E Pluribus Unum

[cross posted at Daily Kos]

You don't think of Iowa as having any significant sort of minority population. So when Sen. Obama held a forum on urban issues at a Des Moines high school, it got my attention. He talked about what it takes for a teenager to succeed at a job (only a black candidate could make the comments about "Pookie" that Obama did). Then it got serious:

[P]eople turned silent when Annette Brown, an African-American woman, told Obama of her struggle to integrate into the community, after moving to Des Moines from Chicago.

"I come from a diverse background. I have people of every race in my family," Obama responded. "When we were at Thanksgiving, you looked around and everybody tried to figure out, how do all these people fit together? I see a lot of different perspectives.

And one of the things that I truly believe is that the vast majority of Americans want to do the right thing. They want to live together. They believe in diversity...They believe everyone is American. I truly believe that is where America wants to be."

Is it enough to win him the nomination and the election? I've said it before: if Giuliani is the nominee, race will be THE issue whether it is overt not (look for "Pookie" to reappear one way or the other). That said, I'm entertaining the idea that perhaps Obama, not Clinton, is the best Democrat to run against the Republicans.

"But here's the thing that I've said before and I'll say it again. We do have a legacy of racism in this country, and we see it in our daily lives. There's a reason why African Americans are more likely to be incarcerated. There's a reason why Hispanic Americans are more likely to be without health care and in low-wage jobs. It has to do with the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination.

And even if people aren't discriminated against now...that legacy still persists. And one of the things that we have to do is finally acknowledge that legacy and go ahead and try to make it right. Not by calling each other by names, not by acting suspicious towards each other, but rather simply saying, let's go ahead and solve this problem in this generation, so it doesn't persist for the next generation."

In any case, America has always been about embracing the disenfranchised -- It's even inscribed on the Statue of Liberty -- and so we necessarily a pluralistic nation, too. If we are to be united, then that's where it starts. E Pluribus Unum, baby.

I like this guy.

UPDATE: ...but can he, you know, throw a punch? Richard Wolffe has some commentary.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama

• Breaking News: "Musharraf Expects To Quit As Army Chief By End of Month." Riiiiiiight. And Larry Craig expects to leave the US Senate by the end of October.

• When Brian Williams guest-hosted on SNL a couple of weeks ago, it went a long way in changing my opinion of him. But this softball interview with Rudy Giuliani reminds me again why I didn't like him in the first place.

• Speaking of Williams, apparently his ratings are up post-SNL. Then again, so are Katie Couric's and she wasn't even on the show.

• Judith Regan is suing News Corp. over her firing in the OJ book affair. She's claiming (among other things) that Murdoch tried to ruin her reputation to protect Rudy Giuliani's. You know -- she was boffing Bernie Kerik and they were afraid she'd blab about it. Sounds to me like they all -- Murdoch, Giuliani, Kerik, Regan -- deserve each other.

• Bush's plan for the economy: prop it up with matchsticks and duct tape until January 20, 2009. Then blame the new president for ruining it.

• James Carville compares Don Imus to Bill Clinton.

• A Wiki site has leaked the Gitmo Camp Delta manual online. Or at least, ahem, that's what they tell me.

• Silence of the Lambs: Baghdad, post-surge. [Note: for those of you who didn't read the novel, the reference is to the silence that was heard after the lambs had been slaughtered; it haunted the novel's protagonist.]

• Chris Bowers: "If Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he takes the nomination." Maybe yes, maybe no. One thing for sure -- of all the top tier Dems, he has shown the most upward momentum over the past 30 days or so. Even the prediction markets are starting to reflect that. I just wish he had more of Jack Kennedy in him and less of Adlai Stevenson.

• Matt Stoller asks whether the negative attacks on Clinton are working. Short answer: maybe.

• Got to know when to fold 'em: Apparently, Gov. Spitzer has decided to abandon a plan to issue New York driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Economics , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , Media , Rudy Giuliani

[cross posted at Daily Kos]

Notwithstanding Krugman, it looks like a narrative is forming for the general election, and trust me, you've heard this song before: firmness versus nuance. It's a Republican frame and that means the traditional media will be eating it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And that means there was only one winner (see below).

