and he simply stuck with it. The campaign didn't have to spend hours every day figuring out how to change the message for political effect. David Axelrod said his concern at the beginning was whether Obama "had that pathological drive to be president. You know, so often, what defines presidential candidates is this need to be president, to define themselves. He didn't have that. And, you know, we told him, 'You're gonna have to find some other way to motivate yourself.' And he did, which was what he could do as president."

We have elected a mature, healthy, whole man, not someone whose drive for power can only be satisfied by the ultimate power job, or someone who is trying to work out his conflicted relationship with his father. His ambition seems to be primarily what he can do for the country and, ultimately, for the world. Critics would say that betrays a grandiosity, even messianic mania. But, if it is grounded in a mature, coherent self identity, instead of narcissism, it also happens to define the rare, transformative leader.

8. Most of all, I am filled with pride and admiration and contentment. We the American people have chosen an extraordinary man for a perilous time. He brings remarkable intelligence, wisdom, emotional maturity, and seemingly an ideal temperament for the demands of the job. Watching him grow over the past 22 months assures me that he will continue to grow in office and that he will be judged by history as one of our great presidents.

Ralph

Hatred from the Right

It didn't take long. On election night four students at North Carolina State University spray-painted "Shoot Obama" and "Kill the nigger" in a tunnel on campus. What happened when they were caught? Nothing. They were scolded. I guess it's okay to call for the assassination of the president elect. The right wing whackos were apoplectic when someone hung a Halloween mock-up of Palin from a tree in California(following the Obama hung in effigy in Ohio). But - Surprise! Surprise! - I haven't heard one word from the right condemning the vile call for murder at NCSU.

Yesterday I saw an incredible one-man play written by Mike Wiley, based on Tim Tyson's novel "Blood Done Call My Name". It was about the racist murder of a young black man in Oxford, NC.

In 1970.

While I was graduating from Brockton High School, people down here were murdering young black men, and getting acquitted.

In 2008, we have college students calling for the murder of a man elected president just because he happens to be 50% African American.

Things haven't changed that much. And they probalby won't. Sarah Palin stoked the fires of hatred with her bitter, name-calling condemnatory campaign. And for a core group of fanatics, that hatred will continue to smolder. Yesterday I heard Limbaugh refer to Obama's government as "The Lewinskyites".

Besides the obvious idiocy of such a characterization, the use of that term speaks of a mind so narrow and prejudiced that he can't even attempt to tolerate, let alone understand, anyone whose views are different from his own. His 'dittoheads' will certainly mimic his hatred.

This came a day after he condemned a defeated Republican Congressman for daring to say the Republican Party needed to broaden its base, reach out to Blacks and Hispanics.

"No we don't," Rush screamed. He ended by saying good riddance to this Republican, he was glad he was defeated.

Obama has created an atmosphere where millions of people now feel safe to accept each other in the hopes of moving forward, creating, as cliched as it sounds, a more loving and just society.

We have to hope that the knuckle-draggers will soon die out, or find small caves to hide in where they can rail at the shadows on the wall and think they're talking to the world.

California marriage equality: not yet . . . again.

California is at war with itself over gay marriage. For those who may not have been following this issue, here are the basic facts:

1977: From 1850 until 1977, California marriage laws were gender neutral, a contract between two people. In 1977 the legislature defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."

2000: In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote, which enacted a law that defined marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman.

2004: San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome, in defiance of what he considered an unconstitutional and discriminatory law, ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. These nearly 4,000 marriages were later annulled by the CA Supreme Court upholding the law, as it was then written.

2005: CA legislature passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages. Governor Schwartzenegger vetoed it. Again in 2007 the legislature passed a similar bill and again the Gov. vetoed it.

2007: In the fall of 2007, a valid petition by voters put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. The operative phrase was "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," the same as in Proposition 22. But, whereas Prop22 was for a statute, which could be ruled unconstitutional, Prop8 was for a constitutional amendment which could not.

