"If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." That was what one of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention this week said regarding the nomination of Barack Obama and the upcoming presidential election, and it was the one quote from the event that really stuck with me and hit home. "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." America needs to do something that it hasn't done before.
Barack Obama's acceptance speech itself was riveting, and he brought his "A" game last night. Before it began, I was contacting friends telling them that they were going to want to see this: the formal acceptance of a major party's presidential nomination by an African-American. A history-changing event. And the visual was amazing -- 80,000 people crammed into a standium to see the occassion, screaming, cameras flashing. It was like nothing that this country has ever seen.
And I have to take issue with one of the talking points of the Republicans over the past week. One of the major criticisms that they had was the grand spectacle of the final night at Invesco Field (I heard a Fox News reporter today refer to it as a "circus") -- specifically, they were trying to spin 80,000 voters coming out as a bad thing. It's a bad thing? God forbid the American people actually want to get involved with and listen to a politician. What a liability. Let's open up the Metrodome in Minnesota for John McCain's acceptance speech on Thursday and see how many people show up.
And this brings me to a larger point that I seem to me noticing lately about a lot of Republicans: One of the reasons that I like Barack Obama is because he wants everyone to get involved, participate, and do their part, and he inspires me to do so. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to me to have an attitude of "don't get too excited or involved -- just elect us and let the professionals do their jobs."
"...of the people, by the people, for the people..."
-Abraham Lincoln
My reaction to the awful John McCain choice of Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice-President in the days to come.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
"Joebama"
Now, I don't mean to be a downer or anything, but the choice of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate does not infuse me with enthusiasm. To be honest, I don't know that Obama could have chosen anyone that would have gotten me excited. The majority of mentioned possible candidates are all politicians that I'm not very familiar with, and the choice of Hillary Clinton would have been a reluctant partnership at best. But the choice of Joe Biden almost makes me scratch my head and say, "O....K?"
Is Joe Biden an experienced and remarkable public servant? Yes. Does he add "stability" to the ticket? Yes. Is he a well-known and respected leader in the world community? Yes. Does the have the possibility of helping out in key contested states? Yes. Does he have bad hair? Yes. So far he sounds like the perfect candidate. But unfortunately, there is nothing exciting about Joe Biden.
When I saw the clip of Joe Biden running out after being introduced at the rally in Illinois, I could just imagine him thinking: Haha -- I didn't even make it to the second contest, and here I am the Vice-Presidential nominee. Go me. Now, gotta look young, gotta look energetic -- suck in the gut and don't say anything stupid.
Biden is Obama's LBJ -- the older, more seasoned politician expected to help in specific ways...just not as vindictive. But it doesn't matter anyway, because no one votes for Vice-President.
Sorry, Joe.
Is Joe Biden an experienced and remarkable public servant? Yes. Does he add "stability" to the ticket? Yes. Is he a well-known and respected leader in the world community? Yes. Does the have the possibility of helping out in key contested states? Yes. Does he have bad hair? Yes. So far he sounds like the perfect candidate. But unfortunately, there is nothing exciting about Joe Biden.
When I saw the clip of Joe Biden running out after being introduced at the rally in Illinois, I could just imagine him thinking: Haha -- I didn't even make it to the second contest, and here I am the Vice-Presidential nominee. Go me. Now, gotta look young, gotta look energetic -- suck in the gut and don't say anything stupid.
Biden is Obama's LBJ -- the older, more seasoned politician expected to help in specific ways...just not as vindictive. But it doesn't matter anyway, because no one votes for Vice-President.
Sorry, Joe.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Mr. Cahill's Red Herrings
Fellow PoughkeepsieJournal.com blogger Richard T. Cahill, Jr., posted a blog yesterday titled "Barack Obama in his own words," and I absolutely have to take issue with it (you can read the entire post here). In this post, he picks three quotes from Senator Barack Obama's books and presents them as reasons to not vote for the senator from Illinois. It's pretty sad.
The first quote, from Dreams of My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
I do not know Mr. Cahill personally, and I don't tend to agree with the points of view in his blog. But, I would like to ask him: why does he feel is it relevant to base his vote for president on one of the candidate's insecurities and identity issues during adolescence? I guess these problems are for lesser teenagers, not Mr. Cahill.
The second quote, also from Dreams of My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."
