On the eve of President Obama's birth date, thoughts turn to his time in office. As a man, countless admire the person, Barack Obama, and yet, feel that they cannot fully celebrate his performance. Hope has all but disappeared. Audacity appears vanquished. Still, some are sure that there is reason to believe. People ponder potentials not fully realized. Prospects for change loom large. Several may be shared in the sentiments offered on this auspicious occasion.
Dreams have yet to die. The desire to write to the President on the anniversary of his birth or converse with him personally is strong. Most will only be able to meet Mister Obama circuitously. Nonetheless, millions will try to talk to the man in the White House. People, such as esteemed Educator, Doctor Cornel West has addressed the President profoundly though the airwaves. "One of America's most provocative public intellectuals," West speaks of what is needed for a genuine success. The Princeton Professor ponders aloud; if only President Obama advanced classlessness.
The administration and Organizing for Obama are clearly aware that many of the strongest supporters of healthcare reform are reluctant to support the President's current plan because it lacks a public option. In the OFA conference call on finishing health care reform the following question was asked:
Q: I was just wondering if we come across folks who are still advocating for the public option, should we still be supportive of that or would that mess things up?
Mitch: The President laid out his plan and the public option is not in that and I know a lot of people - not only on the phone here - but a lot of the folks that you talk to feel very strongly about the public option, but this is what I would say... This is our best shot at getting health insurance reform; comprehensive health insurance reform passed and while its not going to be exactly what everyone wants. This bill - the President's plan - accomplishes 90% of what I think all of us agree is a step in the right direction. So I would just talk about what is at stake. Sitting on the side lines based off of the public option - at this point is going to be absolutely detrimental to our efforts as we move forward. We have a lot of conversations about that and just say what's at stake - is that the sole reason why you support health insurance reform? You know, pose that question to folks. If we don't get this done now, literally it will be a decade before anyone brings this back up again and our country can't afford that - businesses, families, individuals and our government - local, state and federal - can't afford to put this problem off for another decade so that is what I would say to folks. I know it isn't a perfect answer. I know a lot of people feel extremely strong about that issues, but that's the best answer I can give you all tonight.
(thanks to Chris Bowers for prosting this)
This is a gross misunderstanding of why public option supporters oppose the current bill. Our response is not the selfish, simple-minded "oh, we didn't get our pet project in the bill, so we're against it" mentality that OFA leadership has tried to present it as. We are, by and large, opposed to any bill that would force the uninsured (such as myself) to buy policies from the very same private insurance companies Obama and the Democratic leadership have painted as the corrupt, well-monied defenders of a broken status quo.
We cannot, and will not support a bill that rewards these companies for denying coverage, for putting profit over people's lives, for distorting the democratic process through lobbying money, by handing them 50 million new customers, forced by government to buy their overpriced products. We are not just sitting on the sidelines, we are fundamentally opposed to this type of a bill.
We have said from the very beginning, that if there is to be an individual mandate to buy insurance we must have some option outside of the existing private, for profit companies. Whether a new public agency, a non-profit, or a Medicare buy-in (this is what most progressives would actually prefer if voluntarily open to all ages), any or all would be fine, just not WellPoint (whose former CEO was the Baucus staffer that largely wrote the Senate bill that Obama has based his proposal around). We will not support a bill that was written by insurance company CEOs and lobbyists.
This is not a qualm over a small detail; it is a huge rift over the fundamental direction of healthcare reform and government in general. Do we truly change and move this country in a new direction, by once again using government to provide for the general welfare of the people, as the Constitution gives Congress the authority and responsibility to do (Section 8, Article I), or do we continue with more of the same: big government bailing out big business at the expense of our general welfare?
I'm going to start with a really simple example: a leaky faucet. Now, this isn't just any faucet. It's a really fancy one your grandmother left you and you love the way it looks. Every time you use the faucet, you think warmly of your grandmother (may she rest in peace).
But, you're also getting a nagging feeling that there's going to be an expensive water bill in the future. You've heard something about how much water a single leaky faucet can use and you're worried doing nothing could get expensive.
So, you call your plumber friend who agrees to come look at it for free. After taking a thorough look the plumber says: bad news, good news.
Bad news: there's no way this old faucet is going to last much longer and there's no way to repair it--it's falling apart inside and it would be impossible to find parts to fix it.
Good news, I've got an extra faucet I can sell you at my cost, $100 at most for the faucet plus install, and it has a built in filter so it'll be healthier for you, too.