May 2008: CA Supreme Court ruled that the statue put into effect by Prop22 was unconstitutional, thus granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples, which began in June 2008. Some 18,000 couples married between June and election day.

Nov 2008: Prop8 passed by 52% to 48%, thus nullifying the May 2008 Supreme Court decision. It officially changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. There had been a massive, $60 million campaign to pass the measure, launched by Mormon and Catholic religious organizations. Their advertising included misinformation and scare tactics to inflame emotions.

To get on the ballot, a voter initiative requires simply a petition of voters equal to 8% of the number who voted in the last (2006) election of governor. This process completely bypasses the state legislature.

Legal challengers are claiming that, because this takes away a right that same-sex couples had been granted by court decision in its interpretation of the Constitution, it in fact is not "amending" the constitution but "revising" it and therefore has the higher requirements of legislative approval. Obviously this would make a great difference, since the legislature has already twice voted to make same-sex marriage legal. This is unlikely to prevail, since courts turned down a similar argument to stop Prop8 from getting on the ballot. However, that might have been simply a procedural decision, based on not preempting a voter initiative. So it's worth trying.

There it stands. My own opinion about the process is that it makes no sense for it to be this easy to amend a constitution on such important issues. Why bother to have a constitution if a small percent of voter can put it on the ballot and a simple majority can adopt it? Usually it is made difficult to amend constitutions in order to avoid this kind of highly emotional campaign fervor leading to bad decisions. In Georgia, by contrast, it requires a supermajority of 2/3 vote of each house of the state legislature, followed by voters adopting it by a simple majority.

On the other hand, in this particular case, it also makes it equally easy to undo with another ballot initiative. In contrast, in Georgia, we will have to get our Republican majority legislature, both houses, to vote by 2/3 majority, to put it back on the ballot at some future date. In the foreseable future, that is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Granted that many people oppose marriage equality for gays, while still being fully supportive of equality of rights and benefits, withholding only the benefit of "marriage" itself. Many people want to keep this distinction either from religious beliefs or because of not wanting to change what is such a tradition, feeling that it would somehow take something away from the institution of marriage as we have known it.

However, first I would offer the evidence that, in the three years experience in Massachusetts of gay and lesbian marriages, there has been no discernable effect on heterosexual marriages or on the institution itself. Second, I offer this anecdote to ponder:

In the 2004 flurry of gay marriages in San Francisco, first-in-line to get their license were the lesbian couple Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, iconic leaders of the gay rights movement who had also been life partners for over 50 years. Their 2004 marriage was later annulled by the Court.

Just a few weeks prior to this, Britney Spears waked up one morning after a night of wild partying with an old high school boyfriend and discovered that, without quite meaning to, she had married him at a midnight ceremony in the 24 hour wedding chapel in Las Vegas. In the 52 hours that it took Britney's handlers to get it annulled, she was entitled to more than 1000 government benefits that are available to married couples but that were denied to Del and Phyllis.

Fortunately, Del and Phyllis had another opportunity to get married, which they did last August. And this time it was legal. Del died a few weeks later at the age of 87 of the cancer she had been battling. But she died legally married to her long time partner.

Britney's subsequent troubles with drugs, divorce, second marriage, drugs, second divorce, child custody battles, scuffles with police as she shuttled in and out of drug rehab, raises the question: who demeaned the institution of marriage: Britney or Del and Phyllis?

Ralph

More on why HolyJoe should go

Colin McEnroe in the Hartford Courant (Hartford, CT, Lieberman's home state) ponits out that Lieberman has broken with his party, not only by campaigning for its presidential opponent but by engaging in "loathsome fear-mongering against the man he once begged to come and save him."

What he's referring to is that, when Lieberman was losing the Democratic primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont, he tried to get Obama to come and campaign for him. Obama did not -- but then neither did he work against him. He just didn't get involved trying to save a man whose position on the Iraq war he strongly opposed who was about to be defeated by a strong anti-war candidate.