Now, be careful, because Mr. Cahill is trying to outrage you with words like white, brown, black, and Africa. What is Mr. Obama saying in this passage? He's saying simply that he does not model himself after those that he does not relate to and whose path he does not want to follow, no matter what their racial background. How is that any different from any of us? Mr. Obama then writes that he seeks to embody the attributes that he sees in Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, W.E.B. DuBois, and Nelson Mandela -- four men who were all instrumental in the civil rights movement. Mr. Cahill asks at the end of his post, "Is this really the kind of moral leadership we want in the White House?" Therefore, I would like to ask Mr. Cahill: has the fight for civil rights over the past 58 years been an immoral one?
The last quote is from The Audacity of Hope, and is actually a quote of Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"White folks' greed runs a world in need."
Mr. Cahill wants you to think that Senator Obama is a racist for using this quote. This is what magicians call misdirection. But the fact is, as troubling and upsetting as it may be to accept, any serious student of history will tell you that Rev. Wright's statement is the truth.
Finally, the most outrageous quote comes from Mr. Cahill himself. He writes, "There are worse quotes in Audacity of Hope which I do not feel comfortable posting on this blog." Now, I have read The Audacity of Hope, and I do not know quite how to respond to this, other than to say that Mr. Cahill obviously means to scare you, the reader, into thinking Senator Obama writes and condones sinister, seditious ideas -- ideas so vicious and despicable that their very repetition would corrupt your mind in a way that can never be repaired. Ideas like freedom of expression, for example. I read nothing in the book that I would not repeat or post on this blog. Mr. Cahill is simply trying to frighten and create controversy.
I would like to think that we can move past this kind of petty, pathetic fear mongering, and focus on issues, not red herrings. I guess old habits die hard for some people.
The first quote, from Dreams of My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
I do not know Mr. Cahill personally, and I don't tend to agree with the points of view in his blog. But, I would like to ask him: why does he feel is it relevant to base his vote for president on one of the candidate's insecurities and identity issues during adolescence? I guess these problems are for lesser teenagers, not Mr. Cahill.
The second quote, also from Dreams of My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."
Now, be careful, because Mr. Cahill is trying to outrage you with words like white, brown, black, and Africa. What is Mr. Obama saying in this passage? He's saying simply that he does not model himself after those that he does not relate to and whose path he does not want to follow, no matter what their racial background. How is that any different from any of us? Mr. Obama then writes that he seeks to embody the attributes that he sees in Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, W.E.B. DuBois, and Nelson Mandela -- four men who were all instrumental in the civil rights movement. Mr. Cahill asks at the end of his post, "Is this really the kind of moral leadership we want in the White House?" Therefore, I would like to ask Mr. Cahill: has the fight for civil rights over the past 58 years been an immoral one?
The last quote is from The Audacity of Hope, and is actually a quote of Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"White folks' greed runs a world in need."
Mr. Cahill wants you to think that Senator Obama is a racist for using this quote. This is what magicians call misdirection. But the fact is, as troubling and upsetting as it may be to accept, any serious student of history will tell you that Rev. Wright's statement is the truth.
Finally, the most outrageous quote comes from Mr. Cahill himself. He writes, "There are worse quotes in Audacity of Hope which I do not feel comfortable posting on this blog." Now, I have read The Audacity of Hope, and I do not know quite how to respond to this, other than to say that Mr. Cahill obviously means to scare you, the reader, into thinking Senator Obama writes and condones sinister, seditious ideas -- ideas so vicious and despicable that their very repetition would corrupt your mind in a way that can never be repaired. Ideas like freedom of expression, for example. I read nothing in the book that I would not repeat or post on this blog. Mr. Cahill is simply trying to frighten and create controversy.
I would like to think that we can move past this kind of petty, pathetic fear mongering, and focus on issues, not red herrings. I guess old habits die hard for some people.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
"Grandma - Friend or Foe?"
My 4th of July this year was more eventful than normal; not only did I attend a small family BBQ here in Poughkeepsie, but I also attended a gathering in Copiague, NY, down on Long Island. Technically the party in L.I. was a wedding rehearsal dinner, but it had the same effect: I was there for about 3 hours, the beer was plentiful, and the fireworks were continuously lighting up the sky from all directions.
This year's celebration got me thinking about patriotism. Specifically, I have been thinking about how recently the most pressing issue facing the citizens of this nation seems to be whether or not Sen. Barack Obama is a "patriot." Some people obviously believe that since he sometimes chooses to not wear an American flag pin and does not put his hand over his heart during the singing of the National Anthem, he does not love his country. This is a waste of brain cells.