But first, hear me out:

To the extent that Edwards (and Obama) attacked Clinton on being "for it and against it at the same time," it helps the Republicans as much as it helps any Democrat. Why? Because, for Republicans, right and wrong don't matter -- only firmness and resolve matter. [Note: did I miss something or did Edwards pass when it came to declaring his position on Spitzer's proposal?]

Granted, Edwards is showing he, too, has cojones. The problem for Edwards comes later -- during the general election. Far more people believe Giuliani and/or McCain have the stones than believe Edwards does. So, down the line, Edwards may only have himself to blame. That's what happens when candidates accept their opponents' frame -- it leaves your opponent with plenty of ammunition during the general.

Also: another Republican frame is going to be fear. So when the debate turns to drivers' licenses for immigrants (as it will for at least the next few days) I'll give you one guess as to who that helps. Hint: It ain't the Democrats. [UPDATE: Jonathan Singer addresses the pros and cons of the issue.]

Deal with it: fear is a Republican frame. Fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, free-floating fear of "colored people." In fact, racial fear will be the most potent theme that the Republican base responds to.

And Giuliani is all about racial fear. Clinton? Buddies with Charlie Rangel and everyone in Harlem (just ask O'Reilly). Edwards --helping those in poverty? Please. You know who that helps, right? Obama? Too black. Not black enough. Can't make up his mind about what his race is. Except we know he's soft. Soft on Islamofascists. And you know what color their skin is.

Bottom line: the real winner last night was George W. Bush. And, by extension, his rightful heir: Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani who (like Cheney and Bush) has made his career out of fear. Long before 9/11, he made a name for himself by appearing at -- and later, as mayor, ordering police riots. And that's not to mention the infamous killing of Amadou Diallo. In fact, before this is over, the 9/11 thing may very well have fallen by the wayside, having been exposed as his weak spot, not his strength. His strength? Giuliani is the one virulent, determined, resolute, angry white male who will stick it to em, once and for all, wink wink nudge nudge.

Will the Dems be ready for that? As I see it, the only way to be truly ready is to be prepared to hang Bush around Rudy's neck and let him sink to the bottom of the fetid ocean he swims in. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Who among the Dems is ready to do that?

Because you know Rudy's coming for you. Don't say you weren't warned.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , Rudy Giuliani

Sen. Barack Obama:

"I said, you know what, I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic."

"My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals."

But let me digress for a moment.

Mark has a round-up of the reaction from the other side. It illustrates the old saying: It's the hit dog that howls.

That said, Obama's declaration got me thinking about how there are only two REAL parties in this election cycle:

• Flag Party
  
• Constitution Party

One party promises rule by emotion (fear), spectacle and symbolism. The other party promises to rule by law, using the blueprint laid out by the founding fathers, to protect the rights and liberties of individual Americans -- whether they're in the majority or not.

One party pushes new, liberty-restricting amendments -- like the anti-flag burning amendment. The other party promotes the amendments we already have -- like the First Amendment -- amendments that have stood the test of time, history and our culture.

But wait -- there's even more:

The real difference between these two de facto parties is this: Members of the Flag Party know what's at stake. But Constitution Party members? Not so much. They don't even know they're members of their own party! They have no demonstrated ability to frame the nature of their philosophy, or even the nature of the opposing arguments in the current election cycle -- security vs. liberty, words vs. actions, symbols vs. reality.

Even Obama, in yesterday's comments, didn't (or couldn't) lay out the boundaries of this battlefield -- although he did come close.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Constitution , Law , Politics

• Judge to Sen. Craig: You're stuck with your plea: Are Republicans stuck with Craig? [Answer: Yes.]

• Kudos to Obama: Blocks odious FEC Republican nominee Spakovsky...for now.

• Conservative "pro-family" activists would rather vote for a third party candidate than they would vote for Rudy Giuliani. I'll believe it when that candidate hands Florida to the Democrats in 2008. IJS. That said, maybe it's time for Rudy to claim he's pro-life now. After all -- 9/11 changed everything!