The party owes him nothing. He turned against it when he ran as an independent against his party's nominee for senator from CT in 2006, he turned against it when he endorsed McCain, and he sealed his fate when he joined the negative smear campaign against our next president.

If Harry Reid and the Democrats don't show him the door, then they are indeed spineless and short-sighted. His vote is not worth the message of letting him do this without consequences. Let him stay in the caucus if he wants to; but take away his committee and, I would say, his seniority.

It is grimly ironic, as McEnroe points out, because of the seniority system in the Senate, this mealymouthed turncoat chairs one of the prestigious committees (Homeland Security), while Hillary Clinton does not chair a committee at all.

Ralph

Election fraud in Alaska?

Something is wrong with the vote in Alaska.

First, the total vote was surprisingly low, less than in 2004, despite a 12.4% increase in their August primaries, which were before Gov. Palin was put on the ticket.

Either people stayed home rather than vote for "the most popular governor in America," or something happened to some of the ballots.

Now, add to that the fact that apparently Senator Ted Stevens has won his race for reelection, despite having been convicted of felonies connected to political corruption and despite the fact that a poll taken by respected Research 2000 showed his opponent (Begich) leading by 22% points just days before the election.

Another respected national pollster, Rasumssen, who also predicted a solid win for Begich, correctly predicted every other senate race in the country within the margin of error in its latest poll -- except this one in Alaska.

Supporting the question about fraud even further, Representative Don Young, who is under investigation by the FBI for corruption, was also predicted to lose by multiple pollsters. He also pulled off a surprise "win."

I don't care if the people of Alaska found out they didn't like their governor so much after all and decided to stay home. But it seems, if anything, that would have reduced the vote for other Republicans as well, not increased it for Stevens and Young.

Something's rotten in the state of Alaska.

Ralph

No Way, HolyJoe

This farce, wherein HolyJoe Lieberman thinks he is in a position to negotiate whether he keeps his chairmanship of a major committee as part of the Democratic caucus, is in fact . . . a farce.

HolyJoe not only endorsed McCain, which could possibly be forgiven as a kind gesture to a good friend; but he campaigned actively for him and would have gladly accepted the VP nomination, if offered. Worse, he repeatedly said unforgiveable things about Barak Obama -- guestioning his readiness (while presumably thinking Sarah Palin was ready), questioning his solidarity with Israel, questioning his patriotism, and revving up the Bill Ayers smear.

Now he turns around and starts saying nice things about Obama's victory. No, HolyJoe, you don't get to get away with that hypocrisy.

HolyJoe told Harry Reid that he wants to remain in the Democratic caucus but that losing his committee chairmanship is "unacceptable." Well, I say lettting him keep it is unacceptable. I have signed a couple of petitions on it. If you have the chance, I urge you to do so.

Forget the Senate 'gentleman's club' atmosphere; forget letting him apologize and move on, as Evan Bayh suggests. Kick the mealymouth, sorry ass out of there !!!

Ralph

Afterthoughts #2

Drew Westen, Emory psychology professor, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, informal advisor to the Obama campaign, and friend of mine, has a concise summary of why Obama won: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/westen.winning/index.html

He says that McCain was saddled from the start with 3 strikes against him: an unpopular president, an economic downturn, and an unpopular war, none of which he could really distance himself from because of his 90% support for Bush's policies.

But he also credits Obama with many positive factors that led to his win. He has an extraordinary ability to organize people and motivate them to participate. Like Bill Clinton, he has "both the general intelligence to govern and the emotional and political intelligence to win. And they finally abandoned the approach to campaigning that has been their downfall for generations: peppering voters with facts, figures, and policy positions and assuming they will see what a rational choice the candidate is."

