The Best Defense

Andrew Sullivan posts an essay on why we must elect Barack Obama. In a nutshell, he captures the damage Bush and Cheney have done to our national security, and what an Obama presidency could mean. This is the best defense of Obama I think I have ever read.

Obama and Terrorism

Andrew Sullivan has a very intelligent post regarding Sen. Obama's strategy for fighting terrorism. As Sullivan notes, the current strategy for defeating terrorism worldwide has not been working. Although there have been no major terror attacks against the United States since 9 / 11, al-Qaeda is on the rise again, and Afghanistan is slowly drifting back into chaos.

Some, such as Alexander Cockburn and Richard Kim, will no doubt count Sullivan's support as a point against Obama. However, there is nothing wrong with gaining the support of moderate, intelligent conservatives like Sullivan. As Sullivan himself points out in his post, he came to some of the wrong conclusions about how to react to 9 / 11. What is important is that he has had the sense to recognize that, and adjust his position accordingly.

All about Alexander

Alexander Cockburn has published a condemnation of Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy in The Nation. As usual, his essay is characterized by a total misunderstanding of American politics.

Cockburn's main beefs with Obama: That the Senator is willing to go after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and attack terrorists in other countries. I'm sorry to break it to you, Alex, but most Americans are perfectly fine with that. Most liberals do not oppose defense so much as they oppose war on countries that do not threaten us.

Second, he notes, correctly, that Obama has not taken as strong as stance on civil liberties as might be hoped. This is a valid point, Mr. Cockburn, but it should be noted that this is no worse than what McCain is proposing. Indeed, a President Obama might be willing to revise the Patriot Act. We will have no such chance with McCain.

What is particularly galling about Cockburn's article is what it omits. It does not discuss what the two candidates with a chance of winning would do with their Supreme Court nominations, an issue with the potential to affect a variety of what Cockburn calls "decent progressive principles" ranging from abortion to health care and the death penalty.

Second, he does not discuss the prospect of an outright religious fanatic-Sarah Palin-being within a heartbeat of the presidency. Cockburn notes that Iraq War supporter Christopher Hitchens has endorsed Obama. What he fails to mention is that Hitchens largely based his endorsement on McCain's inclusion of such a fanatic on his ticket.

When it comes to issues like that, Mr. Cockburn, I would rather be on Hitchens's side any day.

Ruthie, Ruthie, Ruthie...

Attn: Ruth Ann Dailey, Columnist, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Dear Ms. Dailey,

The column you published yesterday on the supposed use of white liberal guilt to rally support for Obama has to be one of the most comical attempts at a right wing polemic I have ever seen. Never mind not living up to the standards of William F. Buckley or George Will; you aren't even in the same arena with Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

First, the evidence you back your assertion with is at best weak. You cite the remarks of only three figures to support your claim. (Really only two when you consider that one at the end of the column, Colin Powell, seems to have been shoe-horned in at the last minute when his support for Obama was made public on Sunday.) Three people-Powell, Rep. John Murtha, and Gov. Ed Rendell-can hardly be said to represent the overall trend of Democratic rhetoric.

What is especially amusing is that one figure you quote was not supporting Sen. Obama, while you blatantly misrepresent another. As you admit in your column, Gov. Rendell was arguing for Sen. Hillary Clinton when he warned that many white Pennsylvanian voters would not support a black candidate. Although you try to portray this as liberal elitism, you have to wonder whether Gov. Rendell knows a bit more about Pennsylvania politics than you do, given that he has won two state-wide elections here. Furthermore, your own newspaper recently published an article featuring interviews with a number of these voters. Your co-workers are cutting you off at the knees.

Particularly galling is your misrepresentation of Powell's remarks. You make reference to a short passage in his interview with Meet the Press in which he referred to the election of Sen. Obama as offering a chance at a generational change. You treat this as the entirety of his remarks, when anyone who reads about them can see is not true. Powell cites a number of reasons for backing Sen. Obama, including his position on the economy and the inexperience of Gov. Palin. The latter issue has also been noted by a number of conservatives, including Peggy Noonan hardly people one would expect to associate with liberal guilt.

Face it, Ruthie, your candidate is unable to fight it out on the issues, so he and minions like you are trying to distract everyone with irrelevant side issues.

Additional Evidence for Those Who Claim Racism Has Nothing to Do with Opposition to Obama

If Obama Doesn't Pick Up on This, He Needs His Head Examined

The McCain campaign recently handed Sen. Barack Obama two gifts on the economic front. First, just as Lehman Bros. was beginning to collapse, Sen. McCain's financial adviser Andrew Luskin claimed that "Things today just aren't that bad" economically in a Sunday Washington Post op-ed. (Thanks to Wonkette.)