• Now that Pete Domenici has announced his retirement, will Bill Richardson quit his run for the White House and try for the Senate instead? His campaign says, no, they're in it to win it and they are "confident" of their chances. Right.

• Speaking of losers, do you ever get the impression that Fred Thompson is just going through the motions? What ever could he have been thinking? (Answer below.)

• Sleep-walking his way through Iowa, Thompson tries to out-Reagan the rest of the Republican field by slamming "the Soviet Union." Yes, you heard me. The Hunt For Red October is on again, baby!

• Speaking of the USSR, today is the 50th anniversary of the launch into space of Sputnik. Did you know that what the Soviets were really trying to do was draw attention to the ICBM that launched the little-satellite-that-could?

• Speaking of Sputnik, here's an interview with Arthur C. Clark (now nearing 90) wherein he remembers where he was that fateful day when his prediction finally came true.

• Props to Sergey Korolyov, the genius behind the Soviet space effort. He was called "The Chief Designer" because his identity was deemed a state secret by the Politburo.

• A new AP-Ipsos poll has Bush's approval ratings at 31 percent, the "lowest level" ever recorded in that poll's history. Not sure if they mean lowest for any president or just lowest for the Bush family.

• Surprise! People still really, really like Bill Clinton.

And here it is, your moment of Zen:

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Fred Thompson , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , History , Odds & Sods , Republicans , Rudy Giuliani

I'll make it brief: There are only 16 months before the next president is sworn in. If that president is a Democrat and if we still have 100 thousand (or more) troops in Iraq by then, this new president's term will be crippled by controversy.

Simply put, s/he will be dogged by accusations that s/he lost the war. Republicans (and some Democrats) will use this impossible situation to accuse the Democrats of being everything from cowards and dilettantes to terrorist appeasers and traitors...and worse. They'll use the issue in the mid-terms of 2010 and the election of 2012 and beyond.

That said, Sen. Obama's sense of timing is pretty good:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to The Associated Press.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now," the Illinois senator says.

It's Obama who has the stage today.

UPDATED: Well, Sen. Edwards has upped the ante:

Bush is going to talk about his handing off the Iraq war to the next president [Thursday], and John Edwards has bought two minutes of airtime to follow Bush:

Edwards has bought two minutes of air time on MSNBC, scheduled to air after Bush's 15-minute televised speech from the White House at 9 p.m. EDT...

"Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he's ever had -- more time, more troops, and more war," Edwards says in the ad, according to excerpts provided by his campaign.

The ad was taped at Edwards' home in Chapel Hill, N.C., in the style of an Oval Office address, with him sitting at a desk and speaking straight to the camera, with American flag in the background.

..."Tell Congress you know the truth," Edwards says. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice -- a firm timeline for withdrawal."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (10) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama

• It's Petraeus Day on Capitol Hill. Can you stand the suspense??

• David Brooks compares OBL to ... lefty bloggers! Of course -- we're all for fundamentalist religion taking over the government.

• Gallup has Hillary with more support than the next two candidates put together. Obama is set to make a major policy speech on Iraq this week. Can these two facts have anything to do with each other?

• A sign that maybe this blogging thing is washed up: Alan Greenspan has a blog.

• Iraqis overwhelmingly say that the surge has made things worse, and they want the US out. Now. The only people left who disagree are the 70% of Republicans who give Bush a positive approval rating.

• When Petraeus is done on Capitol Hill today (giving his non-report that wasn't written by nobody at the White House) he'll take a victory lap participate in an exclusive interview on Fox News.

• Here's how bad it sucks to be Bill Richardson: Unavision would not allow Richardson to speak Spanish during the all-Spanish-broadcast of the recent Democratic debate.
  

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Odds & Sods , Republicans , War in Iraq

Geekesque calls on Sen. Obama to take the lead role in ending the occupation of Iraq:

There was a time for Congress to be the steering wheel of our Iraq policy. Now, someone needs to slam on the brakes.

That person should, by all rights, be you. You alone of any major candidate running in either party had the prescience and honesty to oppose invading Iraq. You understood the disaster that would unfold. This gives you credibility--as well as intellectual and moral authority-- that no one else on the national stage possesses.
[...]
Senator, you're either moving forward or you're moving backwards. Relative to other candidates, you're moving backwards on Iraq. How on earth is it even remotely possible that Hillary Clinton, a clinical study in opportunism when it comes to Iraq, is perceived amongst primary voters as essentially indistinguishable from you?

