I'm still pessimistic about our ability to actually solve the climate crisis - but stories like this give me hope that human ingenuity can help us mitigate, if not outright prevent, the worst effects of climate change, while simultaneously helping us create a new energy future. This article is about science's star experiment: an attempt to create an artificial sun on earth and provide an answer to the world's impending energy shortage. Fusion would be amazing... think of the possibilities.As I read the part of the article about using so many lenses in a space the size of three football fields, it reminded me of the first computers, that used to be gigantic and take up entire buildings. In my parent's lifetime, that technology has evolved to a point where my phone is a far more powerful computer than those gigantic devices. If we are able to create fusion reactions, just think of the possibilities if we are able to get it small. I'm thinking about interstellar travel here.What an amazing world we live in.
read more | digg story
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
NY Times Ed Board: Prosecute the Torturers
As if on cue, the New York Times has published a courageous editorial calling president Obama to appoint prosecutors to investigate and indict individuals in the Bush Administration responsible for the policies of torture and abrogation of the Geneva Conventions. This Editorial argues convincingly for what I wrote about only days ago: a moral reckoning that will restore America's standing in the world and correct the scandalous abuses of the Bush Administration.
December 18, 2008
EDITORIAL
The Torture Report
Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.
Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.
It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America’s standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War. Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy.
The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the “war on terror” — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.
•
That order set the stage for the infamous redefinition of torture at the Justice Department, and then Mr. Rumsfeld’s authorization of “aggressive” interrogation methods. Some of those methods were torture by any rational definition and many of them violate laws and treaties against abusive and degrading treatment.
These top officials ignored warnings from lawyers in every branch of the armed forces that they were breaking the law, subjecting uniformed soldiers to possible criminal charges and authorizing abuses that were not only considered by experts to be ineffective, but were actually counterproductive.
One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.
The legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time started that review but told the Senate committee that her boss, Gen. Richard Myers, ordered her to stop on the instructions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legal counsel, Mr. Haynes.
The report indicates that Mr. Haynes was an early proponent of the idea of using the agency that trains soldiers to withstand torture to devise plans for the interrogation of prisoners held by the American military. These trainers — who are not interrogators but experts only on how physical and mental pain is inflicted and may be endured — were sent to work with interrogators in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo and in Iraq.
On Dec. 2, 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld authorized the interrogators at Guantánamo to use a range of abusive techniques that were already widespread in Afghanistan, enshrining them as official policy. Instead of a painstaking legal review, Mr. Rumsfeld based that authorization on a one-page memo from Mr. Haynes. The Senate panel noted that senior military lawyers considered the memo “ ‘legally insufficient’ and ‘woefully inadequate.’ ”
Mr. Rumsfeld rescinded his order a month later, and narrowed the number of “aggressive techniques” that could be used at Guantánamo. But he did so only after the Navy’s chief lawyer threatened to formally protest the illegal treatment of prisoners. By then, at least one prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani, had been threatened with military dogs, deprived of sleep for weeks, stripped naked and made to wear a leash and perform dog tricks. This year, a military tribunal at Guantánamo dismissed the charges against Mr. Qahtani.
The abuse and torture of prisoners continued at prisons run by the C.I.A. and specialists from the torture-resistance program remained involved in the military detention system until 2004. Some of the practices Mr. Rumsfeld left in place seem illegal, like prolonged sleep deprivation.
•
These policies have deeply harmed America’s image as a nation of laws and may make it impossible to bring dangerous men to real justice. The report said the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite the administration’s repeated claims to the contrary.
Alberto Mora, the former Navy general counsel who protested the abuses, told the Senate committee that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq — as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat — are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”
We can understand that Americans may be eager to put these dark chapters behind them, but it would be irresponsible for the nation and a new administration to ignore what has happened — and may still be happening in secret C.I.A. prisons that are not covered by the military’s current ban on activities like waterboarding.
A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.
•
Given his other problems — and how far he has moved from the powerful stands he took on these issues early in the campaign — we do not hold out real hope that Barack Obama, as president, will take such a politically fraught step.
At the least, Mr. Obama should, as the organization Human Rights First suggested, order his attorney general to review more than two dozen prisoner-abuse cases that reportedly were referred to the Justice Department by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — and declined by Mr. Bush’s lawyers.
Mr. Obama should consider proposals from groups like Human Rights Watch and the Brennan Center for Justice to appoint an independent panel to look into these and other egregious violations of the law. Like the 9/11 commission, it would examine in depth the decisions on prisoner treatment, as well as warrantless wiretapping, that eroded the rule of law and violated Americans’ most basic rights. Unless the nation and its leaders know precisely what went wrong in the last seven years, it will be impossible to fix it and make sure those terrible mistakes are not repeated.
We expect Mr. Obama to keep the promise he made over and over in the campaign — to cheering crowds at campaign rallies and in other places, including our office in New York. He said one of his first acts as president would be to order a review of all of Mr. Bush’s executive orders and reverse those that eroded civil liberties and the rule of law.
That job will fall to Eric Holder, a veteran prosecutor who has been chosen as attorney general, and Gregory Craig, a lawyer with extensive national security experience who has been selected as Mr. Obama’s White House counsel.
A good place for them to start would be to reverse Mr. Bush’s disastrous order of Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the United States was no longer legally committed to comply with the Geneva Conventions.
December 18, 2008
EDITORIAL
The Torture Report
Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.
Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.
It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America’s standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War. Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy.
The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the “war on terror” — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.
•
That order set the stage for the infamous redefinition of torture at the Justice Department, and then Mr. Rumsfeld’s authorization of “aggressive” interrogation methods. Some of those methods were torture by any rational definition and many of them violate laws and treaties against abusive and degrading treatment.
These top officials ignored warnings from lawyers in every branch of the armed forces that they were breaking the law, subjecting uniformed soldiers to possible criminal charges and authorizing abuses that were not only considered by experts to be ineffective, but were actually counterproductive.
One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.
The legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time started that review but told the Senate committee that her boss, Gen. Richard Myers, ordered her to stop on the instructions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legal counsel, Mr. Haynes.
The report indicates that Mr. Haynes was an early proponent of the idea of using the agency that trains soldiers to withstand torture to devise plans for the interrogation of prisoners held by the American military. These trainers — who are not interrogators but experts only on how physical and mental pain is inflicted and may be endured — were sent to work with interrogators in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo and in Iraq.
On Dec. 2, 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld authorized the interrogators at Guantánamo to use a range of abusive techniques that were already widespread in Afghanistan, enshrining them as official policy. Instead of a painstaking legal review, Mr. Rumsfeld based that authorization on a one-page memo from Mr. Haynes. The Senate panel noted that senior military lawyers considered the memo “ ‘legally insufficient’ and ‘woefully inadequate.’ ”
Mr. Rumsfeld rescinded his order a month later, and narrowed the number of “aggressive techniques” that could be used at Guantánamo. But he did so only after the Navy’s chief lawyer threatened to formally protest the illegal treatment of prisoners. By then, at least one prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani, had been threatened with military dogs, deprived of sleep for weeks, stripped naked and made to wear a leash and perform dog tricks. This year, a military tribunal at Guantánamo dismissed the charges against Mr. Qahtani.
The abuse and torture of prisoners continued at prisons run by the C.I.A. and specialists from the torture-resistance program remained involved in the military detention system until 2004. Some of the practices Mr. Rumsfeld left in place seem illegal, like prolonged sleep deprivation.
•
These policies have deeply harmed America’s image as a nation of laws and may make it impossible to bring dangerous men to real justice. The report said the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite the administration’s repeated claims to the contrary.
Alberto Mora, the former Navy general counsel who protested the abuses, told the Senate committee that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq — as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat — are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”
We can understand that Americans may be eager to put these dark chapters behind them, but it would be irresponsible for the nation and a new administration to ignore what has happened — and may still be happening in secret C.I.A. prisons that are not covered by the military’s current ban on activities like waterboarding.
A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.
•
Given his other problems — and how far he has moved from the powerful stands he took on these issues early in the campaign — we do not hold out real hope that Barack Obama, as president, will take such a politically fraught step.
At the least, Mr. Obama should, as the organization Human Rights First suggested, order his attorney general to review more than two dozen prisoner-abuse cases that reportedly were referred to the Justice Department by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — and declined by Mr. Bush’s lawyers.
Mr. Obama should consider proposals from groups like Human Rights Watch and the Brennan Center for Justice to appoint an independent panel to look into these and other egregious violations of the law. Like the 9/11 commission, it would examine in depth the decisions on prisoner treatment, as well as warrantless wiretapping, that eroded the rule of law and violated Americans’ most basic rights. Unless the nation and its leaders know precisely what went wrong in the last seven years, it will be impossible to fix it and make sure those terrible mistakes are not repeated.
We expect Mr. Obama to keep the promise he made over and over in the campaign — to cheering crowds at campaign rallies and in other places, including our office in New York. He said one of his first acts as president would be to order a review of all of Mr. Bush’s executive orders and reverse those that eroded civil liberties and the rule of law.
That job will fall to Eric Holder, a veteran prosecutor who has been chosen as attorney general, and Gregory Craig, a lawyer with extensive national security experience who has been selected as Mr. Obama’s White House counsel.
A good place for them to start would be to reverse Mr. Bush’s disastrous order of Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the United States was no longer legally committed to comply with the Geneva Conventions.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Water Boarding IS Torture, and Real Change Demands Accountability for Outrageous Crimes
During the Spanish Inquisition, waterboarding, or simulated drowning, was first used as a torture tactic to elicit confessions. As far back as the Spanish-American war, American law has condemned soldiers who use waterboarding to stiff sentences. American soldiers were prosecuted in 1968 for waterboarding prisoners of war in Vietnam. After World War II, America tried and sentenced Japanese officers who used waterboarding on American soldiers for war crimes. According to John McCain, some Japanese were tried and hanged for using this technique on Americans. The American case law is clear: waterboarding is torture, and it is a war crime. International Law condemns it as well.