Another comment from Drew: "What Democrats learned from this election is that if their candidate thinks like a professor but inspires like a preacher, they can have their cake and eat it, too."

Ralph

Afterthoughts #1

As I just wrote in my comment on Richard's post, before cutting back to weekly postings, I will post some "afterthoughts" over the weekend. Here on this 3rd post-election day, my feelings about it still haven't coalesced into a coherent whole. Rather than wait until they do, I'm going to jot down some disparate thoughts, and we'll see about some grand summary later.

1. Starting with what I just read online, Obama's agenda for today: meeting with his transition team of economic advisers, holding his first news conference as President-elect, getting his first national security briefing, returning numerous protocol congratulatory messages, all the while confering privately with potential appointees. But this busy day began with his attending parent-teacher meetings with Michelle at their children's school.

What a guy !! We've had presidents with young children before, but I don't remember any who were so obviously involved in their children's lives. The photo of JohnJohn Kennedy crawling out from under his father's desk in the Oval Office became iconic, and the Kennedy's were noted for family events. But pictures of Barak with his daughters show a degree of authentic joy with them that's rare. And he routinely answered questions about the rigors of campaigning by saying the hardest thing was not having more time to be at home with his daughters. That is only one of the many things I admire about this man, but this is definitely one of them.

2. Where are Bill and Hillary? Since the election, I saw nothing in the media about them or their reactions. Of course it must have been a bittersweet moment for them. and they did better to stay out of sight rather than have that picked over. Hillary has spoken to the press today, saying she called Obama to congratulate him and praising his choice of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

3. Speaking of the Emanuel appointment, his former boss in the Clinton White House, Leon Panette, said he is "the perfect SOB for the job." I take this as a signal that Obama plans to run a tight ship and to get things done, to use tough negotiating tactics with Congress and to ride herd on the White House staff. Having someone like Rahm, for whom this comes naturally, will free Obama to attend to policy issues and be the diplomat. They'll be a great good cop/bad cop pair.

4. Good for Campbell Brown for calling the McCain staff on their hypocrisy as they go after Sarah Palin. Not that I'm any fan of Palin, but their scapegoating of her is overboard. Here's what Campbell said:

You are the ones who supposedly vetted her, and then told the American people she was qualified for the job. You are the ones who after meeting her a couple of times, told us she was ready to be just one heartbeat away from the Presidency. If even half of what you say NOW is true, then boy, did you try to sell the American people a bill of goods.

I would only add that, as he said himself in his gracious concession speech Tuesday night, John McCain is the one ultimately responsible.

Ralph

Reduced Posting, and Interactive Analysis

The NY Times has an excellent analysis page on the 2008 election. Not only is there a chart broken down by various demographic categories, you can compare the results, category by category, to previous elections going back to Reagan.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

Perhaps the most important lesson candidates might learn from this election is that the old notion that you begin with a base of white voters, then add minorities to bolster your totals, is no longer necessary. A successful presidential candidate can build a base of African-American, Latino, and Asian voters, and use white voters to supplement that.

This should lead to a greater emphasis on inclusive elections and policies. If the Republicans continue to focus on rural, white fundamentalists, they will fail to adapt to the demographic realities of this country. That 'base' is not large enough to win a national election, and because their beliefs are so narrow and rigid you cannot build an inclusive platform around them.

It may get ugly in the South, as this group of voters feel their power threatened, but Obama's election should provide an impetus to move our country forward into an era of tolerance, accommodation and emphasis on shared goals.

As for this blog - I spoke with Ralph yesterday, and we have decided to cut back our posting. We will post on every Monday. Of course, we also leave open the option of posting more frequently, as the urge to spout off hits us. And if anyone feels the need to comment on something we haven't discussed, notify us by talking about it in a comment to the most recent post and we will respond.

But for now, look for our new posts to appear weekly, on Mondays.

Wrapping up the numbers

I haven't yet found the right words to say what I feel about this historic election of Barak Obama, so I'll put that off a bit longer.