Do the right thing and the smart thing. For your nation, your party, and yourself. Step forward, demand the damn ball, and be prepared to accept the consequences one way or another. The voters will not punish you for speaking out against a tragical farce like our so-called Iraq debate.

Playing it safe will result in Bush winning and Hillary getting the nomination. Playing it safe is the ultimate form of living dangerously.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

From his lust for Kralizec to his desire to privatize Social Security, Rudy unites left and right, by his stupidity.  Seriously, the guy is absofreakinglutely bat-shit crazy.

Obama figures out he's just not that good at the 30 second sound-byte debate format -- cuts and runs from attending any more debates than those already scheduled.  I assume that means there will be a hard limit of no more than 47 more until we begin voting -- probably right after Thanksgiving.  Hopefully, there will be lots of arugula.

After watching some TPMtv, spotlighting Mitt Romney's profound ignorance of anything east of Boston Harbor, Raising Kaine concludes "Multiple-Choice Mitt" is a "Giant Foreign Policy Goofball."  News Hounds gets the hypocrisy of Romney's schpeel, but you really need to watch Josh Marshall put it all together to understand how profoundly delusional Romney is. 

Meanwhile, Eleanor Clift has a question for Mitt & Co. that might stop some of the GOP hopefuls in their tracks -- since of course, they'd have to think instead of regurgitating their 30 year-old talking points or trying to remember whether they we talking to an audience that preferred the flip to the flop.

Stop asking Romney and the other Republican front runners about abortion and start asking them where they stand on family planning.

Fred Thompson, who turns 65 today (thus eligible for all the entitlements he vows to abolish), is the only candidate who needed to have his fat, lazy ass trucked around the Iowa State Fair in a golf cart. 

Actually he looked kinda gaunt.  He'll need to scarf down a few more elephant ears to be the right's answer to Michael Moore. 

She really ought to take it easy on the old guy.  How many little blue pills can one man take?

I noted before that Mike Huckabee was kind spoken towards the Clintons, to the point where he would sound almost gushing if he weren't a Republican.  Rights Field's David Dayen thinks these remarks point to where Huckabee first got the idea that cars and buses were lame, that his super-coolness would be enshrined forever once his Harley cleared the shark tank.

This kid came from a dysfunctional family — alcoholic abusive father. And yet he didn't just aspire, he was elected president of the United States not once, but twice. That is an affirmation of the system. And it's a wonderful testament to give to every kid in America that no matter where you've come from, you've got an opportunity to do something extraordinary.

Wingnuttystan still says, "Gotcha," cuz that's all they got.  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Buy into McCain trying to be the anti-war candidate?  Puh-Leeze.

More Wingnut News...

Vice President Cheney is a dildo, what else to you call a dick substitute? (Do not Click if you are under age ... 40.)  Doctor BooMan advises us to use a condom anyway.

Speaking of nuts and other guilty pleasures of the alternate universe ... you know you just gotta click on a link that says Ron Paul teams up with Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Ann Coulter , Barack Obama , Dick Cheney , Fred Thompson , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , John McCain , Mitt Romney , Politics , Rudy Giuliani , Social Security , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

Whether you're a moderate triangulator who prefers to be called "progressive" instead of "liberal," a neo-con who claims to "defend the liberal tradition," or just an old fashioned lefty peacenick who's into social justice and still wears the liberal moniker proudly -- like me -- you have to agree that a partisan Democrat calling another Democrat: Joe Lieberman's protege, is a devastating slam.

Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake is one such Proud Partisan:

One of the most pernicious and popular soundbites being exploited these days is the denigration of ‘partisanship.’ When it comes out of the mouths of Republicans who perfected the art of soulless political grandstanding in the 90s, it’s hard enough to take. It’s even tougher to stomach when it comes from George Bush with his thorough devotion to Karl Rove (who needs no better reason to sabotage national security and flagrantly violate the law than the fact that someone is a Democrat). Then there are the useful idiots like Sam Waterston and the Unity ‘08 nuts who really just don’t know what they’re talking about.