Yet just yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney gave an interview where, when asked whether he still believes it was appropriate to use the waterboarding method on terrorism suspects, he said: "I do." Not only did he support the use of this illegal torture, Cheney signed off on the use. In that same interview, he said that the CIA "in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."
Read that again. When a United States federal agency, charged with defending our country in accordance with its laws, asked the vice-president if they could use torture, he said yes. He said, "do it."
In effect, the vice-president has just admitted, blithely and on national television, that he personally approved of war crimes perpetrated by this administration. Make no mistake about it: the use of torture is a war crime and is punishable by law. And Dick Cheney is responsible.
Cheney's comments comes only a few days after disclosures by a Senate committee showing that high-level officials in the Bush administration were intimately involved in reviewing and approving interrogation methods that have since been explicitly outlawed and that have been condemned internationally as torture.
Change in America will not just come by stimulating the economy and providing better health care. Change must also have a moral component. For America to lead once again, and regain its moral stature, it must show that it is a true democracy that respects the rule of law, and allows no one, not even the most powerful of its officials, get away with crimes that must shame every citizen proud to call themselves a member of this great nation.
The next president must launch a full investigation into these crimes, and people must be held accountable for their abuses of the law. This is not a mere political stunt. More even than a legal necessity, it is a moral duty.
Yet just yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney gave an interview where, when asked whether he still believes it was appropriate to use the waterboarding method on terrorism suspects, he said: "I do." Not only did he support the use of this illegal torture, Cheney signed off on the use. In that same interview, he said that the CIA "in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."
Read that again. When a United States federal agency, charged with defending our country in accordance with its laws, asked the vice-president if they could use torture, he said yes. He said, "do it."
In effect, the vice-president has just admitted, blithely and on national television, that he personally approved of war crimes perpetrated by this administration. Make no mistake about it: the use of torture is a war crime and is punishable by law. And Dick Cheney is responsible.
Cheney's comments comes only a few days after disclosures by a Senate committee showing that high-level officials in the Bush administration were intimately involved in reviewing and approving interrogation methods that have since been explicitly outlawed and that have been condemned internationally as torture.
Change in America will not just come by stimulating the economy and providing better health care. Change must also have a moral component. For America to lead once again, and regain its moral stature, it must show that it is a true democracy that respects the rule of law, and allows no one, not even the most powerful of its officials, get away with crimes that must shame every citizen proud to call themselves a member of this great nation.
The next president must launch a full investigation into these crimes, and people must be held accountable for their abuses of the law. This is not a mere political stunt. More even than a legal necessity, it is a moral duty.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Inspiration to Help You Achieve!
I know many of my friends are currently in the midst of finals right now, as am I. This inspirational 2 minute video will definitely get you inspired and motivated to do your best. Go ahead, give it a watch:
Friday, December 12, 2008
A Call to Service: Sign the Petition Today!
On January 20th, Barack Obama will give his inaugural address to the largest crowd ever assembled for a Presidential Inauguration. Tens of millions of Americans will watch this historic speech. At that moment, President Obama was have a unique opportunity to follow in the footsteps of John Kennedy, and issue a call to service to the American People. At this time of great economic distress, more than ever we need Americans ready to put on a uniform or set aside a few hours a month to assist their fellow citizens, and help build the foundation for our new, more prosperous future. National Service is a fundamental public good that is already helping transform communities and individuals for the better. It provides much needed resources and manpower to areas of positive externality like Education, Health care and the Environment, and it gives young people an opportunity to earn money for college and acquire the skills needed to compete in a global economy.
We need Barack Obama to issue a powerful call to service in his inaugural address. That is why I urge you to please go to http://servenext.org/ and sign the petition asking the President-Elect to make this an important theme of his upcoming speech.
Together, we can be the change we wish to see in the world.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
What’s Your Big Idea for Change in America?
President-Elect Obama says he wants to hear ideas from all Americans, so the good people at Change.org are taking him up on his offer. At a newly launched part of their website, you can submit their ideas for how to change America, discuss these ideas with others, and vote for your favorites.
You can vote for as many ideas as you like. After all the voters are in, the "Top 10 Ideas for America" will be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day. Change.org will then build a national campaign to advance each idea in Congress, marshaling the resources of Change.org and their dozens of partner organizations and millions of combined members. This includes organizations as diverse as MySpace, Campus Progress, the Energy Action Coalition, Good, Public Citizen, the SEIU, the ASPCA, and many more.
What's so exciting about this project is that it provides a democratic way for individuals to promote their ideas for how to change this country and bring them to the attention of the new president in a powerfully public manner.
I hope you'll check out the site, and consider voting for my idea, "Expand AmeriCorps!" I also hope you'll consider voting to create a Department of Peace and help support the important efforts of the Student Peace Alliance.
You can check out my idea HERE. I hope it can receive your vote!
Here's why I think this is such an important idea:
Currently, 75,000 Americans every year participate in AmeriCorps programs like City Year, Teach For America, Vista, NCCC, and other essential programs that are providing critical services to needy communities across the country and giving a new generation of young Americans the opportunity to strengthen the civil bonds of our democracy. Even more remarkable is how cheaply this is done; current AmeriCorps funding is less than $900 million a year, total. The benefits of giving Americans a chance to serve their country radically outweigh the costs. In addition, service is a wonderful way to give young people the resources they need to go to college.
President Obama should keep his promise to expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 members a year by immediately pushing to increase its funding, instituting a "health corps" and a "green corps," and giving a major speech in which he personally solicits young people to make a commitment to filling these slots. More than ever, Americans desire the opportunity to serve their country; President Obama must make that a priority immediately.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Mumbai Attacks Chabad Family: A Memorial
Amidst the horror of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last week, one story that sent reverberations throughout the Jewish community across the world was the murder of Rivky and Gabi Holtzberg, a young couple that ran the Chabad center in Mumbia for the last five years. The story got a lot of attention in the press, not only because this Jewish organization was one of the first places the terrorists purposely attacked, but because of the daring rescue of their two-year-old son, Moishe, by their Indian housekeeper. Several excellent news articles have told us many of the details of the raid, the escape, and the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. Yet what I think can be lost in these articles is a clear sense of who these individuals were, and why their good works were so meaningful not only to the Israelis and Jews who passed through the Chabad house, but also to the many people in the local Indian community that they reached out to with their good works.
My grandmother forwarded me the following letter from Hillary Lewin, a PhD candidate at the Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology (Yeshiva University). Hillary spent five memorable weeks in Mumbai with Yeshiva University on a Global Health Seminar, and during that time to personally get to know the Holtzberg family. I hope you'll read this and take a moment to honor their lives this week by doing a good deed in their honor, as the article suggests. It is the least we can do to remember these innocents who dedicate their lives to selflessly serving others.
To Rivky and Gabi: My Heroic Friends, Role Models and Family in Mumbai, I Will Miss You Very Much
Many of you first heard of the Holtzberg family three days ago when news of the Mumbai hostage situation emerged. I feel compelled to write this letter, because I want the world to know who Rivky and Gabi Holtzberg were in life and to tell you what I witnessed of their accomplishments in their brief 28 years on earth. While I am devastated by their death, I am thankful that my life and so many others were touched by their purity, friendship and spirit.
Before I entered the Chabad house in Mumbai, I thought, "What kind of people would leave a comfortable and secure life in a religious community to live in the middle of Mumbai; a dirty, difficult, crowded city?" As I got to know Rivky and Gabi over the course of this past summer, I understood that G-d creates some truly special people willing to devote their lives to bettering the world.
I was first welcomed by Rivky, who had a big smile on her face and her baby Moishie in her arms. She ushered me and my fellow travelers into the Chabad house and immediately offered us something to eat and a sofa to rest on. We quickly became good friends. We bonded with the Holtzberg family and the staff at Chabad, including Sandra, the heroine who saved baby Moishie's life.
Like his parents, Moishe is a sweet, loving, happy baby. He was so attached to Rivky and Gabi. He got so excited to sing Shabbat Z'mirot (songs) every Friday night with his father, and I could tell by the light on Gabi's face when they were singing together, that he looked forward to it too. It breaks my heart that I can still hear Moishie's voice calling, "Ima, Ima, Ima", and she will no longer be able to hold him or rock him in her arms.
On my second Shabbat at Chabad, Rivky told me there were two Israeli men staying at the house who were just released from an Indian prison. When I saw these men sitting at the dinner table, I was startled. One man had only a front tooth and a raggedy pony tail, and the other looked like an Israeli version of Rambo. I observed the way that Gabi interacted with them and how they were welcomed at the Shabbat table the same way everyone else was, and my fears melted away. Over the course of the night, I learned that these men were not the only prisoners or ex-convicts the Holtzberg's helped. Gabi frequently brought Kosher meals to Israelis in prison, spent time with them, listened to their life stories, and took them in after their release.
I realized that Gabi and Rivky's job was not only to run a Chabad house and provide warm meals and beds for weary Jewish travelers, it was much greater. The Holtzberg's were running a remarkable operation. They took their jobs as shlichim (emissaries) very seriously. Their lives never stopped. There was no such thing as "personal space" or "downtime". The phones rang constantly, people came in and out like a subway station, and all the while Rivky and Gabi were calm, smiling, warm, and welcomed everyone like family.
Rivky spent each day cooking dinner with the chefs for 20-40 people, while Gabi made sure to provide meat for everyone by going to the local markets and schechting (koshering) chickens himself. They also provided travelers with computers for internet access, so that they wouldn't have to pay for internet cafes. They even took care of our laundry. Having spent much time abroad, it was clear to me that Rivky and Gabi were unusual tzadikim (righteous people).
On my last Shabbat in India, I slept in Rivky and Gabi's home, the 5th floor of the Chabad house. I noticed that their apartment was dilapidated and bare. They had only a sofa, a bookshelf, a bedroom for Moishie, and a bedroom to sleep in. The paint peeled from the walls, and there were hardly any decorations. Yet, the guest quarters on the two floors below were decorated exquisitely, with American-style beds, expansive bathrooms, air conditioning (a luxury in India) and marble floors. We called these rooms our "healing rooms" because life was so difficult in Mumbai during the week. We knew that when we came to Chabad, Rivky and Gabi would take care of us just like our parents, and their openness and kindness would rejuvenate us for the week to come.
