Is An Obama Veep Decision Coming Up?
Is An Obama Veep Decision Coming Up?
NOTE: I'm in the process of moving into my new apartment, so there won't be a new posting for a few days. Sorry about that. :) (Not that there are a whole lot of people out there dying to read my blog, but you never know!)
Here's an e-mail I received from the Obama campaign last night:
Dear Rebecca --
Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.
You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.
Sign up today to be the first to know:
You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.
Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.
No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.
Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate.
Thanks,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
But according to my favorite blog, The Fix, the timing of this e-mail doesn't necessarily mean a VP announcement is imminent. It could just be another tactic for beefing up the campaign's e-mail and phone number database. However, it would be interesting if Obama made his VP announcement in such an unconventional way. That would be refreshingly consistent with his "we're going to change the way politics is done" theme.
washingtonpost.com - National News and Headlines
A senior aide to Vice President Cheney is the leading contender to become a top official at the Energy Department, according to several current and former administration officials, a promotion that would put one of the administration's most ardent opponents of environmental regulation in charge of...
In the world of philanthropy, where independence from government has long been sacred, a revolution is underway. Social entrepreneurs are clamoring for a realignment of the way the federal government and nonprofit groups work together to maximize the impact of American generosity.
FBI officials attempted to bolster their case against researcher Bruce E. Ivins yesterday by presenting experts who said that a lone scientist working for three to seven days with readily available equipment could have produced the lethal spores used in the 2001 anthrax mailings.
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 18 -- Doctors may not refuse medical treatment to gay men or lesbians for religious reasons, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday.
Responding to questions about whether Sen. John McCain had an unfair advantage over Sen. Barack Obama at Saturday's forum on faith at the Saddleback Church in California, a spokesman for the Rev. Rick Warren said both candidates had an advance look at a few questions.
An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question: At the Saddleback Church Forum, pastor Rick Warren began his interviews with John McCain and Barack Obama by saying: "We believe in separation of church and state, but not faith and politics." What's your response to that and to the forum?
For me, the God quiz that Barack Obama endured with barely concealed sweaty palms and that John McCain breezed through with seasoned casualness has no place in American politics. Rick Warren is a feel-good preacher who softened the interrogation and administered no canings, but that's irrelevant. To claim that "faith and politics" is different -- and more acceptable -- than "church and state" is semantic sleight of hand. The reason that any contemporary presidential candidate is forced to suffer the indignity of confessing his religious beliefs in public goes back to the Reagan revolution. Pandora's box was opened by the right wing in 1980, admitting not just inappropriate matters of religion into political life but also making acceptable a range of prejudice, bigotry, and divisiveness that had been banished by an era of liberal social legislation. Reagan, after all, was the president who, if left to his own devices, would have let thousands more AIDS victims die through neglect and lack of funding for basic medical research. The implicit reason, well understood by the right and endorsed by fundamentalists, was that gays deserve what they get if they pursue a lifestyle that doesn't match right-wing Christian ideology. Minorities, women, immigrants, and progressivism in general were given the same back hand.
The Obama-McCain evening, being a stepchild of conservative beliefs, was stacked against Obama, or any secularist, Democrat or not. Indeed, it was stacked against anyone who understands the basic reason for separating church and state, which is to keep closed the box of religious divisiveness that Reagan sprang open. As a performance, neither candidate displayed either the unvarnished truth or unblemished integrity. The real message that was meant to come across from Obama was "I really am American," and from McCain was "I'm really right as Reagan." Viewer's notes: Dull pandering to the audience from both sides. Lots of mention of Jesus, sin, faith, prayer. McCain came off as more prepared and polished in his responses. He went for Reagan's easy folksy confidence, catering to the audience's craving for moral simplicity. His answer to the question "Is there evil and how to deal with it?" was typical: "Yes, there is evil and we will defeat it." Obama said, roughly, "Yes there is evil, and we can't hope to defeat it on our own, but we can be soldiers for the Lord to do what we can."
For McCain, it's all as simple as what Reaganism carved out almost thirty years ago: Gay marriage is bad, abortion is bad, activist judges are bad. Winning in Iraq is good, getting Osama bin Laden is good, offshore oil drilling is good, and freedom is great. Obama talked about the hard work and sacrifices we need to make in order to overcome energy dependence and academic mediocrity, also the respect we need to accord others on the abortion issue--not quite as stirring as reactionary platitudes.
In short, McCain appealed to our escapist magical morality, Obama appealed to reason and practicalities. That has been the story throughout the campaign. Everyone concedes that Obama's way is more mature, realistic, and ultimately right. But I doubt that's enough to cure a case of sweaty palms.
Get a sneak peak of our new venture at http://intent.com
Republicans and self-styled "Christians" are agog over what Andrea Mitchell of NBC characterized as the "crisp, immediate, forceful response" John McCain gave to Rick Warren's question about evil during the forum at the Saddleback Church. They dismiss Barack Obama's "more nuanced approach."
"Sen. McCain was crisp, decisive, knew what he was about, knew his values," Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R, Minn.), who is a favorite of the "Christian Right," proclaimed on Face the Nation on Sunday. "Sen. Obama, I thought, was hesitant, halting, and quite wandering in his answers."