But people like Joe Lieberman (and his protege Barack Obama) who consistently indulge this frame ought to know that sometimes the right thing to do is to acknowledge that the other side cannot be bargained with, that no negotiation is possible, that what you’re up against is just wrong and it’s incumbent upon people of conscience to draw a line in the sand and say ‘enough.’ That too is partisanship, and they need to stop decrying it just because it focus groups well with people sick of the GOP and their bully tactics. Partisanship in fact has a glorious history.

To which I offer my own quote from another proud partisan...

But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?
And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.
I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.

–John Edwards, YouTube Debate.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Barack Obama , Democrats , John Edwards

by shep

So Barack Obama says, if president, he’d meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

And in a conference call with reporters set up by the Clinton campaign, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, "I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything".

Badly coded offer of the Secretary of State job?

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Funny , Hillary Clinton

Bill Clinton's record is Hillary's greatest strength -- and also her greatest weakness. She can rightfully claim his legacy -- and/but she'll always be called upon to defend it as well. The good news is she's very well suited for this fight. The bad news is she'll be fighting it all the time. Al Gore had to deal with it in 2000; but that was nothing compared to what it'll be like this time around if Hillary gets the nomination.

This alone might be the best argument for nominating Barack Obama. But I digress...

The fallout from the Scooter Libby fiasco is a good case study of what we're all in for if Hillary gets the nomination:

Whatever you may think about the merits of the Rich pardon versus the Libby pardon, the debate is one the Bush team wants. The White House would rather have everyone debating the relative merits of the two than debating the inconsistencies in the Libby decision alone...

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, how often will this phenomenon be repeated? With each piece of legislation Hillary Clinton proposes or each assertion she makes, Republicans will offer an analog from the Clinton years. They'd do the same with any Democratic president, of course, but another Democratic president would have an easier time walking away from such attacks.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , Republicans

• Supreme Court reverses itself on Gitmo case. Why do I have a creepy feeling they're going to rule for the Bushies this time?

• No Satisfaction this Year. This year the Rolling Stones will not be performing in...Israel. Insurance costs are sky-high. I guess this means they won't be performing for the troops in Iraq either?

• Lots of first impressions of the iPhone by new owners. Here's one from TechMeme. Here's a fetishistic photo spread on the actual unboxing of a new iPhone. Here's Xeni's report (calling it the Jesusphone). Here's a guy who tears the iPhone down -- literally.

• Fred Thompson in New Hampshire: Republicans say his speech there was underwhelming. I'd say "where's the beef," but that would be so 80s. Or so Walter Mondale.

• Woz spotted in line for an iPhone. When the crowd recognized him, they stepped aside and put him at the front of the line. Awwwww.

• Prince is releasing his new CD ... in Sunday's edition of London's Daily Mail. The recording industry is pissed. I'm trying to imagine who's still reading a newspaper on any day of the week. Answer: nobody in Prince's audience.

• When I saw that that iPhones are turning up on eBay, I remembered one important fact: "i" before "e" except after "c" (for "cash").

• ...and finally, after watching the one laugh-out-loud moment of Thursday's Dem debate, I wondered: is Barack Obama a dutiful husband, homophobic, or just seeing Joe Biden on the down-low? You decide...and don't miss Al Sharpton's scowl -- it'll melt the hair off your arms:

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Constitution , Democrats , Music , Odds & Sods , Republicans , Technology , Video

Hillary hit it out of the park with the Sopranos spoof.

But Barack Obama Official Campaign Ringtones??

(HT to Rachel Sklar)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama

• Karl Rove has been among a small group of Bushies visiting Presidential libraries in preparation for planning the one for his boss. When I bumped into Rove last week, the flight we were both on was going to Atlanta, which (coincidentally?) is the location for the Carter Library.

• Jane Hamsher asks the musical question, "Who Is The Scariest GOP Presidential Candidate?" Rudy's nuts so he's plenty scary. But Romney is scary because he is willing to say just about anything to get elected. [P.S. Is it just me or is Mitt Romney filling a hole left by George Allen, i.e., tall-dark-and-handsome?]