The juxtaposition of their home to the guest rooms was just another example of what selfless, humble people Rivky and Gabi were. They were more concerned about the comfort of their guests than their own.
The Holtzberg's Shabbat table was a new experience each week. Backpackers, businessmen, diplomats and diamond dealers gathered together to connect with their heritage in an otherwise unfamiliar city. We always knew we were in for a surprise where an amazing story would be told, either by Gabi or a guest at the table. For each meal, Gabi prepared about seven different divrei torah (words of torah) to share.
Though most of them were delivered in Hebrew (and I caught about 25%), his wisdom, knowledge and ability to inspire amazed me. Rivky and Gabi were accepting of everyone who walked through their doors, and they had no hidden agendas. Rivky once told me that there was one holiday where they had no guests. It was just herself, Gabi and Moishie. I expected her to say how relieved she was not to have guests, but she told me it was, in fact, the only lonely holiday they ever spent in India.
I remember asking Gabi if he was afraid of potential terror threats. Although his demeanor was so sweet and gentle, Gabi was also very strong-minded and determined. He told me simply and sharply that if the terrorists were to come, "be my guest, because I'm not leaving this place." Both he and Rivky believed that their mission in Mumbai was far greater than any potential terror threats.
Everything Rivky and Gabi did came from their dedication, love and commitment to the Jewish people and to G-d. I cannot portray in words how remarkable this couple was. If there is anything practical that I can suggest in order to elevate their souls, please try to light candles this Friday night for Shabbat, improve relationships with family members and friends, try to connect to others the way that Rivky and Gabi did- with love, acceptance and open arms. There is so much to learn from them. May their names and influence live on, and inspire us in acts of kindness and love.
Sincerely,
Hillary
My grandmother forwarded me the following letter from Hillary Lewin, a PhD candidate at the Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology (Yeshiva University). Hillary spent five memorable weeks in Mumbai with Yeshiva University on a Global Health Seminar, and during that time to personally get to know the Holtzberg family. I hope you'll read this and take a moment to honor their lives this week by doing a good deed in their honor, as the article suggests. It is the least we can do to remember these innocents who dedicate their lives to selflessly serving others.
To Rivky and Gabi: My Heroic Friends, Role Models and Family in Mumbai, I Will Miss You Very Much
Many of you first heard of the Holtzberg family three days ago when news of the Mumbai hostage situation emerged. I feel compelled to write this letter, because I want the world to know who Rivky and Gabi Holtzberg were in life and to tell you what I witnessed of their accomplishments in their brief 28 years on earth. While I am devastated by their death, I am thankful that my life and so many others were touched by their purity, friendship and spirit.
Before I entered the Chabad house in Mumbai, I thought, "What kind of people would leave a comfortable and secure life in a religious community to live in the middle of Mumbai; a dirty, difficult, crowded city?" As I got to know Rivky and Gabi over the course of this past summer, I understood that G-d creates some truly special people willing to devote their lives to bettering the world.
I was first welcomed by Rivky, who had a big smile on her face and her baby Moishie in her arms. She ushered me and my fellow travelers into the Chabad house and immediately offered us something to eat and a sofa to rest on. We quickly became good friends. We bonded with the Holtzberg family and the staff at Chabad, including Sandra, the heroine who saved baby Moishie's life.
Like his parents, Moishe is a sweet, loving, happy baby. He was so attached to Rivky and Gabi. He got so excited to sing Shabbat Z'mirot (songs) every Friday night with his father, and I could tell by the light on Gabi's face when they were singing together, that he looked forward to it too. It breaks my heart that I can still hear Moishie's voice calling, "Ima, Ima, Ima", and she will no longer be able to hold him or rock him in her arms.
On my second Shabbat at Chabad, Rivky told me there were two Israeli men staying at the house who were just released from an Indian prison. When I saw these men sitting at the dinner table, I was startled. One man had only a front tooth and a raggedy pony tail, and the other looked like an Israeli version of Rambo. I observed the way that Gabi interacted with them and how they were welcomed at the Shabbat table the same way everyone else was, and my fears melted away. Over the course of the night, I learned that these men were not the only prisoners or ex-convicts the Holtzberg's helped. Gabi frequently brought Kosher meals to Israelis in prison, spent time with them, listened to their life stories, and took them in after their release.
I realized that Gabi and Rivky's job was not only to run a Chabad house and provide warm meals and beds for weary Jewish travelers, it was much greater. The Holtzberg's were running a remarkable operation. They took their jobs as shlichim (emissaries) very seriously. Their lives never stopped. There was no such thing as "personal space" or "downtime". The phones rang constantly, people came in and out like a subway station, and all the while Rivky and Gabi were calm, smiling, warm, and welcomed everyone like family.
Rivky spent each day cooking dinner with the chefs for 20-40 people, while Gabi made sure to provide meat for everyone by going to the local markets and schechting (koshering) chickens himself. They also provided travelers with computers for internet access, so that they wouldn't have to pay for internet cafes. They even took care of our laundry. Having spent much time abroad, it was clear to me that Rivky and Gabi were unusual tzadikim (righteous people).
On my last Shabbat in India, I slept in Rivky and Gabi's home, the 5th floor of the Chabad house. I noticed that their apartment was dilapidated and bare. They had only a sofa, a bookshelf, a bedroom for Moishie, and a bedroom to sleep in. The paint peeled from the walls, and there were hardly any decorations. Yet, the guest quarters on the two floors below were decorated exquisitely, with American-style beds, expansive bathrooms, air conditioning (a luxury in India) and marble floors. We called these rooms our "healing rooms" because life was so difficult in Mumbai during the week. We knew that when we came to Chabad, Rivky and Gabi would take care of us just like our parents, and their openness and kindness would rejuvenate us for the week to come.
The juxtaposition of their home to the guest rooms was just another example of what selfless, humble people Rivky and Gabi were. They were more concerned about the comfort of their guests than their own.
The Holtzberg's Shabbat table was a new experience each week. Backpackers, businessmen, diplomats and diamond dealers gathered together to connect with their heritage in an otherwise unfamiliar city. We always knew we were in for a surprise where an amazing story would be told, either by Gabi or a guest at the table. For each meal, Gabi prepared about seven different divrei torah (words of torah) to share.
Though most of them were delivered in Hebrew (and I caught about 25%), his wisdom, knowledge and ability to inspire amazed me. Rivky and Gabi were accepting of everyone who walked through their doors, and they had no hidden agendas. Rivky once told me that there was one holiday where they had no guests. It was just herself, Gabi and Moishie. I expected her to say how relieved she was not to have guests, but she told me it was, in fact, the only lonely holiday they ever spent in India.
I remember asking Gabi if he was afraid of potential terror threats. Although his demeanor was so sweet and gentle, Gabi was also very strong-minded and determined. He told me simply and sharply that if the terrorists were to come, "be my guest, because I'm not leaving this place." Both he and Rivky believed that their mission in Mumbai was far greater than any potential terror threats.
Everything Rivky and Gabi did came from their dedication, love and commitment to the Jewish people and to G-d. I cannot portray in words how remarkable this couple was. If there is anything practical that I can suggest in order to elevate their souls, please try to light candles this Friday night for Shabbat, improve relationships with family members and friends, try to connect to others the way that Rivky and Gabi did- with love, acceptance and open arms. There is so much to learn from them. May their names and influence live on, and inspire us in acts of kindness and love.
Sincerely,
Hillary
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Proposition 8: The Musical
This is absolutely amazing.
An all star cast has produced this remarkable video about proposition 8 (Jack Black is particularly amazing as Jesus). Its funny, its poignant, and it makes an excellent point: this country was built on the separation of church and state, so who are we to deny gay people equal rights under the law? Whatever your religious views, gay people have the same civil rights to form a legal union for the purpose of sharing a life together and raising a family as straight people do. The struggle for equal rights for homosexuals is the next great civil rights battle of our time, but I do believe that by the time my generation is in charge, it really won't be an issue. Studies have shown that we are the more tolerant to gays and sensitive to their rights than any group of Americans in history.
Overturning proposition 8 will be a fine start. Learn more at join the impact.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
An all star cast has produced this remarkable video about proposition 8 (Jack Black is particularly amazing as Jesus). Its funny, its poignant, and it makes an excellent point: this country was built on the separation of church and state, so who are we to deny gay people equal rights under the law? Whatever your religious views, gay people have the same civil rights to form a legal union for the purpose of sharing a life together and raising a family as straight people do. The struggle for equal rights for homosexuals is the next great civil rights battle of our time, but I do believe that by the time my generation is in charge, it really won't be an issue. Studies have shown that we are the more tolerant to gays and sensitive to their rights than any group of Americans in history.
Overturning proposition 8 will be a fine start. Learn more at join the impact.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Be a Voice for Darfur
Amidst all the troubles of the world, little attention has been paid to an enduring tragedy that should darken the conscience of every world citizen: the continuing genocide in Darfur. While President Bush paid lip service to this terrible humanitarian disaster, he did little more than help manage the problem. Without effective American leadership, the people of Darfur continue to suffer and die by the thousands.
I was recently reminded that the appalling genocide in Darfur continues – now in its sixth year and at the price of nearly half a million lives. Ironically, December 9th marks the 60th anniversary of the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, and Darfuri people are still suffering and struggling to survive. As the Obama administration ushers in a new era of foreign policy, this nation has an opportunity – an obligation – to aid our global neighbors in Darfur. You, an influential voice, can play a pivotal role in making this happen.
During his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama promised to change Washington's approach to this crisis. He pledged his "unstinting resolve" to end the genocide in Darfur. Now that his national security team has been named, it is time for us, the American people, to hold him to his word.
