Blogs

Paul Krugman's article on health care in today's NY Times is very good, a primer on why the Democrats should have no trouble getting universal health care passed and why they may not. But then he adds this, perhaps as a final warm word towards John Edwards, but possibly another dig at Obama:

One more thing: if we do get real health care reform, a lot of people will owe a debt of gratitude to none other than John Edwards. When Mr. Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, I credited him with making universal health care a “possible dream for the next administration."

Here's what pisses me off about this final paragraph, and it does so because of the way Krugman attacked Obama relentlessly during the primaries for using what he called "right wing" tactics and "right wing" policy proposals: Krugman seems to think that Obama would be ok with not achieving universal health care. That's the only thing that makes sense to me as I read this article in light of all else he's written. While he is convinced health care would have been John Edwards' #2 (after poverty) issue, and he seems convinced Hillary would have been committed to it, he seems to think Obama is either ambivalent on the idea or incapable of making it happen.

Obama lost his mother to ovarian cancer when she was 52. She had partial health care. Does anyone really think his commitment to universal health care is the least bit ambivalent? (And for that matter, Lance Armstrong, that his commitment to cancer research isn't total?) Krugman is so lost in his opposition to Barack Obama that he'd rather give credit to the Democratic Party's platform plank on health care to John Edwards than admit the actual nominee might think it's something worth pursuing.

I'm really tired of his nonsense.

I know a lot of people who are worried about Obama: who he'll choose for vice-president, how he will respond to the endless attack ads, the kind of advisors surrounding him. One thing that seems to be constant about the people I know who fear he'll blow it in some way — pick Sam Nunn or become a supply-sider or do a Kerry on the ads — few of them had Obama as their first choice. They are supporters via the process of elimination.

I have supported Barack Obama from the beginning. When I knew in early 2007 that I could not support Hillary because of her terrible vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and it was pretty clear Al Gore was not going to run, my inclination was to check out Obama. I did not have to finish "The Audacity of Hope" to realize this man was special and deserved my support. But once I did finish the book, I not only sent him money, I began doing what I could to actively support him.

After seeing Barack Obama in person at a campaign rally in Springfield, Missouri, Tammy Bolin, of Willard, said "It feels like this is going to be a group effort. It's going to take all of us."

Ms Bolin understands, far better than anyone in the national media, why Obama has gotten to the point he has and why he will win. The media tries to pin his success on his speaking style, the use of the Internet and so on; but in so doing, they turn the reasons upside-down. The Internet has been successful for Obama not because of how BarackObama.com is structured but because that excellent structure is available to the millions of people who want to support Obama.

This is the lesson Howard Dean tried to teach in his campaign, and it's a lesson Barack Obama has been pushing: Electing a president is only the starting point. Winning the battle to put Obama in the White House is vital, but once he's there, we've just started the real work.

This is why "down-ticket" is so vital. It does no good to give a Democratic President a Republican Congress. Look at the limits on what Clinton was able to do when he lost the Congress (ok, his other problems added to that). The changes this country need have the champion that we need in Obama, but he has to have the support in the Senate and the House to turn those needs into laws. If Oregon does not replace Gordon Smith with Jeff Merkley, we will not only give Obama one fewer vote in the Senate, we'll cancel out another vote — Ron Wyden's.

The same logic applies here in Oregon. The more Democrats we elect to the Oregon Legislature, the more we can undo the awful work of past GOP-controlled Legs. And the only way we can make these changes — more money for school, tax fairness, environmental policy that saves the state from ruin — is to ensure that everyone who votes, votes all the way down the ticket. Hundreds of thousands of people will vote for Obama here in Oregon. We need every one of them to vote for Jeff Merkley as well. And the Dems running for the House. And Nick Kahl and Greg Matthews and all the great Dems, incumbent and challenger, running for the Oregon Legislature.

