Congratulations President-Elect Obama! Now What?

What a ride. This election has been interminable and I think we're all thankful that it's over. well, maybe most of us, anyway. There will always be a hard core group on the losing side that can't let go and carries the vehemence and vitriol of the election over into the interregnum period. They are caught in a parallel universe of the never ending election. I hope they enjoy it there. I'd find it a horribly noxious place.

For the rest of us, we can now move forward into a new day and with a new American face to show the world.

Congratulations have been pouring in from my friends and relatives around the world. They are, without exception, ecstatic with our choice. Obama's election has reinvigorated many of us who always believed in our country and felt it had the potential to jump over it's own shadow and make such a departure from the past. More importantly, many who had despaired of America have been found their faith in this country reborn. I also believe that the mere fact of a President Obama will make life difficult for many of the hate mongers and anti-American forces abroad that decry our democracy and civil rights a sham. Obama spoke most forcefully on this subject himself, last night.

Now comes the inevitable question, "what now?" Truly that lies in all of our collective hands. The presidency is more than a symbol but it is also not the all powerful position many seem to think. The newly minted President Obama will inherit a horrific economic situation, two ongoing wars and the accumulated debt and deficits of the Bush era. On top of that he will have to deal with the limits of the office, something that Bush simply ignored with the complicity of the Republican - and later Democratic - majority in congress.

I have always argued that the President gets way too much credit for a good economy and too much blame for a bad one. They can, through use of the levers of power of the executive - regulation, enforcement etc. - push things strongly in one direction or another but they do not occupy the brand that makes legislation or sets the budget, that is congresses job. It’s time congress took their role more seriously. If they do, the new President may find one his challenges to be working constructively with congress while resisting it’s worst impulses. I expect President Obama to issue more vetoes, or veto threats, than President Bush. Still, the real power lies in congress and Obama will need a good strategy to deal with congress, even a congress of the same party. His mandate sized victory will help with this task. Many incoming congressmen and senators will have arrived there on the President’s coattails. In general, a large electoral victory provides a new President with significant cover in his dealings with the other branches of government and with the opposition.

President Obama will have another potential ace up his sleeve, though, you and me. Many people, especially on the right, denigrate Obama’s election slogans, “yes we can” and the, admittedly odd and awkward, “we are the change we’ve been looking for” as empty rhetorical devices. I think it’s clear that this President believes these phrases intensely. His entire campaign was built around not only the slogans but the fact of “we” making the change happen. Obama has presented himself as a leader, yes, but also the conduit through which we can personally effect change. During the election we effected change by making those $86 donations, $5, $10 and $25 at a time. We made calls to other voters, cajoling, arguing, encouraging and reminding them to vote for our candidate. We wrote email, we blogged, we spoke out about the issues and how we felt our candidate would be the best to address them. Every campaign depends on volunteers but the Obama campaign took this idea to new heights, making unprecedented use of the new communications technologies to link supporters with the campaign and each other.

I fully expect President Obama to call on us to continue to help him govern the way he asked us to help him achieve this office. Call me naïve but I think President Obama would be foolish to abandon such a resource. Aside from the obvious advantage of keeping this tool sharp for his re-election campaign, it is a tool without parallel for demonstrating grass roots voter support for the President’s positions. While there’s certain to be significant fall off in participation on the part of Obama supporters and we shouldn’t be expected to, nor will we, offer our support blindly regardless of the policy, keeping citizens directly involved will invest us in the outcomes and give us ownership of the policies in a way we’ve never experienced before on such a scale.

Obviously, this is not a blunt instrument to be used to bludgeon the President’s opponents and it must be used wisely and infrequently or “we” will quickly tire and grow disillusioned with our newfound involvement. We have lives to lead, jobs and families to attend to and our own local communities to manage. We have representative government for a number of good reasons and this is not meant to supplant that in any way. Rather, much as the many groups we may support ask us to contact our representative about a specific policy, the President may do the same.Such calls are not new. Presidents have requested such support in the past but the new administration possesses tools that previous administrations could not imagine and, as a result, the potency of such a call may be magnified many times over.