Okay... ho, hum... a leaky faucet. Moving along, let's make the leaky faucet example more general.
A recent change of the guard in the Massachusetts Senate race force the President to reveal he is working. We, the American people, are waiting, just as we have been for months and months. For a full year, countless citizens have felt as though they were patient. Yet, the President did not seem to have their interests at heart. True change has not come. Countless constituents anticipate none is forthcoming. Three hundred and sixty five plus have gone by and the American people are tired of being patient.
It is said, as individuals, we can achieve all we conceive, if only we truly believe. President Barack Obama once knew this. He lived this veracity. Indeed, candidate Obama's audacity and accomplishments gave Americans hope. When Barack Obama reached for the sky he realized what no one thought he could. The electorate was energized. People came to expect the country was in for a change. Now, it seems Mister Obama is bogged down by what Eisenhower understood, concerns of the Military Industrial Complex.
The intricacy of the Armed Forces mission does not confine itself to forceful martial escalation. Nothing escapes the wide reach of combative nation building. Lives are lost. Limbs crushed. With bullets ablaze, brains are battered or blown to smithereens. Hope suffers. Hearts are hurt.
Symbolism is very powerful, and great Presidents use it to set the tone of their Presidency. It is the "Bully Pulpit" because Presidents tell the people "this is the way it is now," then repeat the message and they act in ways that consistently reinforce it, until the message ripples out and people start acting accordingly.
FDR took office and signaled change. What could be more dramatic that his first 100 days? Message: The government will from now on be on the side of the People.
Reagan certainly signaled change. Message: The government will now be on the side of the wealthy. The rest of you are on your own.
Bush II certainly signaled change. People understood that we will be a country ruled by men, not laws. (And he meant men. Wealthy, white men.)
What has Obama signaled? What tone has he set? What actions have backed up his words? What new direction does the country understand we are following?
I'm mainly just curious to see where people stand, so this is really just a poll. I think it is helpful to understand so that we can move forward with our work.
As students of American history know, in 1932 and 1933, after the election and around the inauguration of FDR, there was a significant portion of the public that wanted a dictator. FDR even toyed with the idea but chose not to do so. At that time Fascism wasn't necessarily frowned upon here. Mussolini was actually well respected, and the Reichstag fire just happened in March 1933 when Hitler took complete control. So they can argue that we need a dictator. But, let's be consistent. Shred the constitution, if necessary. But they never take me up on it: instead, they pretend to love democracy. You can't have it both ways. My biggest problem, I tell them, with Bush and his thugs is not that he was moving close to dictatorial power; but that the slobs tried to hide that they were doing so. Just he and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other scumbags took it upon themselves to do what they did. That's why I say they belong in public cages where they can be on display, like a zoo. But, we should be able as a country to have a rational discussion as to the future form of our government.
Maybe we'd be a lot better off if we agreed on a dictatorship. Freeze the borders, bomb anywhere in the world if they don't give us their raw materials, lock up the colored peoples in camps, and eat big meals. We can then wash it down with alcohol and really not give a shit. Oh, and only wasps can be on TV commercials and the women can argue over how clean they keep their linoleum floors. Yes, those were the days! And if I stop in a store, English is always spoken exclusively. An all white world! No more of that 3rd world riff-raff. Bring it on!!
The problem, as I see it, is that we can't even debate rationally whether we'd be better off with a dictator because they are total liars and won't admit the obvious. They have a vested interest in pretending that they love democracy...that they're patriotic. No, it has gotten to the point where, if almost any subject is even brought up to them, the right wing quickly reveals itself as being little more than a poorly concealed reservoir of bigotry. For example, let's face it, they favor vouchers rather than pay to improve public education, because they want to "legally" send their children to all white schools. And, even more to the point than that, at all costs don't share the wealth. No problem that for the last 30 years we've witnessed unprecedented growth in income disparity, the rich can never get enough. I could go on and on with examples of their blatant class bigotry but, what's the point? I trust you understand. "Vouchers" is a mere slogan, used by the real elite, like "patriotism", to solicit the prejudice that is just below the surface of every human being.....and they know it.
You want to experience receiving a blank look? Try explaining to any one of these slobs that Obama just wants to let expire the Bush tax cut for the rich, his proposal doesn't even come remotely close to what the rich were paying under Eisenhower, Nixon, or Bush Sr. Naturally, they are left speechless because their position is indefensible. They apparently think they have an absolute right to any wealth they have acquired. They will not give up anything without screaming as loudly as they can........Unfortunately, be ready for more and even louder noise.