Because as wonderful as it will be to have Obama in the White House, if we don't have Dems in office all the way down, from Congress to state houses to city halls, the change that is possible will be limited.

And the most important part of all this is the citizens. We who work for Obama to get him into office have to understand thoroughly: When he takes office, he'll need us even more then he'll need a Democratic Congress. For supporters of the change that is needed, the inauguration is also the day we take office — as Obama's grassroots ambassadors of change.

Barack Obama, speaking to over 200,000 people in Berlin:

I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city.

The crowd laughed; Obama grinned. He can do these set-up jokes because his oratorial skills are not just delivering great messages but making connections. His self-deprecating half-grin, however scripted and practiced, works. And it makes the point well before he continues with his story of an African father and Kansan mother: I'm not another American white man coming to make promises my country won't honor.

Obama's difference is more than his ethnic heritage, however greatly it informs his world view and politics. Obama, more than any other modern political leader, understands not merely that things must change; he knows how they must change. Even more, he knows how to bring about that change, and that's why he chose to speak in Berlin before hundreds of thousands of people. That's why his speech began with his very personal and increasingly un-unique story.

Obama sees that change will be a mass movement of individuals who unite of their own accord. When he speaks of his parents and grandparents, it's to remind people of their family, of those who came before them. Whatever their background, each person has a heritage that matters. Obama's stands out only because he's about to become President of the United States; otherwise, he is a pretty average American. He is what the average American is becoming.

The powerful speeches before great crowds are far more than magnificent theatre: the power of these events is a visceral expression of what is possible. As part of such a crowd, as I was when he spoke before 72,000 here in Portland, or even just watching on tv or the internet, the emotion that he generates with his words, his presence, the possibility of his presidency, the excitement of the crowd — all this sparks something inside that can only be reached with fiery emotion. It's the faith that gives life to the hope upon which depends his entire campaign, the movement behind his campaign, and, for those who support him, the future of the world.

This is not a grand political stunt. The huge Obama events are manifestations of what is possible if we believe in our own capabilities, and especially in what is possible as we join with hundreds of thousands, with millions of other citizens, whether in America or elsewhere.

Contrasting Obama to McCain-Bush is a simple exercise; usually it involvements the application of intelligent thought. But there's a fundamental aspect of Obama's politics that is too often overlooked, but is critical to understanding what kind of president he will be. This aspect was made clear in his recent CBS interview with Lara Logan:

Logan: What would be a 'mission accomplished' for you in Afghanistan?

Obama: Well, a 'mission accomplished' would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda and the Taliban so that they can longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, and they can't target the United States or its allies.

This is the "Obama difference." Before speaking of military aspects of success, he focuses on the Afghan people: a stable
nation and people with a rising standard of living. Up to this point, the interview was entirely about military and related issues: fighting and defeating al Queda and the Taliban, killing bin Laden, etc. Yet to the question of success would be, Obama speaks of the lives of people in Afghanistan.

And he did it in a natural manner. It was just the order of his thoughts on the asking of the question: The people of Afghanistan and then military aspects. We hear almost nothing of this nature from McCain, and when we heard anything of the sort from Bush, we could only expect those people to be in deep doo-doo. But for Barack Obama, military objectives are never an end in themself. What matters are the lives of the people for whom military options are a final resort.

McCain would, like his recent Republican predecesors, use war as a tool of American hegemony. Obama would use it when all else failed and nothing else would suffice. The great thing about that approach is that war becomes virtually useless. Being dedicated to ending war is not surrendar; it's victory over war. It's what the people of embattled nations need. And it's made possible by a president who values those people and the nature and quality of their lives.

I disagree with Obama's current direction on terrorism. I think a "war" on terror is a pointless effort. I agree with the view that you cannot declare war on an idea or a tactic. Those responsible for 9/11 should not be given the imprimatur of "warrior" by setting the military on them. They are criminals, and the world's law enforcement institutions should have been given the task of hunting them down. Continuing to treat the al Queda forces as military opponents gives their cause a currency we are foolish to endorse.