To add to the McCain economic incompetence parade, Sen. McCain himself held a press conference this morning in which he claimed the "fundamentals" of our economy are strong, as reported by NPR's All Things Considered. Later, the Senator backtracked and claimed they are "at risk." If Sen. Obama doesn't use this for a campaign ad, he should fire his campaign manager.

There's a fundamental message that I think Sen. Obama and the Democrats haven't been hitting hard enough: are we better off than we were eight years ago? If not, it's time to vote for a Democrat.

Convention Summary and Response

Overall, I believe the Democratic National Convention went well for Sen. Obama. No fights broke out between his supporters and the die hard backers of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton's speech was a case study in conciliation, while Sen. Obama's concluding speech was his usual inspiring work, establishing his moderate credentials while establishing the groundwork for a nuanced, issues-based attack on Sen. McCain.

A few observations:

The convention got better as it went along. Monday night was actually rather disappointing, with mediocre speakers like Sen. Nancy Pelosi, whose speech, posted below, was a study in how not to excite a crowd.



Things got better on Tuesday, with some speakers, such as Sen. Bob Casey launching attacks against Sen. McCain and the Republican Party. Casey's "Four more months" line should be adopted as an overall campaign slogan. The best, however, was Thursday night. Gov. Richardson of New Mexico gave a speech, posted below, that made me wish he had been the vice-presidential selection.



Second, building on Sen. Casey's speech, the Democratic Party, and Sen. Obama in particular, need to go into attack mode. This can be done without violating Sen. Obama's pledge to pursue a new kind of politics. It is entirely possible to make issues-based attacks which focus on Sen. McCain's record of favoring the wealthy and backing the Bush Administration while still remaining catchy.

For example, one ad that has occurred to me would feature photos of Sen. McCain and President Bush together with descriptions of how Sen. McCain has supported the President's worst policies, punctuated by the refrain "Four More Years." An ad in a similar vein would feature the same material, with a digital background showing the M in McCain's turning upside down into a W.

Finally, all conventions, in the end, are pap. You will not see any nuanced exploration of the candidates positions just by watching their party's conventions. For that, you have to do your own research.

Who's a Rich Elitist Now?

In this Obama ad, Sen. McCain learns that people who live in seven houses shouldn't throw the "rich elitist" stone.

Deja Vu...

The recent speech by Sen. Barack Obama on energy was not perfect by any means. It pandered to the auto industry and auto unions, and gave no specific indication of what type of sacrifices would need to be made by the American people in order to achieve sustainable energy use.

That stated, there was one point Sen. Obama made that was quite important, although it has not been focused on by the media to my knowledge. At one point, he notes that our current crisis is partially the result of the failure of previous generations of American leaders to deal with the issue of our dependence on foreign oil. In doing so, he unwittingly echoed a warning voiced by President Jimmy Carter over twenty years ago.



In an address to the nation, he warned that failing to address our dependence on oil at the present time would lead us to more dire straits later on. In Obama's speech, we see what the failure to heed that warning has led to.

Just a Thought...

If Sen. McCain can compare Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, can Sen. Obama compare McCain's wife, a known drug addict, to Amy Winehouse?

Defending the New Yorker

I think the current flap over the cover of the New Yorker represents a terrible over-reaction to what is clearly a piece of satire. The cartoon represents a caricature of the constant internet rumors that have been circulating about Sen. Obama's religion, showing just how implausible their import is.

Some bloggers will no doubt take issue with this interpretation. For instance, Swan McSwannessy at the Swan's Politics Blog compares the cartoon to a racist t-shirt. The only problem with this analogy is that it was not on a racist t-stirt. It was on the over of the New Yorker, a magazine that often has satirical covers.

Think about this for a second. To believe this was a racist attack, one would have to believe that the editors of the New Yorker had suddenly become rabid down-home bigots, whereas the magazine itself is historically liberal. Context matters, people! I would unfailingly oppose such a cartoon if it appeared on the cover of National Review or NewsMax, conservative publications with an interest in spreading smears against Sen. Obama.

It's time to abandon knee-jerk accusations of bigotry and try to recognize satire for what it really is. Long live free speech.

[Note: I do not own the image of the cartoon I have posted. If the cartoonist or the New Yorker have any objection to my using it, they can contact me, and it will be deleted.

An Incident Observed at Shop-Rite

My mother observed this incident yesterday at a Shop-Rite in the Kensington neighborhood, where a police officer was recently killed during a bank robbery.

A woman was talking with her husband about the robbery, complaining that the bank should have an around the clock guard, and blaming the “goddamn n-----s.” All this was said in a loud voice, in a produce section full of people of all races.

This incident is a testament to the racism often found amid the white working class. This has relevance not only to race relations in Philadelphia, but also to the 2008 presidential campaign. The fact is, whether or not people want to talk about it, a certain portion of the working class is opposing Obama because he is African-American. This may not be all of the reason behind working class opposition to Obama, but it is certainly a part of it.