I had originally intended to write a simple post expressing my joy at the outcome of the election. And while that joy is undiminished, I felt it important to gird for the work to come. I’m confident that our new President will rise to the challenges that face us. I also hope and believe that he will engage us directly in the process.

More on Hillary Clinton's Support for Obama

Carrie Budoff Brown & Glenn Thrush, over at Politico, have an in depth article on the oft discussed relationship between Obama and the Clintons. The gist of the of the article is that the Clinton's relationship with Obama has deepened and improved over the past months and that they've supported him intensely.

Here's what I think is a salient quote from the article regarding Hillary Clinton's position on Obama vs. McCain. Must read for undecided Hillary Clinton supporters:

"Hillary Clinton’s relationship with her former rival is still constantly evolving.

After it became clear her in the spring that her comeback against Obama would come up short, Hillary Clinton plopped down into the front seat of her campaign plane and shared her thoughts on the general election with a handful of wrung-out staffers.

Clinton, whose relationship with Obama was still tense and tentative at that moment, professed no great affection or admiration for Obama, whom she regarded as less qualified than herself. But she would support him, body and soul, she said, because she was so terrified by the prospect of McCain sitting in the Oval Office. And that was before the credit markets crashed, setting off a domino effect on the U.S. economy.

“John McCain’s my friend; I really like him,” she said, according to a person who was within earshot. “But there’s just no way we can let him be president.”

Clinton’s relationship with Obama has improved markedly since then (although associates say she occasionally betrays her belief that she’s be a better candidate), but friends and associates say her manic work on behalf of her longtime Democratic rival is motivated not so much by Obamaphilia but, rather, by a bone-deep fear of McCain.

“She’s convinced he would destroy the country,” said a source close to the former first lady.

Her impression of McCain has gone even farther south since the troubles on Wall Street surfaced a few weeks ago. When supporters call to complain about Obama, as some still do, she invariably regales them with a polite but steely description of how McCain will drive the country off an economic cliff, people close to her say."

I guarantee you that Hillary knows John McCain better than you do! Think hard before you take that step off the cliff and vote for McCain.

Someone else's view of what this election is about

This links to a very nice article by Jonathan Curley about his experience canvassing for Obama. he's a conservative southerner. It's not highly political but it's an interesting personal perspective.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1103/p09s02-coop.html

Wow! Obama knows an illegal alien . . .

Amazing, the news has just hit that Senator Obama's Aunt Zeituni is an illegal alien. Damn, Senator Obama knows an illegal alien. How weird is that? I bet none of you know an illegal alien, right? I mean, how could you possibly know an illegal alien, you wouldn't choose to associate with one, now would you?

Let's do the math. According to the GAO and the Pew Research Center there are about 12 million illegal aliens in the US or approximately one in every 25 people. And, of course, you don't know 25 or more people, right? Plus, you don't know THOSE people anyway.

Obama says he didn't know about his Aunt's immigration status but we know that's bunk, right? I mean, I ask all my new friends and any family members about their immigration status. Oh, you think that's racist, do you? Well. . . I ask the white ones too and, and. . . those without accents. No, it's true, I demand proper paperwork before granting friendship or acknowledging family ties. No supporting illegal immigration for me.

I urge everyone to reject this blatant disregard for our laws. Show the Senator from Illinois how it's done. Go out and confront your circle of acquaintances and people you do business with and root out the illegals amongst them! I'm sure you won't find any illegals of course, we already established that you wouldn't even think of having anything to do with anyone like that. So, what's the problem? Get started with your own personal "crusade" today. I'm sure your friends and relatives will all thank you for your interest.

The Economist Endorses Barack Obama. . .

Well folks, better late than never.