Sending troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is more than dangerous; it's an opportunity to mire our nation in the same hell that helped destroy the Soviet Union. Has Queda grown that large that we require three additional battalions? Or is the prospect of fighting this battle in areas that overwhelmed the Soviets so daunting that we'll need to sacrifice this many troops? We will be fighting the wrong battle in the wrong manner, I fear. I'd much prefer to see this no longer the realm of the military, but I know that just isn't going to happen.

So I disagree with Obama, and this is no small area of disagreement (and I am sure that as soon as I publish this blog, he'll be awoken with the news of my opinion, for which I apologize). I doubt it's the last time I'll disagree with him. I am confident he will face the opposition of other supporters — and make no mistake, I support him as enthustiastically and unreservedly as anyone — over a variety of issues during his eight years in office. And the person who will most welcome and least fear that opposition?

Barack Obama.

From Jon Stewart to Maureen Dowd to multiple op-eds to bloggers all over the map, the message is simple: If you don't think the New Yorker cover is funny, there's something wrong with you. When did we get humor police to tell us what is funny? I know they've existed for a long time to tell what is not funny — or so I'm told. Personally, I feel adequate to make those decisions for myself. Jon & Mo think I need help.

I really thought freedom of speech and thought allowed individuals to have their own opinion on matters such as the cover. I have my reasons for not liking the cover, not the least of which is that it lacks both humor and sufficient information to make the satire work (jesus, I fucking know it's supposed to be satire; I just think it fails miserably). But brains much bigger than mine have decided that because I don't get the joke — see, it's not about the Obamas at all, even though that's who is on the cover — I have no sense of humor or proportion.

What I have is a difference of opinion. But I guess Jon Stewart has risen to the point where my opinion is wrong if I disagree with him.

Make no mistake: I am a near-absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment, and my devotion to that "inalienable" right grows even stronger when it comes to the arts. When it's literature, music, art, anything creative and expressive, I believe a person has full rights to write, draw, sing, dance or whatever it is they feel compelled to do. I do have a couple of cavaets, one of them sensible, which is you can't use "art" to tell lies about others. I'm talking about real lies, the kind whose only purpose is to hurt people for the sake of hurting them (the story about my father abusing me, when he did no such thing).

It's also good to avoid libel.

I think an artist, given the liberty he or she has to be expressive and creative, has concomitant responsiblities. I cannot define these, beyond the most obvious and necessary, which is, I believe, to be honest. I also believe a decent respect for other people is always a good idea. And it never hurts, I think, to be smart when tackling controversy. I don't mean smart as in "It's dumb to raise a stink about things." It's frequently necessary and good to raise stinks. No, I mean smart as in "Make sure the point you're seeking to make is not overwhelmed by the object you create to make that point." The apocryphal examples are the soiled diapers in the Tate Gallery and the jars of urine with crucifixes inside. In both cases, the artist had a valid point to make, and in both cases, the mode of expression tended to obliviate that point.

Which is, I think, the problem with the New Yorker cover.

Well, how can anybody not say goodie to this news?

The Hollywood Reporter (THR.com) has details about the extra cost and inconvenience for the networks who only gave a single hour to the first three nights of the convos four years ago — with the jaw-dropping explanation that they were not news. If that were a criteria for broadcasting anything, they could get rid of their entire so-called news departments.

Anyway, massive problems and costs bla bla bla. Tough noogies. 76,000 people will gather in Denver on the 45th anniversary of Dr King's "I have a dream" speech to hear Barack Obama accept the Democratic Party's nomination for president and move one step closer to the White House. It will be a huge event; hopefully some good rock and roll (Bruce? U2?), maybe a gospel choir, some great preliminary speeches (Ted Kennedy? Jesse Jackson?) and then a speech I've been waiting for my whole life.

Should be a great event, and a brilliant move by the Obama team.