Save Darfur, has launched a new initiative, Add Your Voice, to launch a postcard campaign that will organize at least a million people to send a letter to Barack Obama reminding him of his promise, and urging him to take immediate action upon taking office in January. By going to their website, you can sign on to be one of the million people whose postcards will be delivered -- along with a clear outline for what needs to be done in Darfur -- to the new president.
In addition, Facebook Causes and Save Darfur just launched their new petition application for the campaign. The new Facebook petition will be a gamechanger for cause-based social media marketing. If you’re already using Facebook Causes, you can access and sign the petition now, by going to http://apps.facebook.com/causes/72?m=618c3fb4&recruiter_id=6746654. (As an incentive, Save Darfur is offering a free t-shirt to anyone who recruits 100 signatures.)
Below, you can find a video statement from Barack Obama about this Darfur effort. I kindly ask that you to take a few minutes to add your voice to this important effort.
I was recently reminded that the appalling genocide in Darfur continues – now in its sixth year and at the price of nearly half a million lives. Ironically, December 9th marks the 60th anniversary of the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, and Darfuri people are still suffering and struggling to survive. As the Obama administration ushers in a new era of foreign policy, this nation has an opportunity – an obligation – to aid our global neighbors in Darfur. You, an influential voice, can play a pivotal role in making this happen.
During his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama promised to change Washington's approach to this crisis. He pledged his "unstinting resolve" to end the genocide in Darfur. Now that his national security team has been named, it is time for us, the American people, to hold him to his word.
Save Darfur, has launched a new initiative, Add Your Voice, to launch a postcard campaign that will organize at least a million people to send a letter to Barack Obama reminding him of his promise, and urging him to take immediate action upon taking office in January. By going to their website, you can sign on to be one of the million people whose postcards will be delivered -- along with a clear outline for what needs to be done in Darfur -- to the new president.
In addition, Facebook Causes and Save Darfur just launched their new petition application for the campaign. The new Facebook petition will be a gamechanger for cause-based social media marketing. If you’re already using Facebook Causes, you can access and sign the petition now, by going to http://apps.facebook.com/causes/72?m=618c3fb4&recruiter_id=6746654. (As an incentive, Save Darfur is offering a free t-shirt to anyone who recruits 100 signatures.)
Below, you can find a video statement from Barack Obama about this Darfur effort. I kindly ask that you to take a few minutes to add your voice to this important effort.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Back to the Future in Georgia: Run-off on Tuesday!
Friend of the blog may have noticed that I have been significantly lax of late in posting to ABAUM'S WORLD. Alas, this dearth of productivity arises in direct response to my quickly approaching first semester finals, which begin on December 10th. Knowing this, you might be wondering why I'm taking the time to write on here at all? The answer is that, as you may have gathered, I can't get away from politics, and I like nothing more than making a good prediction.
Some significant things will be happening on the political front this week. On Monday, Hillary Clinton will be officially announced as the President-Elect's Secretary of State. Amidst the brouhaha, it is easy to neglect the fact that on Tuesday, Georgia voters will go to the polls in a runoff race between Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Democratic opponent George Martin. To recap, this way a three way race on November 4th, and the Libertarian candidate drew just enough votes to keep either candidate from gaining the 50% margin required for victory by Georgia law. Subsequently, the race went to a run-off between the two top vote getters, and Chambliss, who edged on Martin by just a few points in the first election, seems poised to pull off a squeaker win in this rapidly changing Southern state.
The Georgia runoff has been fascinating to watch, because it has kind of telescoped a lot of the major things going on in both parties in a very narrow way. The Democratic party currently holds 58 seats in the Senate. If Al Franken prevails in the recount against Norm Coleman in Minnesota (another fascinating case whose scope is beyond the focus of this comment), they'll have 59. George Martin is therefore the crucial difference between a filibuster-proof 60 seat super-majority in the Senate, and a chamber where Republicans still have, at least in the ex ante position, some strategic room for maneuvering.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has provided excellent analysis of many of the issues I'm discussing here, so for a more nuanced treatment I suggest browsing many of the posts on his site since the election. One point he compellingly made early on is that run-off elections are a strange creature; they are wildly unpredictable, and has historically defied accurate polling. This is largely due to the fact that runoffs occur at a time when people are not used to voting, and so victory is often awarded to the candidate that can more effectively turn out its share of the electorate. Since a significantly smaller proportion of the electorate votes in run-offs, candidates increase their marginal utility for every voter they are able to get out to the polls.
Its no small wonder then, that with so much on the line, the Republican party has brought out "the big leagues." In the last month, the entire pantheon of big-name Republican pols have trekked down to Georgia in the hopes of exciting the base and pumping them out to the polls, with the boogeyman of a Democratic super Senate majority their fear tactic of choice. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich have all visited the state for Chambliss, and Sarah Palin will be stumping four times for the Republican on Runoff Eve. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Al Gore and Bill Clinton have come down for Martin. Notice anyone missing from this illustrious list? Of course, it's Democratic President-elect Barack Obama.
Though he has recorded television spots and radio ads for Martin, Obama has declined requests from the Martin campaign to make a personal appearance in the state on Martin's behalf, despite the fact that a massive Obama-Martin rally could make a sizable impact on the Democratic hopeful's get out the vote efforts. Speculation is rampant about why Barack has refused to show up. Many have argued, and I tend to agree, that he is saving his political capital, eschewing large, public acts of partisanship at a time when he has become the de facto President of the country. I also think he is concerned about becoming distracted from his central task of carefully building his administration and transition team, and risk alienating Republicans and Independents who are showing him enormous goodwill right now (a recent poll showed 75% of Americans think Obama is going to be a good president - numbers he doesn't want to endanger with partisan politicking so close to the inauguration).
However, just because Obama isn't in the state himself doesn't mean his political machine isn't hard at work. Martin has 25 field offices in the state, equal in number to Chambliss', and since the election, they have been ably staffed by former Obama field organizers and staff from all across the country. These hardened veterans of the 2008 election have descended on Georgia en masse for the final battle of this election cycle, and they are using every tool they can muster to try and get out the vote for Martin. The entire model is a replica of what Obama used to get himself elected. The crucial question is, can the same principles and organizing tools that got Obama to the White House propel Martin to an upset win over Chambliss?
The odds are in Chambliss' favor: state polls consistently give him around a three point lead, which is about what he beat Martin by in the November election. If Chambliss wins, Republicans will claim a moral victory, and give a little hope to their 2010 chances of regaining some of their competitive advantage in Congress. If Martin wins, however, it will be in no small part due to the efforts of Obama's organization. What makes this elections so interesting, and worthy of this extended comment, is that in a way, it is an indicator of what a post-Obama Democratic field organization might look like, and a small glimpse of an answer to the question - can Democrats win without him? Obviously, there are many other factors at play here (including the strengths and weaknesses of the respective candidates themselves). Nonetheless, this run-off will give us all a little insight into the power of Obama's political organization at work after his election. For that reason, you should play close attention to what happens in Georgia on Tuesday.
Some significant things will be happening on the political front this week. On Monday, Hillary Clinton will be officially announced as the President-Elect's Secretary of State. Amidst the brouhaha, it is easy to neglect the fact that on Tuesday, Georgia voters will go to the polls in a runoff race between Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Democratic opponent George Martin. To recap, this way a three way race on November 4th, and the Libertarian candidate drew just enough votes to keep either candidate from gaining the 50% margin required for victory by Georgia law. Subsequently, the race went to a run-off between the two top vote getters, and Chambliss, who edged on Martin by just a few points in the first election, seems poised to pull off a squeaker win in this rapidly changing Southern state.
The Georgia runoff has been fascinating to watch, because it has kind of telescoped a lot of the major things going on in both parties in a very narrow way. The Democratic party currently holds 58 seats in the Senate. If Al Franken prevails in the recount against Norm Coleman in Minnesota (another fascinating case whose scope is beyond the focus of this comment), they'll have 59. George Martin is therefore the crucial difference between a filibuster-proof 60 seat super-majority in the Senate, and a chamber where Republicans still have, at least in the ex ante position, some strategic room for maneuvering.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has provided excellent analysis of many of the issues I'm discussing here, so for a more nuanced treatment I suggest browsing many of the posts on his site since the election. One point he compellingly made early on is that run-off elections are a strange creature; they are wildly unpredictable, and has historically defied accurate polling. This is largely due to the fact that runoffs occur at a time when people are not used to voting, and so victory is often awarded to the candidate that can more effectively turn out its share of the electorate. Since a significantly smaller proportion of the electorate votes in run-offs, candidates increase their marginal utility for every voter they are able to get out to the polls.
Its no small wonder then, that with so much on the line, the Republican party has brought out "the big leagues." In the last month, the entire pantheon of big-name Republican pols have trekked down to Georgia in the hopes of exciting the base and pumping them out to the polls, with the boogeyman of a Democratic super Senate majority their fear tactic of choice. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich have all visited the state for Chambliss, and Sarah Palin will be stumping four times for the Republican on Runoff Eve. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Al Gore and Bill Clinton have come down for Martin. Notice anyone missing from this illustrious list? Of course, it's Democratic President-elect Barack Obama.
Though he has recorded television spots and radio ads for Martin, Obama has declined requests from the Martin campaign to make a personal appearance in the state on Martin's behalf, despite the fact that a massive Obama-Martin rally could make a sizable impact on the Democratic hopeful's get out the vote efforts. Speculation is rampant about why Barack has refused to show up. Many have argued, and I tend to agree, that he is saving his political capital, eschewing large, public acts of partisanship at a time when he has become the de facto President of the country. I also think he is concerned about becoming distracted from his central task of carefully building his administration and transition team, and risk alienating Republicans and Independents who are showing him enormous goodwill right now (a recent poll showed 75% of Americans think Obama is going to be a good president - numbers he doesn't want to endanger with partisan politicking so close to the inauguration).
However, just because Obama isn't in the state himself doesn't mean his political machine isn't hard at work. Martin has 25 field offices in the state, equal in number to Chambliss', and since the election, they have been ably staffed by former Obama field organizers and staff from all across the country. These hardened veterans of the 2008 election have descended on Georgia en masse for the final battle of this election cycle, and they are using every tool they can muster to try and get out the vote for Martin. The entire model is a replica of what Obama used to get himself elected. The crucial question is, can the same principles and organizing tools that got Obama to the White House propel Martin to an upset win over Chambliss?