Pastor Rick asked the following question of both candidates: "Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?"
Here is a portion of Obama's reasoned, considered, "nuanced" answer:
"Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. . . . It has to be confronted squarely . . . . I think [it] is very important for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil. . . . in the name of good. . . . [J]ust because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good."
Here, in stark contrast, is McCain's answer:
"Defeat it."
One can't get much more "crisp" and "decisive" than that! And it sure sounds like the proper Christian answer to what to do about evil, doesn't it?
Sen. McCain's values, which he knows so well, are based on that revered commandment from Jesus, "Shoot first and ask questions later."
Let's see, that's from . . . uh . . . the fifth chapter of Matthew, isn't it?
Oops. That's where Jesus offers an answer to Pastor Warren's question on what to do about evil that is nearly opposite to Sen. McCain's:
"But I say to you, 'Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'" (Matt. 5:39)
Several biblical Proverbs also reject Mr. McCain's "crisp, immediate, forceful response." A few examples:
"He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty." (Prov. 16:32)"A man of quick temper acts foolishly, but a man of discretion is patient." (Prov. 14:17)
"He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly." (Prov. 14:29)
"A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention." (Prov. 15:18)
And, from the Christian New Testament's Letter of James: "Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God" (James 1:19-20)
Three years ago, when President Bush was, as he is now and was prior to the 9-11 attacks, on his long August vacation in Crawford, Texas, Cindy Sheehan and other mothers who lost sons in Iraq War staged a protest near his home. One of their signs read: "Who would Jesus bomb?"
John McCain gave a memorable version of his standard answer to that question when he was asked in 2007 about his Iranian policy. He sang, to the tune of "Barbara Ann": "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
In my new book, Grand Theft Jesus, I offer a name for these people who stand Jesus on his head. The person who had the greatest impact in overturning the teachings of Jesus lived 1700 years ago. Constantine won the Battle of Milvan Bridge in AD 312 after a dream led him to have Christian symbols painted on the shields of his soldiers.
Emperor Constantine is usually said to have converted the Roman Empire to Christianity. What he actually did was convert Christianity to the Roman Empire. He gave Jesus the fourth century equivalent of a shot of anabolic steroids and transformed the Prince of Peace into the Prince of War and ally of the rich and the ruler.
The Jesus Thieves who have committed identity theft against the Prince of Peace should be called Constantinians.
In Orange County on Saturday (as he has on many other occasions), John McCain showed himself to be a Constantinian, not a Christian. But this will do him little harm with the Republican "base" of the "Christian Right," because they, too, are Constantinians who shout "JESUS!" at the top of their lungs but ignore his teachings.
The choice in November is Obama or "Oh, Bomb 'Em."
Constantinians will vote for the latter, but Christians who are actual Jesus Followers may prefer nuance to crisp, angry decisiveness.
{Historian Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts & Letters at Millsaps College. His latest book is Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America 
.
I ran into a guy a while back who represents the best of what you might call the "Slow Drink" movement. He has started a small business roasting his own coffee in Charles Town, WV. Largely self-taught, he is producing what I have found to be some of the best coffee in the world.
Check him out at The Black Dog Coffee Company.
That is from a nice post by Michael Idinopulos over at SocialText. I really like how he highlights the importance of knowledge as an equal partner of money in the equation. He goes on to say:The traditional philanthropic model revolves around money...Money is important, but it's not everything... When I talk to friends and colleagues in the nonprofit sector, what I hear again and again is a desire for knowledge.
There are a lot of reasons why nonprofit executives are hungry for knowledge. They work on particularly stubborn problems...This knowledge transfer is already happening, but not effectively. Face-to-face conferences are expensive and often logistically impossible...like all personal networks, they don't scale efficiently...
The absence of a strong market mechanism and regulating institutions allow bad management practices to endure.The interesting thing about markets is that they involve transactions - someone provides something to someone else for something in return. It doesn't have to be money - it can be status, a favor, or just a good feeling. But without this "something in return," markets don't function well.
Michael goes on to say:
How can we make such an online knowledge tool into a well-functioning market so that it gets widely used? That is the $64,000 question.It's not hard to imagine a better way. I'm envisioning an online knowledge networking tool for nonprofits...
[GlobalGiving]
Earlier this year, Congress approved a $168 billion economic stimulus
package that aimed to provide a temporary boost to the economy through
handing out checks to the masses. Many presidents are tempted to try
to stimulate the economy in this way. While Bush did it recently, our
next president might try it, too. The package was a bipartisan
compromise, but critics have spoken from both sides. While some feel
that granting a tax rebate to hardworking Americans will help ease the
strain of troubled economic times, others, including myself, argue
that it is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
Inherent in the foundation of Bush's stimulus package is the idea that
money is the antidote to all of our social problems. What is missing
from this equation is the reverence of community and tangible social
support that the Bush administration has slowly but surely eroded in
the last eight years through slashing funding for social service
programs all over the United States.
If issuing stimulus checks is a flawed remedy, what would a long-term
solution look like? The answer is simple: committing to the overall
health of families is the key to securing a favorable economic future.