Repent Hillbots, the End Is Near

An article by the Washington Post and MSNBC reports that Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's fundraisers are getting together and working out how to work together for the general election. Sen. Clinton's top financial backers have recognized that the jig is up, and it's time to start backing a winning candidate.

Losing Faith in Obama

Senator Obama's rejection of Rev. Jeremiah Wright comes as a great disappointment to me. I saw Rev. Wright on Bill Moyers Jounal recently, and found myself agreeing with much of what he said. I particularly agreed with his point that if America goes around using terroristic tactics against third world countries, it will inevitably provoke a brutal backlash. The only thing I saw as questionable was his idiotic belief that the US government created AIDS.

Not all Obama supporters agree, though. Andrew Sullivan applauds Sen. Obama's denunciation of Rev. Wright. In one particularly amusing line, he condemns Rev. Wright's attack on America's brutal treatment of Nicaragua during the 80s. I suppose the Contras were just fine, upstanding gentlemen then?

The Liberal Media?

Hillary-lovers who think the media is too soft on Obama, take heart.

As the Brendan Calling blog reports, AP officials at a get-together with Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama kissed the former's butt while denigrating the latter.

I never bought the whole media affair with Obama thing. How could I, given the Rev. Wright and "bitter" fiascos?

Nutter Should Be Over the Hill

The recent brouhaha over Senator Obama's "bitter" comments are all the evidence we need for why Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter should be endorsing him over Sen. Clinton.

While Hillary whines about Barack disrespecting "sportsmen," he comes out and speaks the god-honest truth: rural single issue voters are focusing on issues such as gun control and religion at the expense of our cities and our country. With Mayor Nutter's recent efforts at creating gun laws in Philadelphia, he should be embracing Barack with both arms.

And as for Senator Clinton's contention that Obama's comments were elitist and could lead to Republican attacks, just look at brendancalling's response to a post on the Suburban Guerrilla blog.

Calling Someone by Their Proper Name

Senator John McCain is complaining that one of Barack Obama's supporters called him a warmonger.

Umm...John. If you go around saying you'd be willing to stay in Iraq for one hundred years and joke about bombing Iran, people have every right to call you a warmonger.

Obama, Religion, and Race

The clip posted below features the full speech Senator Barack Obama gave yesterday regarding the recent press frenzy over controversial remarks made by his pastor.
They offer many insights into the issue of race in America.

Sen. Obama rightly points out that his election will not solve all of our racial problems. At the same time, he notes that as people come together, we will form a more united people. An African-American president will mark a great step toward racial progress.

The Senator also notes that just because someone is his pastor does not mean that he endorses everything that person believes or says. He further points out the great racial divide in American religion, and the difference in black and white religious practices.

Beyond that, I'll let the Senator speak for himself. His words are far more eloquent than mine.

A Nation of Idiots

In this week’s issue of The Nation, the letters page is crammed with complaints from angry Hillary supporters who were ticked off that the magazine has endorsed Obama. The majority of them were so stupid as to beggar belief. I do not know where to begin.

Perhaps I should start with the person who said that men have been in charge long enough and that only a woman can solve America’s problems. Given that Hillary Clinton voted for many of the nation’s problems as a Senator, including the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, this seems rather doubtful. Even if women are better suited to solving these problems, it’s certainly not this woman. As Reason Magazine noted, this only exposes the bankruptcy of identity politics.

In one particularly galling letter, some idiot tries to harp on the fact that the Constitutional amendment giving women the vote was passed decades after the amendment giving African-American men the vote. This completely ignores the fact that, except for a brief period during Reconstruction, in many parts of this country, black people couldn't exercise that constitutional right until the 1960s. Many civil rights activists died for that right. This letter practically spat on their graves.

Another writer claimed that Obama would be unelectable. If so, than Hillary doesn’t stand a chance in hell. With all the baggage she has, the Republican attack machine will literally bury her in mud. I can just imagine the infamous September 2008 You Tube video “Have a Cigar, Hillary?” Although her supporters claim that the Republicans have thrown all they can at her, the fact that they have so much to throw should give one pause.

Time to Get Rough, Barack

Barack Obama's campaign recently condemned one of his unpaid aides, Professor Samantha Power, for referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton as a power-hungry monster. My only question is: why?

As Andrew Sullivan notes, Senator Clinton and her husband will do whatever it takes to stay in power. They will stoop to dirty tricks (e.g. the race baiting inherent in their release of the Somali Barack photo), negative campaigning, and manipulating the nomination process to get elected.

It's time to fight back. And we have so much to do so with. If Hillary Clinton wants to run on her record, let's start with her health care screw ups. I can see it now...

"It's 3 AM. Your children are sick. Who do you want in charge of our national healthcare system? A man who is willing to work in a bipartisan fashion to create a workable, affordable system, or a politician who wastes opportunities through partisan bickering?"