The odds are in Chambliss' favor: state polls consistently give him around a three point lead, which is about what he beat Martin by in the November election. If Chambliss wins, Republicans will claim a moral victory, and give a little hope to their 2010 chances of regaining some of their competitive advantage in Congress. If Martin wins, however, it will be in no small part due to the efforts of Obama's organization. What makes this elections so interesting, and worthy of this extended comment, is that in a way, it is an indicator of what a post-Obama Democratic field organization might look like, and a small glimpse of an answer to the question - can Democrats win without him? Obviously, there are many other factors at play here (including the strengths and weaknesses of the respective candidates themselves). Nonetheless, this run-off will give us all a little insight into the power of Obama's political organization at work after his election. For that reason, you should play close attention to what happens in Georgia on Tuesday.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Happy Tweetsgiving! And Turkey Day, too.
With Thanksgiving just around the corner, I want to direct your attention to an awesome project my friend Avi Kaplan has helped engineer that is combining the power of the internet and social networking to do some good this holiday season. At Tweetsgiving, over $3300 has already been raised to build a new classroom in Tanzania by people who are using Twitter to thank their family and friends for the things they are grateful for this year. It is a neat way to give back to those who have less. Even at a time of fiscal turmoil in America, I think it is still important for us to realize how blessed we are, in so many ways, for the great country we have, the freedoms we cherish, the friends and family who sustain us, and God for the gift of life.
I thought I'd also take this opportunity to express my thanks for some of the the things I am most grateful this year.
I am thankful....
to my family, for all of their love and support, and for helping me make the transition from work to law school seamlessly.
for my friends, old and new, who have brought joy and companionship to me all year long.
to City Year, for giving me the incredible opportunity to serve our country with honor, and for continuing to do its good work across the country.
to Penn Law, for welcoming me with open arms, filling my head with new ideas and knowledge, and showing me that there is always so much more to learn. Thank you for this great challenge.
to the American people, for showing courage and hope by electing Barack Obama the first black president of the United States.
to Barack Obama, for inspiring a new generation of Americans to get involved, and leading our country in a new direction.
to the good health that I and my family have largely enjoyed this past year.
to all the activists, volunteers, public servants, and other individuals who have put others before self, and given so much to their communities this year.
to our troops, for fighting bravely and honorably to protect our country and defend our people.
And most importantly, Thank God! Thank God for giving me this wonderful gift of life, for sustaining me in life, for the many blessings I have enjoyed this year, and for the tiny miracles that happen every day that give hope and faith to Your people.
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Day Change Came: My Personal Account of the 2008 Election
The last few days have been some of the most emotional and powerful of my entire life. This Tuesday, the American people overwhelmingly chose Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States of America. After 20 months of organizing, blogging, volunteering, writing, arguing, and following the campaign from day to day, it finally came down to Election Day, and victory was ours.
It has been a long time since we’ve had a satisfactory moment in our presidential politics. After the razor thin margins in the last two elections, it is incredibly satisfying to finally elect a President with a mandate to govern. Make no mistake about it: with Over 360 Electoral Votes, 53% of the popular vote, and strong Congressional majorities in the House and Senate, Barack Obama has been elected with a mandate for real change. It was a remarkable victory, and for me, it felt like a personal triumph.
I love this country and was raised with a fierce patriotism that I preserve to this day. I love America because, despite its flaws, it still represents everything good and just about the modern world. I love it because of the freedom and opportunity it still affords millions of people, the same gifts it so generously bestowed upon my own family. I am a first generation American. My father was born in Havana, and was brought here as a child in the wake of Castro’s communist revolution. My mother’s family fled Europe at the end of the nineteenth century. Both sides of my family originated in Eastern Europe. They were all Jews fleeing the oppression and violence of old Europe for the tolerance of America’s shores. In this country, my family found peace, freedom and opportunity. They started successful small businesses, raised families, and eventually sent their children to colleges. My family’s story is the American story. For us, this country was more than just a place to make a living. It was our savior. Without America, I would not be here today. My history would have vanished like the smoke up the chimneys of Hitler’s crematoriums, my very existence smothered in the ashes of Auschwitz or Treblinka. It is for these reasons that I remain devoted to America, to her promise, and to the hope she instills for shackled peoples across the world still yearning to be free.
In the last 8 years, my love for this country has been tested. At times, my ideals and beliefs about this great nation did not reflect her actions on the world stage. In the year 2000, democracy in America was strained almost to the breaking point. I am a Floridian, and remember the pain and disbelief of watching Al Gore win Florida, only to have it taken away, ultimately resulting in the election of George W. Bush in a manner I still believe was illegitimate. Yet I accepted the result, albeit begrudgingly, because I knew that in order for our country to heal, I had to accept the final word of our most sacred institutions (here, the Supreme Court), even if I fundamentally disagreed with their soundness. But it was a bitter pill to swallow, and my beliefs about the fairness, even the legitimacy of American democracy, were shaken.
Then came the intifada in Israel, and the attacks of September 11th. It was 2001, and it was a strange time to be coming of age in America. At 18, as an American Jew, I never felt more threatened and fearful of the world. I remember a speech a Rabbi gave at my school, where he said that as Americans and as Jews, we were the most hated people on earth. It was in this climate of anxiety and fear that I, like so many others, turned to my government for comfort, leadership and answers. Like millions of other Americans, I began flying an American flag from the window of my car, wearing an American flag t-shirt or pin on a frequent basis, and fervently supported our President and our troops as they justly took the fight to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Despite the terror of the times, I still had hope, principally because of the incredible power I witnessed in the unity and resolve of the American people.
But then our President betrayed our good faith and trust. He manipulated our country, using fraudulent intelligence, trumped up claims and fear tactics to take our country to a preemptive war with Iraq. During the run up to the war, I remember debating it with family and friends, remaining skeptical and nervous about this unprecedented use of military power without an imminent threat to our country at hand. “But he has weapons of mass destruction,” countered many family members and friends, “he’s close to getting nuclear weapons that he will use against us.” I felt torn and confused. I opposed the war, but not fully. I was young and naïve, and trusted my president, and when the bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003, I will admit that I felt a perverse satisfaction despite my own misgivings and fears about the war and what it meant.
What I didn’t know then, but know now all too well, was that I was tricked, lied to and misled. President Bush and his callous Administration used our country’s unity and good faith after September 11th to wage a war that should have never been authorized and never been waged. By the time the primary season rolled out for the 2004 elections, the extent to which I and my fellow citizens had been snookered into this illegitimate war was glaringly obvious to me, and for the first time since the 2000 election, my faith and belief in our country was again tested.
I campaigned vigorously for John Kerry, working with fellow Democrats at Brandeis University as the Vice-President of the College Democrats. Yet on Election Day, the American people did what I saw as the unthinkable: they re-elected George W. Bush to another term in office. I saw it as a stamp of approval of the policies of his administration of his conduct of the war. Never had my feelings for this country fallen so low. I had flown down to Miami for Election Day to work the polls, and when I returned to Brandeis the following morning, I felt like a stone was lodged in my gut. Before going to a full day of classes, I stopped at my dorm room, took a large piece of black duct tape, and placed it over my mouth. After months of vigorous campaigning, advocating for Democrats in Brandeis television, radio, newspapers, and community forums, I never felt more silenced by my government. I wore that tape over my mouth until the end of my last class of the day at 6 pm. I didn’t eat, drink or speak; I couldn’t. It was my way of mourning, of showing my community how I felt without words. In my mind, it is still a powerful memory of how black my feelings for my country were at that low point in my life.
About a week after John Kerry lost the election, some students at Brandeis created a group supporting a little-known politician for president. He had recently made a splash on the national scene with his stirring keynote at the Democratic Convention. His name was Barack Obama. Intrigued by this inspiring black Senator, only the third African-American to serve in the Senate, I saw in this wunderkind a tiny glimpse of hope and progress in the general gloom of the 2004 election. It was only days after George Bush’s victory that I joined the group “Barack Obama for President.”
I won’t say I have the most incredible foresight – after all, I was convinced John Kerry would win the election in 2004. Yet for some unexplained reason, I always believed Barack Obama would win this election. Even when it seemed inevitable that Hillary Clinton would win the primary; even when the pundits said he would never be able to carry states like Florida and Ohio; even when Sarah Palin arrived on the scene, and the poll numbers suddenly put John McCain in the lead. Throughout this entire process, I maintained a belief that America was better than its recent history, and that in its election of its first Black President, a true progressive, an honest and idealistic young man with the passion and integrity to once again lead our country to greatness, it would redeem itself.
The real reason I write this essay, though, is not to rehash all of my feelings and thoughts about the last 8 years, but rather to relate to you my experience on Election Day here in Philadelphia. I am a law student at the University of Pennsylvania, and was told by some people in the campaign that I could best serve on Election Day by acting as an election monitor at the polls, ensuring the integrity of the process, answering voter’s questions, and make sure that every voter had an opportunity to cast their ballot.
As Election Day approached, I prepared for the day’s events. I attended training, studied the materials I was given, and obtained my credentials. The night before the Election, several volunteers and I placed reminders to vote under the doors of every apartment in my condominium – all 33 floors. All this was amidst ferocious studies in law school that I was putting off for the moment for this campaign. My 1L studies aside, absolutely nothing was more important to me than this historic election, and this exciting opportunity for change.
After four hours of deep sleep, I awoke at 5:30 a.m. on Election Day ready to serve. I made my way to a polling place in West Philadelphia, on 47th and Woodland: a recreation center near a local park. When I arrived at 6:45, I was excited to see nearly 50 people already waiting in line to cast their ballots at 7 a.m. People came out to vote early. They were motivated, and wanted to make sure their vote counted. This was an almost entirely African-American district, and it was likely 100% pro-Obama. I spoke to poll workers who had run this precinct in the past. They told me this turnout was absolutely unprecedented.