• Sen. Barack Obama's Secret Service codename is "Renegade." Hillary's is "Evergreen," left over from the Clinton White House years. The other candidates will have to wait and see if they get their own handles. This article details the codenames for past and present POTUS' and candidates for POTUS. Here's an interesting bit of trivia:

  [A]ccording to a Secret Service spokesman, all code names are chosen by military officials, suggesting that they should not be examined too closely for deeper meaning.

• NBC seems interested in Jon Stewart. Stewart's contract with Comedy Central is up in 2008.

  Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
  Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , Humor , Mitt Romney , Odds & Sods , Politics , Rudy Giuliani , Television

Excellent, outstanding piece by Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, on America's future ... after Bush has left office:

At the end of the day, openness is America's greatest strength. Many people on both sides of the political aisle have ideas that they believe will keep America strong in this new world—fences, tariffs, subsidies, investments. But America has succeeded not because of the ingenuity of its government programs. It has thrived because it has kept itself open to the world—to goods and services, ideas and inventions, people and cultures. This openness has allowed us to respond fast and flexibly in new economic times, to manage change and diversity with remarkable ease, and to push forward the boundaries of freedom and autonomy.

[...]

We are not really in competition with Chinese and Indian workers making $5 a day. We want Americans to make things that they can't, move up the value chain and work on increasingly sophisticated products and services. We have an educational system that can help make this happen. Of the 20 best universities in the world, 18 are American. And the quality of American higher education extends far and deep, from community colleges to technical institutes.

Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the United States is that alone among industrial nations, we will not have a shortage of productive citizens in the decades ahead. Unlike Germany, Japan and even China, we should have more than enough workers to grow the economy and sustain the elderly population. This is largely thanks to immigration. If America has a core competitive advantage, it is this: every year we take in more immigrants than the rest of the world put together.

[...]

Above all, the United States has to find a way to send a powerful and consistent signal to the world that we understand the struggles that it is involved in—for security, peace and a better standard of living. As Barack Obama said in a speech in Chicago, "It's time to ... send a message to all those men and women beyond our shores who long for lives of dignity and security that says, 'You matter to us. Your future is our future'."

[...]

It is easy to look at America's place in the world right now and believe that we are in a downward spiral of decline. But this is a snapshot of a tough moment. If the country can keep its cool, admit to its mistakes, cherish and strengthen its successes, it will not only recover but return with renewed strength. There could not have been a worse time for America than the end of the Vietnam War, with helicopters lifting people off the roof of the Saigon embassy, the fallout of Watergate and, in the Soviet Union, a global adversary that took advantage of its weakness. And yet, just 15 years later, the United States was resurgent, the U.S.S.R. was in its death throes and the world was moving in a direction that was distinctly American in flavor. The United States has new challenges, new adversaries and new problems. But unlike so much of the world, it also has solutions—if only it has the courage and wisdom to implement them.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , History

Walter Shapiro:

The question of how tough a Democratic presidential candidate needs to sound to get elected hovered over the debate, as it may over the coming primary races.

Edwards boldly defended his prior comment that the "war on terror" was little more than rhetoric: "This global war on terror bumper sticker -- political slogan ... was intended for ... George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture."

That was too much for Clinton, who, as the first woman to wage a serious candidacy for president, must understand the political risks of seeming weak in any setting.

Responding to Edwards, she said flatly that she disagreed, before adding, "I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda."

The second most interesting moment was when Edwards and Obama sparred -- but not about Iraq. On that score I think Obama ate Edwards lunch, cooly reminding him that he [Edwards] was "4-1/2 years late on leadership."

No, I think their exchange on health care plans was more telling. Edwards' plan is mandatory (good) -- and Obama's is not (bad). Honestly, I hadn't thought about that until the debate. Of course neither plan is much good compared to Kucinich's -- the Ohio congressman has the best idea: Medicare for all. The only way you fix the system is to make it universal. Not only that -- you have to exclude the insurance companies completely from the equation. Health care should not be subject to profit and share price calculations. So anything shy of that is a cop-out -- and Edwards' plan (and Obama's) fall far short. That said, if either one gets elected, their plans will be subject to congressional influence (to say the least).