Just a few more words about polls. Now that North Carolina is officially called for Obama (thanks, Richard; you did good), it brings his electoral count to 364. Now, for all I've made of the great polling analysis outfits, RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight, there is one other measure of how the campaigns are going that is very simple.

It's called InTrade, and it's based on the idea that you get more accurate predictions if people "vote" with their pocket books. People actually place bets on who they think will win. Not who they want to win, but who they're willing to bet money on. Just like at the race track.

There are several of them, but InTrade does it state by state. Then they add up the electoral votes of the candidates by who is leading in each state betting pool.

The Obama/McCain split has been pretty consistent, with a few deviations from time to time, since last summer when I began following it.

And guess what that magic number for Obama has been for most of the past 3 months: 364

So, unless Missour's final count turns out to go for Obama, which looks unlikely, InTrade would have to take the prize for absolute accuracy. If it goes for Obama, then he would have 375, just 3 short of the 378 that George Will predicted and that everyone thought was way too high.

Ralph

Fox News Points Out How Scary It Was

I know it's post-election, but Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron revealed information that makes it clear the choice of Palin was an outrageously dangerous one that could have put the entire country at risk if McCain had been elected. No matter who you voted for, no one should ever, ever nominate someone whose ignorance is so extreme.

According to Fox News - Fox, the right wing lap dog -

The McCain people felt Palin lacked "a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency"

Partly because

Palin didn't understand Africa was a continent, or a series of countries. She thought it was 1 country in itself. She actually asked her aides if South Africa wasn't just a part of the country of Africa.

She had no idea which countries were in NAFTA(the US, Canada, and Mexico - DUH!). She couldn't name the countries in North America.

She was totally unfamiliar with basic conservative philosophical positions, like American exceptionalism.

She had "real problems" with basic civics, governmental structures, municipal/state/federal governmental responsibilities.

McCain wouldn't even let her go on O'Reilly - according to O'Reilly - unless McCain was sitting beside her to bail her out should her ignorance get her in trouble.

She refused preparation help for the Couric interview, then blamed her staff when she self-destructed.

Again according to both O'Reilly and Fox News' Cameron, Palin cracked under the pressure of the campaign. She threw tantrums, screaming and throwing things, when she viewed negative press clippings. She cracked over the 'pressure' or bad press? God forbid what would happen if she had a real crisis to deal with.

She was so angry and nasty towards her staff she reduced them to tears.

One of the stories the McCain camp tells now to show how Palin was clueless, is of the time the campaign went to her hotel room to pick her up and she greeted them at the door wrapped in a towel, having just stepped out of the shower.

She was a shopaholic who would go out and buy clothes even after the McCain campaign provided her with that $150,000 wardrobe. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.

This isn't about clothing, it's about deceit. Just like hiding her emails.

To McCain's credit he did not know about this. Aides knew he'd be pissed at the clothes shopping, so they kept that information from him. McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin and vetoed her request to speak at his concession speech.

Remember, the sources for this information - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, the McCain campaign. Not the 'liberal media'.

But this was beyond selecting an incompetent running mate. This was about making a crass political decision that willingly put the country at risk merely for political gain.

The morning after

Hey, Richard. You're right, of course, your states came through and mine didn't. Thanks for that.

What a sweet morning after . . . although I have to admit, I'm a little slow getting going this morning. With sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion from standing for 8 hours as a poll watcher, and emotional exhaustion from 21 months of this . . . I'm a little numb.

I haven't quite assimilated winning into my emotional DNA.

Back to winners/losers: As of 10AM, it's looking like our GA senatorial candidate Jim Martin may force a run-off with Saxby Chambliss. With a Libertarian candidate taking a few 3.4%, Chambliss is leading with only 49.9% with 96% counted. It turns out they still had a lot of absentee ballots to count when we all went to bed last night. It's rumored that they are mainly in Fulton County, which went big for Obama. Now that would be huge and almost make up for not taking the state for Obama. In fact, moreso, because Obama's got more than enough EV's -- and he could use another conversion from R to D in the senate.