There was a snafu that morning. One of the four polling machines broke down, causing a huge back-up in the line. As we hurried to fix the issue, no one budged. These voters were resolute, and no malfunctions were going to get in their way. They wouldn’t take paper ballots either. These voters were savvy. They knew the issues that come with provisional and emergency ballots, and they wanted their votes to count. The good news was that by 8:15, everything was fully functional again, and the lines were moving.
We had 5 election monitors at the polling place to which I was assigned, so the official poll worker from the campaign redeployed me to a nearby precinct that lacked any coverage at all. I ended up at a church on 45th and Chester, one of the most Democratic and diverse polling places in the city. I arrived to a line at least 60 people deep. I almost shook with excitement and nearly burst with pride for my country. Here at this polling place, lined up at 8:30 in the morning, were seniors, the middle-aged and young adults; students with their backpacks, nurses in their scrubs; families toting babies, pregnant moms, fathers leading their young sons by the hand; the clearly affluent, and the working class; gays and straights, even a transgendered person; a wide range of ethnicities, not just black and white, but Indian and Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian; at this one polling place in West Philadelphia, it seemed like the entire rainbow of our country was represented. This was surely America at its best.
The story of the masses tells one story about this historic Election, but so do a lot of individuals I met. The first person in line to vote that day was an elderly African-American woman. It was the first time she had ever voted in her life. Indeed, many first time voters exercised their rights that day, and the poll workers engaged in a round of applause after each first time voter cast their very first vote. I was particularly moved by some of the elderly people that came out to vote that day. Three nuns arrived to vote, the oldest moving at a snail’s pace, a fellow nun at each arm. Despite her obvious struggle, she walked forward with a fierce determination, her wooden cross proudly swaying from her neck. In all these people, one detected an electric feeling. Change was in the air. It was palpable.
By noon, over 250 people had voted at this precinct, nearly matching their all time record for votes at that site, ever. By 7:30 pm, over 640 individuals had cast their ballots there, more than doubling the all time record that had been set there in 2004. More than 75% of the voters registered at my precinct voted that day, and if my perceptions are accurate, more than 90% of them voted for Barack Obama. When I finally left the polling place, I was feeling confident. If my polling place was any indication of the turnout we’d have for Barack Obama across the country, we were going to win this election in a walk.
When I arrived at my apartment, I sat down in front of the television with several friends and began watching the results come in. When we took Ohio, I knew the election was over; Barack Obama was going to win. Despite my utter exhaustion, I was suddenly filled with energy. I sprang up from the couch and began jumping up and down and screaming. “He’s done it! We’ve got Ohio! We’re going to win!” I hugged every person in the room. Finally, I settled back down on the couch to await the final announcement.
Slowly, my friends departed from the room. Knowing Obama was essentially the winner, they headed back to their apartments to finish the night. My roommate and I sat together, and then finally the moment came. CNN announced that Barack Obama would become the next President of the United States. My roommate and I congratulated each other and the country, and then he went back to his room to get some work done before the big speech. I sat alone before the television, dumbstruck, and suddenly a flood of emotion overwhelmed me. I crawled up into the fetal position on the couch and began to weep. My tears turned into loud sobbing, and as my chest heaved, I experienced the catharsis for which I had long prayed. Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. I could hardly believe it. I composed myself, and awaited the historic speech that was to come.
Outside my window, in the streets of Philadelphia, the celebration had already begun. After the announcement of Obama’s victory, cars began blaring their horns, and I could hear shouts of joy rising up from the streets. I peered outside my window to see people literally running towards Broad Street at the City’s Center. Then, as some time passed, the sound of a roaring multitude could be perceived from the East, and I knew that thousands were gathering in the shadow of William Penn to celebrate at City Hall.
I wanted to rush out to join them, but I knew that I would not want to miss McCain’s concession speech, and more importantly, Obama’s victory speech in Grant Park. When it finally came time for Obama’s address, my roommate joined me in the living room, and together we sat to watch history unfold. As Obama spoke, a remarkable thing occurred. The rowdy noises that had emanated from the city from the moment Obama was declared victorious suddenly ceased. It was as if the entire city momentarily paused to watch their new president address his people. As we listened to Obama’s magnificent words, we could hear them echoing. I walked to the window, and realized that we were hearing the echo of hundreds of other televisions across the city all tuned to the same speech. I was reminded of FDR’s fireside chats. It is told that when he spoke to the nation, whole communities fell silent, and you could hear the sound of his voice echoing throughout the nation, as the American people sat in attention. The historic parallel was an auspicious beginning of what Obama called “a new dawn of American leadership.”
I have a large old American flag pinned up on my wall in my apartment. It was once my fathers, and for the last six years I have taken it with me everywhere I go. After the speech, I knew I needed to join my fellow citizens celebrating in the streets, and I knew the flag was coming with me. The last time I had worn the flag was in 2004, when I wore it on my back protesting the inauguration of President Bush in Washington DC. At that time, it was a statement of protest and defiance, of claiming my country against those I felt were trying to take it from me. Now, as I carefully tied the flag to a pole, I saw it as a symbol of honor and triumph, and tremendous pride in my country. I carefully placed the pole in a backpack, got onto my bicycle, and began zooming down Market Street towards the city center. As I made my way downtown, the flag flew behind me. Passing cars honked and pedestrians screamed with delight as they saw the stars and stripes fly by. Some reached their hands into the street or out their car windows to give me a high five. Riding with the flag was all exhilaration and delight.
When I reached City Hall, I was confronted with an extraordinary sight. In a line stretching far down Broad Street, thousands of people were literally parading together, heading North towards Temple University. A person with a drum stood at the front of the line, and banged a three tone beat, bap, bap, bap, after which everyone jumped up and screamed in unison, “hey!” Shouts of “Obama!” could be heard, and everywhere you looked, people were holding up signs and posters, and proudly displaying their shirts, buttons, and other campaign gear. The people were in ecstasy, and once again, it was an extremely diverse crowd. I rode up in front of the crowd to great cheers and applause, and drove with them for about a mile up Broad Street. Then I stopped at the front of the parade, turned around, took the flagpole out of my bag, and began waving the flag triumphantly in the air before me, high above my head. The revelers streamed past me, and as they came by, most shouted in approval, many stopping to take my photo, or a photo with me. I was proud, not for myself as an individual, but rather to act as a proxy for my fellow citizen’s patriotism. I waved that flag until every person in the parade had passed by. Even some police officers wanted my picture. One officer whipped out his camera to get a photo, and said, “That’s a true patriot.” At that moment, I felt nothing but love for my country. My heart filled with American pride.
The night ended at the corner of Broad and Chestnut, where at 1:00 am, a large crowd was still cheering, singing and dancing in the streets. Someone had brought out a leftover bag of ticker-tape from the Phillies victory parade, and it glistened in the air around us as people crowded together shouting “Obama! Obama!,” “Yes We Can, Yes We Can!,” and the very appropriate, “Na-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, he-ey-ey, Goodbye!” to President Bush. There was even a giant group hug. When I made my way into the center of the crowd with my American flag, a great roar came up from the crowd, and suddenly, as if on cue, people began shouting in unison: USA! USA! USA! USA!” It is a cheer that has been recently appropriated by the right wing with its “Country First” sloganeering. To hear this pure expression of love for my country from this group of young Americans, many of them black, I realized more than ever that we, my generation, has helped Barack Obama take back our country.
What we do with this power and great responsibility remains to be seen, at this perilous time in our nation’s history. And yet, like our president-elect, I remain hopeful. In our precious American democracy, we can truly accomplish great things when we come together as a people with a common purpose and dreams. Now let us take the great promise of this historic moment, and use it to become the change we wish to see in the world. Yes We Can.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Philadelphia Erupts With Celebration When Obama Won
I want to give you all a little taste of what it was like in Philadelphia right after Obama won. I headed downtown on my bicycle, my giant American flag flapping in the wind behind me, to shouts of joy and affirmation. When I got down to City hall, I joined a giant parade heading North on Broad Street, and ended up at the scene of this film, where the guys were standing on top of a news stand shouting and playing guitar. Check it out!
Progress in America
My brother shared this with me. I think it is a powerful visual representation of the incredible strides our country has made in the last several hundred years, as we have moved from owning black slaves and treating African-Americans as less than human, to this week electing the first Black president of the United States. How far we've come!
Friday, November 07, 2008
Maya Angelou: We All Rise
I'm still working on gathering my thoughts into an essay on this incredible election and amazing country. In the meantime, please take a moment to watch this moving interview with a true American hero, Maya Angelou, as she shares her thoughts on Obama's election with CBS's "Early Show."
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOVEMBER 4th is ELECTION DAY
VOTE!
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
OBAMA 08!!!
VOTE!
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
OBAMA 08!!!
Sunday, November 02, 2008
The Entire Presidential Campaign in a Minute
For those of you who haven't been following this thing as closely as you might have, here's a great minute rundown of the entire Obama/McCain race, courtesy of 23/6. Enjoy!
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Dershowitz: Why I Support Israel and Obama
For any jews still on the fence...
3 days!!
Why I Support Israel and Obama
by Alan Dershowitz
I am a strong supporter of Israel (though sometimes critical of specific policies). I am also a strong supporter of Barack Obama (though I favored Hillary Clinton during the primaries). I am now getting dozens of emails asking me how as a supporter of Israel I can vote for Barack Obama. Let me explain.
I think that on the important issues relating to Israel, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama score very high. During the debates each candidate has gone out of his and her way to emphasize strong support for Israel as an American ally and a bastion of democracy in a dangerous neighborhood. They have also expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself against the nuclear threat posed by Iran which has sworn to wipe Israel off the map and the need to prevent another Holocaust.
There may be some difference in nuance among the candidates, especially with regard to negotiations with Iran, but supporters of Israel should not base their voting decision on which party or which candidates support Israel more enthusiastically. In the United States, Israel is not a divisive issue, and voting for President is not a referendum on support for Israel, at least among the major parties.