Bottom line? These are not really debates but rather candidate interviews. And based on last night, I'd hire Hillary Clinton for the job. Luckily for the other top-tier candidates there's time for them to improve their presentations.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (7) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

Sen. Obama:

I know the toll of this war. And what I know is, what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric; they deserve a new plan.

Gov. Romney and Sen. McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working. I do not.

And if there was ever a reflection of that, it is the fact that Sen. McCain required a flak jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, a hundred soldiers with rifles by his side, so he could stroll through the market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago for a photo-op.

That's the truth in Iraq.

UPDATE: ...to which a McCain aide replied (paraphrasing): "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

...to which Bill Maher replied: "In case you don't know, an RPG is a rocket-propelled grenade and a bong is what McCain uses when he describes how well things are going in Iraq."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

In a time when our President is identified merely by one initial, "W," and the spine of the congressional Democratic leadership cannot be identified at all, I yearn for the days when 3-initial Democrats, FDR, JFK, even LBJ and the promise of RFK were something quite different than the breed in attendance today.

Democrats with Balls.

I, like so many on the left -- some far left, others only moderately so -- and even those wandering in the middle cannot express their reaction to the "Capitulation Bill" without using the word, "disappointment." Even that word hardly seems to capture the proper emotion.

I've seen weak displays of rhetorical tricks masking the inability to follow one's convictions before; swallowing principles to pursue the practical, pragmatic politics of the day. But what we witnessed yesterday with the cave-in by the Democratic leadership giving Bush yet another blank check for his Iraq war was nothing short of pathetic.

The most egregious example came from Speaker Pelosi herself, indicating that she probably would not vote for a bill she is actively helping to get to the floor. Could there be a more cravenly cowardly stance? Explain how this is not the height of hypocricy.

The oft quoted maxim by Margaret Mead advising us never to underestimate the power of a small group of dedicated people's ability to change the world because that's the only thing that ever has, neglects to consider the sheer stupidity of those people when they've been in elected office too long.

The only thing that gives me some solace is that the candidate I've been supporting for President came out on the right side of this issue, and so many others in the way he urges us to look at our foreign policy and reject the GOP framing.

The only way to beat them is to stand our ground and not give an inch. That's what John Edwards did today.

Today, he went to the heart of America's foreign policy establishment and called out the Bush crowd for their misuse of patriotism. He had the guts to say what all of us know—that the Bush Terror Doctrine has failed our troops and failed America by straining our military to the breaking point and sowing chaos around the world.

John Edwards offered a clear plan to rebuild our forces and cure the damage inflicted on our military by Bush's policies. He offered a vision of an America where moral leadership is once again the rule, and where we are stronger and more secure because of it.

Their choice, however, should not be that difficult -- if they really meant they way they voted on Feingold-Reid. We shall indeed see if they will put their money (rather, our money) where their mouths are. So far, their silence is deafening, and as you know, "silence is betrayal."

UPDATE: Chris Dodd is going to vote no on the Capitulation Bill, putting more pressure on Obama and Clinton -- and giving hope to those of us who still hold out hope...and want action.

UPDATE II: Kerry says NO too.

"An Iraq Bill Without a Deadline is Meaningless"

"We support the troops by getting the policy right and this bill allows the President to keep getting the policy wrong. We need a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, not watered down benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President. We support the troops by funding the right mission, not with a White House that opposes a pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform," Kerry said. "The original Senate legislation offered a roadmap to change course in Iraq. This new version enables the Administration and Iraqi politicians to deliver more of the same. I am determined to continue pressing this issue until President Bush changes course. We owe our troops nothing less than a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice."

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , War in Iraq

Mark, in the comments, pulls up the recent gem from John Zogby:

And [Hillary] has the misfortune of running her history-making campaign against both Jack Kennedy (Obama) and Bobby Kennedy (Edwards).

Here's the quiz:
Who was the last candidate to run against both Jack AND Bobby?

Ten bazillion political junkie points for the first one who knows the answer.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , History , John Edwards