And yet, for example, according to the right wing, when welfare was "reformed" over a decade ago, that was reduction of a mere privilege, not a "right". The poor don't have a right to much more than the air, according to the elites,.....they should just be thankful that they live in this country, and be appreciative and obedient, and wave the flag. After all, everything's fine the way it is, no need for this call for "change". Who needs change when you can eat whatever you want, whenever you want it, and wherever you wish? To them (the real elite), the only possible "change" is that they should acquire even more wealth because they "deserve" it. (How has the overwhelming majority agreed to this crap for so long?).
We have to finally fully admit the truth that it is human nature to always want more. It will never end, so stop waiting for it. The elites understand human nature and use bigotry to their advantage. We (the human race) have to be in a constant struggle to battle our own tendencies, to fight to promote equality. It's true that there will be no such thing as "equality" unless we are engaged in constant struggle to achieve and then maintain it.
Presumably we know that people are not born equal, we can only hope and aspire to equality of opportunity. But, it must be kept in mind that at any given time there is only so much "pie" to go around. Therefore, it's also human nature for these Sarah Palin fans, to do what they can to prevent the underclasses from "succeeding". For every little bit of monetary "success" by those without, the elite must surrender something of value. They'll never do it voluntarily, and never without loud screaming. Vouchers, low taxes, wars, patriotism, abortion, etc., are all bigotry-based slogans used to keep those without in line, all to the benefit of the real elite. Certainly, it's time to ignore those distractions and treat them as just that: "distractions", thrown in the way by the elite to try to prevent the masses from focusing on what must truly matter to them: distinctions of wealth.
And, it would seem to necessarily follow, that although we would achieve much in the way of needed efficiency, if we were to move to a dictatorship, there would be the likely prospect that Mr./Ms. dictator would protect the wealth of the real elite. and bigotry would be even more expanded and out in the open than it now is. And, almost by definition, the masses would lose whatever access they now have to appeal (question) the decisions that are made, so the overwhelming majority of humans in this country would be worse off. That being the case, dictatorship must be prevented.
It is no surprising announcement to say that we (the USA) now face an enormously large problem. There is a good chance that in attempting to resolve this problem, we will end up in an ultra-rightist, dictatorship, with even more inequality than is now present. In looking into the foggy future, I can't help but see a USA that is very good for the dwindling few and ever worse for the growing majority. Until what? (because things always do change). It continues to "grow" until it just bursts and I don't want to be around for the explosion. But is it even fair of me to leave such an existence to my children? Probably not.
Accordingly, we cannot morph into a dictatorship. Instead, we must continue with some sort of lame attempt at democracy until we get it right or, at least, acceptable. And due to a great many reasons, including how well the right is organized and how loud will be the screaming, we have no choice but to mobilize now, and urgently. This should be the existing short-term plan, anyhow. As to the long-term, and disputes of capitalism v. socialism, etc., we at least have several months within which to argue and decide.
I see this as akin to a life and death struggle: run, work harder, and harder, and "beat" the outnumbered into submission. There is no choice.
Obama, whatever you may think of him, represents our best hope. If he fails we get at least 4 or 8 more years of idiots and scoundrels, at a time when not only is it highly undesirable but, humanity can simply not afford it. So, we have no choice but to support him in mass. I think he has requested such support. Push him! We have no choice but to help and now! It may actually surprise us as to how much we can achieve. After all, there really must be some hope.
We have a story today that is a big-time reminder of how things have changed in America...and it's all inspired by a book of jokes.
I am often prowling thrift shops looking for interesting things, and I came across a 1946 copy of "10,000 Jokes, Toasts, And Stories" (edited by Lewis and Faye Copeland), which contains a section of jokes entitled "Races and Nations"...which contains a subsection entitled "Negro".
We are going to examine some of those jokes...and the world in which those jokes resided.
I warn you now: it will be highly unpleasant; but as we come out the other side the goal will be to show that what was not only acceptable, but commonplace, not so very long ago, would be considered wildly unacceptable today-and that we are a better people for the change.
Earlier this year, I visited my father, who lives in the Bay Area. As we drove from the Oakland airport, the conversation quickly turned to the Obama presidency. Born in 1923, my dad survived the Great Depression, fought in World War II, endured vicious Jim Crow segregation and violence, participated in the Civil Rights Movement, and, this year, witnessed the inauguration of an African-American president of the United States.