I want to keep it that way. I want to make sure that support for Israel remains strong both among liberals and conservatives. It is clear that extremists on both sides of the political spectrum hate Israel, because they hate liberal democracies, because they tend to have a special place in their heart for tyrannical regimes, and because they often have strange views with regard to anything Jewish. The extreme left, as represented by Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Norman Finkelstein and, most recently, Jimmy Carter has little good to say about the Jewish state. But nor does the extreme right, as represented by Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Joseph Sobran and David Duke. When it comes to Israel there is little difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. Nor is there much of a difference between the centrist political left and the centrist political right: both generally support Israel. Among Israel's strongest supporters have always been Ted Kennedy, Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The same is true of the centrist political right, as represented by Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, Oren Hatch and John McCain.
Why then do I favor Obama over McCain? First, because I support him on policies unrelated to Israel, such as the Supreme Court, women's rights, separation of church and state and the economy. But I also prefer Obama to McCain on the issue of Israel. How can I say that if I have just acknowledged that on the issues they both seem to support Israel to an equal degree? The reason is because I think it is better for Israel to have a liberal supporter in the White House than to have a conservative supporter in the oval office. Obama's views on Israel will have greater impact on young people, on Europe, on the media and on others who tend to identify with the liberal perspective. Although I believe that centrists liberals in general tend to support Israel, I acknowledge that support from the left seems to be weakening as support from the right strengthens. The election of Barack Obama -- a liberal supporter of Israel -- will enhance Israel's position among wavering liberals.
As I travel around university campuses both in the United States and abroad, I see radical academics trying to present Israel as the darling of the right and anathema to the left. As a liberal supporter of Israel, I try to combat that false image. Nothing could help more in this important effort to shore up liberal support for Israel than the election of a liberal president who strongly supports Israel and who is admired by liberals throughout the world. That is among the important reasons why I support Barack Obama for president.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a Professor of Law at Harvard. His most recent book The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand In The Way of Peace which has recently been published by Wiley.
3 days!!
Why I Support Israel and Obama
by Alan Dershowitz
I am a strong supporter of Israel (though sometimes critical of specific policies). I am also a strong supporter of Barack Obama (though I favored Hillary Clinton during the primaries). I am now getting dozens of emails asking me how as a supporter of Israel I can vote for Barack Obama. Let me explain.
I think that on the important issues relating to Israel, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama score very high. During the debates each candidate has gone out of his and her way to emphasize strong support for Israel as an American ally and a bastion of democracy in a dangerous neighborhood. They have also expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself against the nuclear threat posed by Iran which has sworn to wipe Israel off the map and the need to prevent another Holocaust.
There may be some difference in nuance among the candidates, especially with regard to negotiations with Iran, but supporters of Israel should not base their voting decision on which party or which candidates support Israel more enthusiastically. In the United States, Israel is not a divisive issue, and voting for President is not a referendum on support for Israel, at least among the major parties.
I want to keep it that way. I want to make sure that support for Israel remains strong both among liberals and conservatives. It is clear that extremists on both sides of the political spectrum hate Israel, because they hate liberal democracies, because they tend to have a special place in their heart for tyrannical regimes, and because they often have strange views with regard to anything Jewish. The extreme left, as represented by Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Norman Finkelstein and, most recently, Jimmy Carter has little good to say about the Jewish state. But nor does the extreme right, as represented by Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Joseph Sobran and David Duke. When it comes to Israel there is little difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. Nor is there much of a difference between the centrist political left and the centrist political right: both generally support Israel. Among Israel's strongest supporters have always been Ted Kennedy, Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The same is true of the centrist political right, as represented by Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, Oren Hatch and John McCain.
Why then do I favor Obama over McCain? First, because I support him on policies unrelated to Israel, such as the Supreme Court, women's rights, separation of church and state and the economy. But I also prefer Obama to McCain on the issue of Israel. How can I say that if I have just acknowledged that on the issues they both seem to support Israel to an equal degree? The reason is because I think it is better for Israel to have a liberal supporter in the White House than to have a conservative supporter in the oval office. Obama's views on Israel will have greater impact on young people, on Europe, on the media and on others who tend to identify with the liberal perspective. Although I believe that centrists liberals in general tend to support Israel, I acknowledge that support from the left seems to be weakening as support from the right strengthens. The election of Barack Obama -- a liberal supporter of Israel -- will enhance Israel's position among wavering liberals.
As I travel around university campuses both in the United States and abroad, I see radical academics trying to present Israel as the darling of the right and anathema to the left. As a liberal supporter of Israel, I try to combat that false image. Nothing could help more in this important effort to shore up liberal support for Israel than the election of a liberal president who strongly supports Israel and who is admired by liberals throughout the world. That is among the important reasons why I support Barack Obama for president.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a Professor of Law at Harvard. His most recent book The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand In The Way of Peace which has recently been published by Wiley.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
YOUTH OF AMERICA: Don't Become Another Great Pumpkin! GET OUT AND VOTE FOR OBAMA
An Obama Youthquake: Great Pumpkin or Great Bet?
By Andrea Tantaros
Republican Political Commentator/Foxnews.com Contributor
Each year Democrats anticipate the youth vote as eagerly as Linus Van Pelt prepares for the Great Pumpkin. On Halloween night, Linus waits for the Great Pumpkin to appear. On Election Night the left waits for the young to appear. Invariably, the Great Pumpkin fails to show up and a humiliated but undefeated Linus vows to wait for him again the following Halloween. Similarly, the left predicts every presidential election cycle that the demographic will storm the polls in massive numbers resulting in a tidal wave of support, but like Linus their existence exists only in their imaginations. Will this year be any different?
Rewind to 2004: turnout among young people was, as a proportion of the whole electorate, almost identical to 2000’s weak showing. My generation was supposed to win it for John Kerry, so when George W. Bush defeated him in 2004 many Democrats blamed us for failing to show up in greater numbers.
Fast forward to 2008: in state after state, Obama has drawn more young voters than any of his competitors. According to the Associated Press an estimated nine million new voters of all ages have registered to vote this year, with a majority registering as Democrats. However, registration doesn’t always translate into votes.
According to The Wall Street Journal, voters under 30 have not widely participated in early voting this year. “In Florida, they account for 8 percent of cast ballots, though they make up 17 percent of voters. In North Carolina, voters under 30 make up 11 percent of cast ballots, but make up 19 percent of voters.” In addition, a poll conducted by The Journal showed that “only 54 percent of new voters said they would definitely vote on Nov. 4.”
So is Obama is simply a trend? And like most trends (parachute pants, barbed wire tattoos, and poufy bangs) will the Obamamania fizzle as quickly as it fired up?
Young people haven’t been screwed by government. Until they have, their level of intensity can’t be on par with those who are paying out the whazoo in taxes, healthcare and energy costs.
Worse yet, if the mainstream media continues to predict a landslide for Senator Obama on Election Day many youth, who for years have shown that interest doesn’t exactly equal action, could stay home. “Why bother when adults can do it for you?” is already a slogan of the millennial generation. College campuses are reported to be so saturated with Obama propaganda that fatigue has crept in. Without students on the other side to inspire competition, the extent of tween Obama support could end up resulting in the slapping of a bumper sticker on a dorm window.
“In many ways, our fate is in their hands,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said on a recent conference call with reporters, a risky bet for such an unreliable ballot box bunch and perhaps the reason for McCain’s continued optimism and perseverance.
Next Tuesday my eyes will be glued to the election results to see if for the first time in memory this voting block proves fruitful, or if Democrats are left disappointed, once again, by their Great Pumpkin.
By Andrea Tantaros
Republican Political Commentator/Foxnews.com Contributor
Each year Democrats anticipate the youth vote as eagerly as Linus Van Pelt prepares for the Great Pumpkin. On Halloween night, Linus waits for the Great Pumpkin to appear. On Election Night the left waits for the young to appear. Invariably, the Great Pumpkin fails to show up and a humiliated but undefeated Linus vows to wait for him again the following Halloween. Similarly, the left predicts every presidential election cycle that the demographic will storm the polls in massive numbers resulting in a tidal wave of support, but like Linus their existence exists only in their imaginations. Will this year be any different?
Rewind to 2004: turnout among young people was, as a proportion of the whole electorate, almost identical to 2000’s weak showing. My generation was supposed to win it for John Kerry, so when George W. Bush defeated him in 2004 many Democrats blamed us for failing to show up in greater numbers.
Fast forward to 2008: in state after state, Obama has drawn more young voters than any of his competitors. According to the Associated Press an estimated nine million new voters of all ages have registered to vote this year, with a majority registering as Democrats. However, registration doesn’t always translate into votes.
According to The Wall Street Journal, voters under 30 have not widely participated in early voting this year. “In Florida, they account for 8 percent of cast ballots, though they make up 17 percent of voters. In North Carolina, voters under 30 make up 11 percent of cast ballots, but make up 19 percent of voters.” In addition, a poll conducted by The Journal showed that “only 54 percent of new voters said they would definitely vote on Nov. 4.”
So is Obama is simply a trend? And like most trends (parachute pants, barbed wire tattoos, and poufy bangs) will the Obamamania fizzle as quickly as it fired up?
Young people haven’t been screwed by government. Until they have, their level of intensity can’t be on par with those who are paying out the whazoo in taxes, healthcare and energy costs.
Worse yet, if the mainstream media continues to predict a landslide for Senator Obama on Election Day many youth, who for years have shown that interest doesn’t exactly equal action, could stay home. “Why bother when adults can do it for you?” is already a slogan of the millennial generation. College campuses are reported to be so saturated with Obama propaganda that fatigue has crept in. Without students on the other side to inspire competition, the extent of tween Obama support could end up resulting in the slapping of a bumper sticker on a dorm window.
“In many ways, our fate is in their hands,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said on a recent conference call with reporters, a risky bet for such an unreliable ballot box bunch and perhaps the reason for McCain’s continued optimism and perseverance.
Next Tuesday my eyes will be glued to the election results to see if for the first time in memory this voting block proves fruitful, or if Democrats are left disappointed, once again, by their Great Pumpkin.