I do not wear an American flag pin. Everyone that I know does not wear an American flag pin. I'm willing to bet that you do not wear an American flag pin, either. And when I go to a Met game, half the fans in attendance do not have their hands over their hearts during the singing of the National Anthem. Are all of us unpatriotic?
My point is this: the "issues" that will get the most attention in the upcoming election are the ones that matter the least. Boxers or briefs? PC or Mac? Wine or beer? Paper or plastic? Flag pins or no flag pins? "Next week: Grandma - Friend or Foe?"
And one additional note: any experienced concert goer will tell you that you do not wear the t-shirt of the band that you are doing to see. Therefore, if you are in the United States, why do you feel the need to wear the flag? You're already there!
This year's celebration got me thinking about patriotism. Specifically, I have been thinking about how recently the most pressing issue facing the citizens of this nation seems to be whether or not Sen. Barack Obama is a "patriot." Some people obviously believe that since he sometimes chooses to not wear an American flag pin and does not put his hand over his heart during the singing of the National Anthem, he does not love his country. This is a waste of brain cells.
I do not wear an American flag pin. Everyone that I know does not wear an American flag pin. I'm willing to bet that you do not wear an American flag pin, either. And when I go to a Met game, half the fans in attendance do not have their hands over their hearts during the singing of the National Anthem. Are all of us unpatriotic?
My point is this: the "issues" that will get the most attention in the upcoming election are the ones that matter the least. Boxers or briefs? PC or Mac? Wine or beer? Paper or plastic? Flag pins or no flag pins? "Next week: Grandma - Friend or Foe?"
And one additional note: any experienced concert goer will tell you that you do not wear the t-shirt of the band that you are doing to see. Therefore, if you are in the United States, why do you feel the need to wear the flag? You're already there!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Problem With the Truth
Over the past two weeks, I have found myself -- consciously or unconsciously -- shying away from politics, and spending less time trying to immerse myself in current political news. I don't know why; perhaps I reached my breaking-point with the horse race; perhaps I became numb to the repetitive nature of the political culture; perhaps I've just been too busy. I don't have a good answer for this question.
But one thing that peaked my interest this week is the "uproar" within the presidential campaign about whether or not a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would benefit McCain or Obama. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, McCain advisor Charlie Black stated that a terrorist attack on the United States "would be a big advantage" for John McCain. And everyone can now stop acting like they are shocked and appalled at the statement.
Should Mr. Black have said what he said? Absolutely not. Was he correct in what he said? You bet he was.
The upcoming general election will allow the American public to chose between that which is comfortable (Sen. McCain) or that which is new (Sen. Obama). A black president is probably a situation that many people are not comfortable with. Therefore, does anyone really doubt that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would cause more people to lean toward sticking with what is comfortable? Change is difficult for many people, and people are less likely to make a significant change is they are scared. And furthermore, the majority of the public views Republicans more favorably than Democrats when it comes to national security -- don't ask my why. It must be that red is a more confrontational color.
The McCain campaign and Mr. Black have come under fire for a statement of truth. And this is why in the current political culture, the truth is very often kept quite. And that is a problem.
But one thing that peaked my interest this week is the "uproar" within the presidential campaign about whether or not a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would benefit McCain or Obama. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, McCain advisor Charlie Black stated that a terrorist attack on the United States "would be a big advantage" for John McCain. And everyone can now stop acting like they are shocked and appalled at the statement.
Should Mr. Black have said what he said? Absolutely not. Was he correct in what he said? You bet he was.
The upcoming general election will allow the American public to chose between that which is comfortable (Sen. McCain) or that which is new (Sen. Obama). A black president is probably a situation that many people are not comfortable with. Therefore, does anyone really doubt that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would cause more people to lean toward sticking with what is comfortable? Change is difficult for many people, and people are less likely to make a significant change is they are scared. And furthermore, the majority of the public views Republicans more favorably than Democrats when it comes to national security -- don't ask my why. It must be that red is a more confrontational color.
The McCain campaign and Mr. Black have come under fire for a statement of truth. And this is why in the current political culture, the truth is very often kept quite. And that is a problem.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
My Barack Obama Lawsuit
On June 3, when Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, he and his wife did something that has apparently set the nation on fire, and really angered me. I am referring, of course, to the "fist-bump heard 'round the world."
Prior to his victory speech that night, when Obama emerged on stage with his wife, the pair chose to forgo the expected hug and kiss for the fist-bump. How hip. This immediately became national news, and I know for a fact that CNN did an entire segment on the occurrence (because war has become oh so boring).