On our drive, he reminisced about how, at age 8, he had gone with his 2nd grade class to see the cavalcade of then-president Herbert Hoover as it drove through downtown Detroit. A year later, the country would throw Hoover out of office for his gross mishandling of the economy, choosing Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his message of change. Before my dad's teen years were through, he would join the Marines and defend a segregated nation from within a segregated military. Traveling to and from southern military bases, he would experience racial humiliation, threats, and violence from white fellow Americans, often while wearing his Marine uniform.
As we marveled at the progress we've made as a country, we drove by block after block of boarded up houses in some of Oakland's African-American neighborhoods, many with foreclosure signs visible. Many homes in the same neighborhoods still sported lawn signs reading "Change" and "Hope."
As the Obama presidency sinks in, many are interpreting it in absolute terms: arguing either that it shows that racial bias and discrimination are no longer factors in American life, or that the election means little for race relations, reflecting merely a unique confluence of events-a historically unpopular incumbent, a historically bad economy, a gifted politician raised by white folks who ran a flawless 21st century campaign against a pair of tone-deaf 20th century opponents. News media coverage mostly echoed that polarized, simplistic discourse, with an emphasis on the "post-racial America" narrative.
A bell rings. The sound reverberates. A sentiment shared aloud resonates within the heart, mind, body, and soul of persons who heard the message. No matter the actions taken afterward, sullen statements are not easily erased from memory.
Days before Congress was asked to pass the stimulus package, the President uttered the now famous phrase; "I won," Republicans, as could have been expected, expressed resentment. Immediately, subsequent to President Obama's statement Democrats were said to have followed the Chief Executive's lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked if he thought Republicans might block the initiative. Empathically, he replied; "No." Today we know differently. In the House, the measure received no support from the Grand Old Party.
As we await approval from the Senate we may wish to consider, the past. Words that evoke division have a lasting effect.
Please peruse a missive penned shortly after President Obama reacted to pressure from the "Right."
The newest coolthing to do in the Left-leaningblogosphere is to freak out about how Obama isn’t going to live up to expectations, or will fail to carry out a progressive presidency. A similar current runs through the moremainstreammedia where they love to talk about how his appointments run counter to the “change” mantle on which he ran. Rahm Emanuel in particular has been a focus of such criticisms. "He's not change." "He worked with Clinton." "He's like, totally partisan." "He hates the 50 state strategy." And so on.
My response to both of these camps is that they need to chill out. I know we don’t have a ton of information to go on right now, and we’re in full election withdrawal mode so every little thing we can find has to be analyzed to death, but sometimes things are a lot less complicated than people make them out to be.
There really isn't a lot left to say as we head into the final 24 hours of the campaign. First, and most important, Kelly, Amanda and I want to thank everyone who has helped in any way with the campaign. The one thing I will take away from this experience, regardless of the outcome on Tuesday, is the people I've met, the communities I've visited and the stories we've shared.
It has also been encouraging how many people have stepped up over the last 2 weeks to help with donations to the campaign. Once our opponent got desperate and decided to go negative there were many people and organizations who stepped up and sent in late donations. These late donations allowed us to expand our media advertising and create a second TV ad to combat the distortions coming from our opponent's campaign.
Yeah, I know it's corny to say the diary is about hope and change, but actually that's what it is. I'm sharing with those who are interested, a story of unsung heroes who sacrificed to reject the divisiveness and ugliness of these final days of the 2008 campaign.
Assuming all goes as we hope, and Obama is our next President; we have bigger Democratic margins in the House and Senate; it is my belief that Obama will either be huge success or a massive failure (not to put too much pressure on you, big guy). I think our problems are just too big, and the decisions Obama and the Democrats in Congress have to make are just too monumental, for there to be any middle ground. Either Obama's going to come out of this mess looking like he saved the country from disaster, and go down as another FDR or Lincoln, or he's going down in history as the Presidents who preceded FDR and Lincoln and failed- James Buchanan or Herbert Hoover- awash in massive problems they were unable to solve. For the sake of the country, the Democratic Party, and the progressive movement, we'd all better hope it's the former.
The difference will be whether he pushes to be, and succeeds at being, a transformational President, or whether he goes toward what Digby calls neo-Hooverism: that sense that we need to be frugal, cautious, slow, careful, and all other things center-right. Massive problems cannot by solved by halting half-steps, crisis cannot be resolved by too much caution.
STATE BLOGS