Also, here are my bragging rights, Richard. I couldn't deliver the whole state; but my current county of residence, Fulton -- as well as my home town county, Washington -- went big for Obama. And this is in Bible belt, semi-rural, middle Georgia. So, there !!

Ralph

PS: Not to rub it in, but my numbers guru was right on the money in almost every race -- Obama popular vote 52.3 to 46.4% (+ 5.9% and Nate predicted 6.0%. No Bradley effect.). And it includes a 1.0% win in NC and a 3.7% loss in GA. A few not-quite-on misses: He had predicted a 1.5% win for McCain in IN, and he underestimated Obama's surprisingly big win in NV. And Missouri is still too clase to call, and he gave it to Obama with 0.1%.

Hey Ralph, My People Came Through

Hey Ralph, I noticed on the election map that the states I lived in came in big for Obama. Massachusetts 65%, Washington 58%, Pennsylviania 55%, and it even looks like he'll win North Carolina with 50%.

What happened in Georgia? You failed to deliver the 'Cracker State' for our candidate.

I hope you do better next time or we're just going to have to put you out to pasture.
richard

Voter Intimidation Already

I received this eyewitness report from a person manning the polls in Virginia.

I showed up for my first shift handing out ballots and showing the flag
at about 8:50 and left at 10:15. Voting at that hour was very light,
but many federal workers showed up before the doors opened at 6:00 AM,
and through the first hour the line was out the door. By 8, I'm told,
waiting was zero or just a few minutes. This is typical of this
precinct, no matter what the total voters are. There will be another
pulse, probably larger, between around 4:30 or 5:00 PM and closing time
at 7:00pm.

The precinct offered two ways to vote: touch screen and optical scan.
We urged all Dems to choose the paper ballot optically scanned as that's
a far more secure way to do things.

We did have some trouble. There were 4-6 Democratic workers, including
an outside lawyer plus an inside watcher and inside lawyer. The
Republicans sent one middle-aged woman with a hard looking face. She
approached every voter and offered a Republican sample ballot. If the
voter turned her down & said he/she wanted to vote Democratic, the GOPer
got mad and began haranguing the Democrat. We took names and phone
numbers. the 7 year old son of one such victim began to cry when the
GOPer said that she was very upset, very frightened for the boy if Obama
won.

Finally the chief precinct worker came out and looked. Then the
school's security officer chatted with the gal who was told she could
hand out ballots and chat but could not intimidate. She asked if she
could walk further away from the voting place and continue. "No. Not
on school property."

When she wouldn't take that for an answer the school principal sent for
the County's police. When I left two officers were reading her the riot
act and demanding that she either quit voter suppression, or they would
remove her from the site. But shortly after I left to get some rest
before going back in the PM.

So anyway, voter suppression tactics are not limited to lower class and
black neighborhoods. The median income in Great Falls, VA is pushing
hard on $75K, maybe higher. Our lawyer said that 4 years ago at the
same polling place there had been genuine suppression going on inside
the polling place by Republican poll watchers.

Documented Voter Fraud

Okay, let's not get paranoid but already voters in West Virginia, Texas and Tennessee have talked about computerized voting machines trying to flip their votes to the candidate they didn't vote for. Yesterday Mike Connell, the Republican IT guru who created Ohio's 2004 election result network, was deposed in relation to a lawsuit looking into vote fraud in the 2004 presidential election.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#071808a

And Princeton University reports that the voting machines used in New Jersey and elsewhere can be hacked into in 7 minutes by anyone with "basic computer knowledge".

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9118204

What does this mean? I guess, if there are surprises, we need to all be vigilant and persistent and follow up to make sure all allegations of vote fraud are investigated.