So, why did this really steam my clams? Simple: I've been doing the fist-bump for years. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I could very well have invented the fist-bump. How dare he use it on national television? I fist-bump all the time, and not once has it garnered me national media attention.
Therefore, I will be filing my Barack Obama lawsuit sometime before the end of the week. Under the advice of my lawyer, I cannot disclose the specific amounts that I am seeking, but the lawsuit includes pain and suffering (for seeing my invention, which took me years to perfect, on national television with no credit for me) and compensation for the derailment of my career (my plan was to do the fist-bump on TV as soon as I had the chance, thus elevating the status of my career significantly).
Furthermore, we are attempting to coordinate our efforts with the trademark owners of the phrases "Yes We Can" and "Si Se Puede," as well as the inventor of the shoulder-brush.
Prior to his victory speech that night, when Obama emerged on stage with his wife, the pair chose to forgo the expected hug and kiss for the fist-bump. How hip. This immediately became national news, and I know for a fact that CNN did an entire segment on the occurrence (because war has become oh so boring).
So, why did this really steam my clams? Simple: I've been doing the fist-bump for years. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I could very well have invented the fist-bump. How dare he use it on national television? I fist-bump all the time, and not once has it garnered me national media attention.
Therefore, I will be filing my Barack Obama lawsuit sometime before the end of the week. Under the advice of my lawyer, I cannot disclose the specific amounts that I am seeking, but the lawsuit includes pain and suffering (for seeing my invention, which took me years to perfect, on national television with no credit for me) and compensation for the derailment of my career (my plan was to do the fist-bump on TV as soon as I had the chance, thus elevating the status of my career significantly).
Furthermore, we are attempting to coordinate our efforts with the trademark owners of the phrases "Yes We Can" and "Si Se Puede," as well as the inventor of the shoulder-brush.
Monday, June 9, 2008
And Then There Were Two
It's over. Finally. After 6 official months, and many more unofficial.
I remember during Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign of 2006, her challenger accused her of planning on neglecting her senatorial duties in favor of a run for the White House. She denied the certainty of such a run, stating that she had not made any decisions about that particular issue. I remember thinking how that was a joke. Of course she was going to run, and of course she was going to win. Except...
I remember sitting at home, watching Barack Obama stand in the cold on the steps of the old Illinois capitol in Springfield, IL, announcing his candidacy for the nation's highest office to a sea of people. I remember how his words that day -- and the days to follow -- made me feel like I wanted to get involved. How his speech following his victory in Iowa made me think in surprise: He's going to win.
And through it all -- the debates and the stump speeches, Joe Biden's un-PC descriptions, $400 haircuts, floating crosses, crying candidates, not black enough, not christian enough, Florida, Michigan, Rev. Wright, the many faces of Clinton, Tony Rezko, Iran, Hamas, gas price misdirection, Karl Rove tactics, the popular vote, delegate counts, and superdelegates -- we have learned a valuable lesson: These campaigns go on too long and make me want to pull my hair out!
Obviously, some of the above mentioned items will come up again in the next 5 months. And whether Obama can defeat McCain will be argued and not known until November 4th. But I am a big believer that the process matters more than the outcome. Obama is the candidate I want running for president, and let the chips fall where they may.
And then there were two.
I remember during Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign of 2006, her challenger accused her of planning on neglecting her senatorial duties in favor of a run for the White House. She denied the certainty of such a run, stating that she had not made any decisions about that particular issue. I remember thinking how that was a joke. Of course she was going to run, and of course she was going to win. Except...
I remember sitting at home, watching Barack Obama stand in the cold on the steps of the old Illinois capitol in Springfield, IL, announcing his candidacy for the nation's highest office to a sea of people. I remember how his words that day -- and the days to follow -- made me feel like I wanted to get involved. How his speech following his victory in Iowa made me think in surprise: He's going to win.
And through it all -- the debates and the stump speeches, Joe Biden's un-PC descriptions, $400 haircuts, floating crosses, crying candidates, not black enough, not christian enough, Florida, Michigan, Rev. Wright, the many faces of Clinton, Tony Rezko, Iran, Hamas, gas price misdirection, Karl Rove tactics, the popular vote, delegate counts, and superdelegates -- we have learned a valuable lesson: These campaigns go on too long and make me want to pull my hair out!
Obviously, some of the above mentioned items will come up again in the next 5 months. And whether Obama can defeat McCain will be argued and not known until November 4th. But I am a big believer that the process matters more than the outcome. Obama is the candidate I want running for president, and let the chips fall where they may.
And then there were two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)