The Economist, that well know bastion of liberal orthodoxy (that was a joke. Man I hate having to explain jokes. . . in advance), has officially endorsed Barack Obama for President.

I'm a big fan of The Economist and have had an on again and off again subscription over the past 25 years. The magazine is justly famous for its witty and intelligent writing about international politics and economics.

So, drop your pitchforks over there on the right, Obama is obviously not a socialist or The Economist wouldn't endorse him.

BTW even John McCain doesn't believe his own rhetoric about pinko Obama.

Follow up on factless facts from snopes.com

Just a quick follow up on my previous post. I went to snopes.com, great source for rapid response rumor busting. As always, snopes has the whole story. Check it out here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

And I was right. . . part of it did start out as a satire. Stooooopid people.

here's the original post. The author helpfully provides the word "satirical" in his column headline:

http://azconservative.org/Semmens118.htm

Factless facts of virus - not viral - emails

Just today I received a forward tid bit from a friend. It was a quote chain email purporting to be the transcript of a "Meet the Press" show from September 7th 2008 wherein Senator Barack Obama supposedly answers a question from a General Bill Ginn (USAF Ret.). In the transcript, Senator Obama supposedly waxes lyrical about his attendance at flag burning events with his lovely wife, Michelle, who - of course - hates the country for many reasons. He also tells of his desire to change the national anthem to "I'd like to teach the world to sing" so we could show our enemies some love.

Man, this sounds more like a satire on Saturday Night Live than a typical right wing email virus. I won't bother to paste the contents of this claptrap. From the above summary, it should be clear to anyone that this is s load of horseshit.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, horseshit seems to be the currency of political authenticity. As a result, I felt compelled to check the sources. I know, I know, what's the point. Anyone boneheaded enough to fall for this stuff obviously WANTS to believe it so they have a reason to vote against Obama besides latent racism. BTW I'm not suggesting that everyone voting for McCain is a racist. They're not. Many many people truly believe in the policies he espouses or simply feel that he is the better man for the job. I'm talking about the small group of people who are uncomfortable with Obama for "reasons they can't quite pinpoint or don't want to share. . ." and would like some "solid" reason to make the choice against him.

So, I checked the source(s). This was made easier by the balls of the people who came up with this story. . . they chose "Meet the Press" as the source. Alright, if I want to come up with some kind of plausible basis for a story about Obama, you'd think I'd go for something more obscure than "Meet the Press" but noooo, these guys go for it. They obviously assume that no one will care or bother to check the facts. And you know what? They're right! No one who could possibly be swayed by this vile cow patty of a lie would think to go to NBC and look at the publicly available archives for the show. To get right to the point, these people aren't going to bother to THINK at all!

Here's the link to the specific show's transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26590488/

And, if you're interested, here's the link to the general archive:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8987534/

So, what does the transcript show? Obama wasn't even on the show that day. Joe Biden was the guest. And General William Ginn, an 80 year old retired Air Force general, has never been on the show. He has a thinner google search result than I do. I'm sure he's a nice guy and, who knows, maybe he's even voting for Obama. One thing he's definitely not doing is interviewing presidential candidates on TV.

So, what does all this mean? Not a damn thing. There is no meaning to any of the sewage that flows uncontrolled through the email landscape. There is no content. There are only vile, unsubstantiated lies, rumors and innuendo.

What this email does is provide a window into the mind of large slice of the right wing electorate as well as the fears and concerns of another swath of the public that feels Obama is the "other." That great unknown outside our neighborhood. The thing that invades our home through the teleivision. Obama, strange name. . . born in Hawaii, African and, hell, he lived in Indonesia. . . maybe Muslim?

The fear and ignorance that is palpable in our culture is frightening to behold. Watching the recent McCain rallies, I wonder that I share this country with such confused and angry people. McCain himself appeared visibly concerned about the reaction of his audience. Maybe he's beginning to see where his current strategy leads.