A stimulus package for mothers would be a holistic, progressive move
toward supporting healthy communities, and strengthening the social
networks that are crucial to the positive development of our children.
The online, grassroots organization for building a true
family-friendly America is MomsRising.org. The foundation of their work is manifested in the M.O.T.H.E.R. acronym, which calls for, among other things, maternity and paternity leave, open and flexible work,
reliable after-school programs, and healthcare for all children. These
resources are crucial to communities and have the power to allow
parents to simultaneously build careers and families, without having
to sacrifice one at the expense of the other.
If reliable childcare was available to all families, extra money would
not be needed to help pay for a past-due day-care bill. If basic
healthcare was provided for all American children, the government
would not have to issue a check to help parents pay for astronomical
costs of check-ups and routine medical care. If parents had
family-friendly, flexible work schedules, moms and dads would not have
to worry about sacrificing a day of pay to tend to the needs of a sick
child or other family emergency.
Imagine what $168 billion could accomplish for our families if we
committed to a real economic stimulus package--one that stimulated
parenthood, rather than proposed a fleeting solution to a problem that
is here to stay. We need well-rounded and educated kids to help solve
the problems that we are creating for the future. Building a
family-friendly America is possible, if we look to long term,
community-oriented solutions, rather than near-sighted political
gimmicks that may seem appealing at first, but ultimately do more harm
than good.
A Peaceful Revolution is a blog about innovative ideas to strengthen America's families through public policies, business practices, and cultural change. Done in collaboration with MomsRising.org, read a new post here each week.
Effects of the Russia-Georgia Conflict
Effects of the Russia-Georgia Conflict
There are two must-reads today, one from the Wall Street Journal (which I've posted in full below) and one from the New York Times. The first piece describes the impact the Russia-Georgia conflict could have on the presidential race. The second describes how McCain has the campaign trail to himself this week while Obama and family vacation in Hawaii.
Georgia Conflict Tests Candidates on Foreign Policy
By Laura Meckler
WASHINGTON -- The violence between Russia and Georgia quickly thrust foreign policy into the U.S. presidential election, with John McCain standing to benefit and Barack Obama facing a more perilous situation.
The conflict was soon cast as "a 3 a.m. moment" -- a reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton's argument during the Democratic primary that Sen. Obama was unprepared for a middle-of-the-night phone call on a foreign-policy crisis.
As such, the conflict gave Sen. Obama the opportunity to show that he is indeed prepared, but it also gave prominence to foreign policy, one of the few areas where polling shows that Sen. McCain has a clear advantage with voters.
"It's a chance for both candidates to really seem presidential -- big P 'Presidential' -- for the first time," said Jay Campbell, a Democratic pollster who helps conduct the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. "The challenge is probably a little bit more pointed for Obama than McCain."
It wasn't clear whether the conflict will expand, or whether it will come to the fore in the minds of voters typically more concerned with close-to-home issues such as the price of gasoline.
"The truth is it probably won't have much impact at all -- the sad truth, perhaps," said Democratic consultant Mark Mellman. But he said that if the issue does affect voters, "it gives McCain a slight advantage."
That is because voters already see him as more prepared to handle this kind of crisis, a problem that Sen. Obama tried to rectify with a high-profile trip last month to the Middle East and Europe. While Sen. Obama has little foreign-policy experience, Sen. McCain was in the Navy, was a prisoner of war for 5½ years and has long sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"It is a real national-security crisis," said Nicolle Wallace, an adviser to Sen. McCain. She added that while much of the foreign-policy debate has centered on the war in Iraq, this is a reminder that other parts of the world hold peril.
Still, the crisis gives Sen. Obama an opportunity to prove himself by saying "the right things" and striking the "right stance and tone," said Mr. Campbell, the pollster.
The candidates' responses to the crisis were initially very different in tone. Sen. McCain forcefully blamed Russia, a country he has taken a hard stand on in the past. He has called for ejecting Russia from the Group of Eight leading nations and has mocked President George W. Bush's statement that he saw goodness in former Russian President Vladimir Putin. Sen. McCain said that when he looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, he "saw three letters: K-G-B."
"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," Sen. McCain said Friday morning. He credited Georgia for having called for a cease-fire.
Sen. Obama's initial response was more measured, not blaming either side. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war," he said.
Later Friday, Sen. Obama toughened his position, calling for restraint on both sides but blaming Russia for invading its neighbor. Saturday, he went further, saying, "Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
Obama foreign-policy adviser Michael McFaul, an expert on the region at Stanford University, said that at first it wasn't clear that Russia was entirely at fault. "I just don't think at that point it was useful to start assigning blame. The first thing you need to do is stop the violence," he said.
But the McCain campaign is pointing to the Arizona senator's initial statement as evidence that he got it right from the start. "[Obama's] first statement was very weak and did not distinguish between the aggressor and the victim," said Randy Scheunemann, Sen. McCain's top foreign-policy adviser.
The conflict, said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, "is an opportunity for American voters to get a sense of the way both candidates will perform in a very serious international situation."
rebeccawilhelm
2
share
subscribe
contact
subscribe
RSS