We're scratching the surface of polite society in this election and the puss that is oozing up is disgusting indeed. One can only hope that the aftermath of this public draining of a cultural abcess results in the healing of this hideous national sore.

Who are the socialists?

I've been a bit paralyzed over the past months. Paralyzed in terms of where to start this blog. Paralyzed by the sheer chaos and outrageousness of the past months in our culture, economy and the ongoing election.

So, I've decided to start here, with the latest thought to pop into my increasingly pressurized skull. Who are the socialists? Funny question in America. To be honest I don't see any real socialists in this country. . . at least not among the mainstream. Our most left leaning politicians in the democratic party are far from socialists.

But I was thinking about the question as I listened to an NPR report about the increasingly strident tone from the audience at McCain rallies. As I listened, I heard the apoplectic voice of a man shouting his outrage at the takeover of America by the socialists. By socialists, he made clear that he meant the well known card carrying aparatchiks Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and other assorted democrats.

Now, to be fair, it may well be that this enraged member of the increasingly odd republican "base" considers all democrats and possibly moderate republicans to be socialists. He may not be any more alarmed at the prospect of an Obama presidency than he was when Clinton took the helm or Jimmy Carter before him. This entry is not about that or about defending Obama from the brain farts of a delirious political true believer. No, my musings are about the current turmoil in the financial systems and how this has turned the current, republican, administration into a, possibly reluctant, nationalizer of businesses and massive government interventionist.

Now, leaving aside the Bush administration's eagerness to listen to our phone calls and commit all manner of gross violations of our privacy that harken back to the methods of the late governments that operated behind the iron curtain, this administration has converted, or is in the process of converting, hundreds of billions of dollars in bad debt into one form or another of government "equity" in the US financial sector. Not only that but the federal reserve has begun making loans in the commercial paper market. What's that? Well, to simplify, it means that the fed is now making loans to normal business to cover short term borrowing requirements, i.e. to make payroll or cover inventory prior to sales. In other words, the fed is now operating as a. . . bank!

Hmmmmm. . . well, that leads me to wonder what the definition of socialism is. I have my own but let's go to an objective source. How about Webster's? According to Webster's, socialism is:

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

OK. I'm not suggesting that the government is planning to take over any productive companies just yet (wait until GM files for bankruptcy for that) but it is clear that a sizable portion of the distribution of capital is now becoming an ownership stake for the community as a whole, the government.

So, does that make Henry Paulson or George Bush socialists? Well no. . . at least not in the classic sense of the term. To me, the only difference between the economic actions being taken by the administration and true socialism is that a socialist government would, at least in theory, be attempting to manipulate this ownership for the benefit of the people as a whole. In the current situation it is clear that this is not the case. The Bush administration is taking pains to avoid direct government ownership or power in the firms in which it is investing. We are told that we will potentially make gains or, at a minimum, lose little when these bad debts finally mature. We are not, however, given any control or guarantees nor are we to benefit directly from the profit of companies as they recover from the current market chaos and economic contraction.

So, what we have is the socialization of the financing mechanisms and a large chunk of the risk while the upside benefit of our investment will be, at least primarily, distributed amongst the shareholders and management who led their companies to make poor investments in the first place.

This has lead to the phrase: "Privatization of the profits and socialization of the losses."

So, socialism for the elites. A redistribution of wealth but from the bottom to the top.

We the people shall become second class shareholders in failed institutions. We will be without a voice in the corporate governance of these institutions and shall have no say in the day to management of the companies, no seat on the board.

The only method remaining to us to "manage" these companies, our companies, is the broad brush of regulation, which, as we all know, is anathema to republicans. Otherwise we are left without recourse to ensure that our money is not similarly mismanaged in the next artificial financial bubble.

Compared to the truly moderate policy plans by Barack Obama and the very limited "redistribution" of wealth from top to bottom that would occur under his tax policies, the republicans are the true socialists. They are simply socialists for the benefit of the elite. And, as I recall, that's pretty much how the former eastern block was managed too.