Endorsement Update #3: Conservative Edition
One of Sarah Palin's "favorite magazines," the center-right leaning Economist, has endorsed Barack Obama for President. In its editorial, they write,
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence.
Wikipedia also has a running tally of both Newspaper and Magazine endorsements, for both candidates. Obama is whipping McCain in sheer numbers, 268 to 91; an almost 3 to 1 advantage. Even more telling, 48 traditionally conservative publications have given their endorsements to Senator Obama. And it isn't only conservative papers that are coming out for Barack Obama. Higher ups in the Bush Administration, like former Press Secretary Scott McClellan and of course former Sec. of State Colin Powell will be voting for Obama. In New Hampshire, Fred Bramante, a member of McCain's New Hampshire Leadership Committee and a 2008 Alternate Delegate to the Republican National Convention today announced his support for Senator Obama's Campaign for Change. Mr. Bramante's endorsement marks the first time nationally that a delegate or alternate delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention has publicly announced their decision to support Sen. Obama. And of course, Republicans For Obama has a detailed list of the many conservatives crossing over to support Senator Obama in this election.
But hey, McCain's still got Lieberman!
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence.
Wikipedia also has a running tally of both Newspaper and Magazine endorsements, for both candidates. Obama is whipping McCain in sheer numbers, 268 to 91; an almost 3 to 1 advantage. Even more telling, 48 traditionally conservative publications have given their endorsements to Senator Obama. And it isn't only conservative papers that are coming out for Barack Obama. Higher ups in the Bush Administration, like former Press Secretary Scott McClellan and of course former Sec. of State Colin Powell will be voting for Obama. In New Hampshire, Fred Bramante, a member of McCain's New Hampshire Leadership Committee and a 2008 Alternate Delegate to the Republican National Convention today announced his support for Senator Obama's Campaign for Change. Mr. Bramante's endorsement marks the first time nationally that a delegate or alternate delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention has publicly announced their decision to support Sen. Obama. And of course, Republicans For Obama has a detailed list of the many conservatives crossing over to support Senator Obama in this election.
But hey, McCain's still got Lieberman!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The entire Obama Infomercial (sans the live cut to Florida)
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Convicted! Republican Senator Ted Stevens Going to Jail.
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was just found guilty of lying about gifts he received totaling over a quarter million dollars.
Senator Stevens, a man whom Sarah Palin helped get re-elected by directing his 527 fund, is a living embodiment of the sleazy, special interest driven, corrupt heart of the GOP soul. His conviction is the real October surprise in this campaign. His case is a metaphor for a Washington culture that is out of control, that represents the old, pre-Obama way of doing business. Thankfully, in 8 days, Americans will be able to elect a President who respects the rule of law, who has not taken a single cent from lobbyists or special interest groups.
Let's hear it for the rule of law!!!
Senator Stevens, a man whom Sarah Palin helped get re-elected by directing his 527 fund, is a living embodiment of the sleazy, special interest driven, corrupt heart of the GOP soul. His conviction is the real October surprise in this campaign. His case is a metaphor for a Washington culture that is out of control, that represents the old, pre-Obama way of doing business. Thankfully, in 8 days, Americans will be able to elect a President who respects the rule of law, who has not taken a single cent from lobbyists or special interest groups.
Let's hear it for the rule of law!!!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
La, La La La La O-BA-MA
Apparently, there is a city in Japan called Obama. A band from Obama has just put out this very funny video. Check it out!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The History Argument
I just love this story. Had to pass it on...
Upon arriving at the Hamilton County Board of Elections in Cincinnati to vote early today I happened upon some friends of my mother's — three small, elderly Jewish women. They were quite upset as they were being refused admitance to the polling location due to their Obama T-Shirts, hats and buttons. Apparently you cannot wear Obama/McCain gear into polling locations here in Ohio.... They were practically on the verge of tears.
After a minute or two of this a huge man (6'5", 300 lbs easy) wearing a Dale Earnhardt jacket and Bengal's baseball cap left the voting line, came up to us and introduced himself as Mike. He told us he had overheard our conversation and asked if the ladies would like to borrow his jacket to put over their t-shirts so they could go in and vote. The ladies quickly agreed. As long as I live I will never forget the image of these 80-plus-year-old Jewish ladies walking into the polling location wearing a huge Dale Earnhardt racing jacket that came over their hands and down to their knees!
Mike patiently waited for each woman to cast their vote, accepted their many thanks and then got back in line (I saved him a place while he was helping out the ladies). When Mike got back in line I asked him if he was an Obama supporter. He said that he was not, but that he couldn't stand to see those ladies so upset. I thanked him for being a gentleman in a time of bitter partisanship and wished him well.
After I voted I walked out to the street to find my mother's friends surrouding our new friend Mike — they were laughing and having a great time. I joined them and soon learned that Mike had changed his mind in the polling booth and ended up voting for Obama. When I asked him why he changed his mind at the last minute, he explained that while he was waiting for his jacket he got into a conversation with one of the ladies who had explained how the Jewish community, and she, had worked side by side with the black community during the civil rights movements of the '60s, and that this vote was the culmination of those personal and community efforts so many years ago. That this election for her was more than just a vote ... but a chance at history.
Mike looked at me and said, "Obama's going to win, and I didn't want to tell my grandchildren some day that I had an opportunity to vote for the first black president, but I missed my chance at history and voted for the other guy."
Upon arriving at the Hamilton County Board of Elections in Cincinnati to vote early today I happened upon some friends of my mother's — three small, elderly Jewish women. They were quite upset as they were being refused admitance to the polling location due to their Obama T-Shirts, hats and buttons. Apparently you cannot wear Obama/McCain gear into polling locations here in Ohio.... They were practically on the verge of tears.
After a minute or two of this a huge man (6'5", 300 lbs easy) wearing a Dale Earnhardt jacket and Bengal's baseball cap left the voting line, came up to us and introduced himself as Mike. He told us he had overheard our conversation and asked if the ladies would like to borrow his jacket to put over their t-shirts so they could go in and vote. The ladies quickly agreed. As long as I live I will never forget the image of these 80-plus-year-old Jewish ladies walking into the polling location wearing a huge Dale Earnhardt racing jacket that came over their hands and down to their knees!
Mike patiently waited for each woman to cast their vote, accepted their many thanks and then got back in line (I saved him a place while he was helping out the ladies). When Mike got back in line I asked him if he was an Obama supporter. He said that he was not, but that he couldn't stand to see those ladies so upset. I thanked him for being a gentleman in a time of bitter partisanship and wished him well.
After I voted I walked out to the street to find my mother's friends surrouding our new friend Mike — they were laughing and having a great time. I joined them and soon learned that Mike had changed his mind in the polling booth and ended up voting for Obama. When I asked him why he changed his mind at the last minute, he explained that while he was waiting for his jacket he got into a conversation with one of the ladies who had explained how the Jewish community, and she, had worked side by side with the black community during the civil rights movements of the '60s, and that this vote was the culmination of those personal and community efforts so many years ago. That this election for her was more than just a vote ... but a chance at history.
Mike looked at me and said, "Obama's going to win, and I didn't want to tell my grandchildren some day that I had an opportunity to vote for the first black president, but I missed my chance at history and voted for the other guy."
The GOP Blame Game Has Already Begun
While Rudy Giuliani begins fundraising for 2012, the McCain campaign has prematurely begun the circular firing squad...
Blame game: GOP forms circular firing squad
By: Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen and John F. Harris
October 23, 2008 07:45 PM EST
With despair rising even among many of John McCain’s own advisors, influential Republicans inside and outside his campaign are engaged in an intense round of blame-casting and rear-covering—-much of it virtually conceding that an Election Day rout is likely.
A McCain interview published Thursday in the Washington Times sparked the latest and most nasty round of Washington finger-pointing, with senior GOP hands close to President Bush and top congressional aides denouncing the candidate for what they said was an unfocused message and poorly executed campaign.
McCain told the Times that the administration “let things get completely out of hand” through eight years of bad decisions about Iraq, global warming, and big spending.
The candidate’s strategists in recent days have become increasingly vocal in interviews and conference calls about what they call unfair news media coverage and Barack Obama’s wide financial advantage — both complaints laying down a post-election storyline for why their own efforts proved ineffectual.
These public comments offer a whiff of an increasingly acrid behind-the-scenes GOP meltdown—a blame game played out through not-for-attribution comments to reporters that operatives know will find their way into circulation.
Top Republican officials have let it be known they are distressed about McCain’s organization. Coordination between the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee, always uneven, is now nearly dysfunctional, with little high-level contact and intelligence-sharing between the two.
“There is no communication,” lamented one top Republican. “It drives you crazy.”
At his Northern Virginia headquarters, some McCain aides are already speaking of the campaign in the past tense. Morale, even among some of the heartiest and most loyal staffers, has plummeted. And many past and current McCain advisors are warring with each other over who led the candidate astray.
One well-connected Republican in the private sector was shocked to get calls and resumes in the past few days from what he said were senior McCain aides – a breach of custom for even the worst-off campaigns.
“It’s not an extraordinarily happy place to be right now,” said one senior McCain aide. “I’m not gonna lie. It’s just unfortunate.”
“If you really want to see what ‘going negative’ is in politics, just watch the back-stabbing and blame game that we’re starting to see,” said Mark McKinnon, the ad man who left the campaign after McCain wrapped up the GOP primary. “And there’s one common theme: Everyone who wasn’t part of the campaign could have done better.”
“The cake is baked,” agreed a former McCain strategist. “We’re entering the finger-pointing and positioning-for-history part of the campaign. It’s every man for himself now.”
A circular firing squad is among the most familiar political rituals of a campaign when things aren’t going well. But it is rare for campaign aides to be so openly participating in it well before Election Day.
One current senior campaign official gave voice to this “Law of the Jungle” ethic, defending the campaign against second-guessers who say it was a mistake to throw away his experience message in an attempt to match Obama’s “change” mantra.
“Everybody agreed with the strategy,” said this official. “We were unlikely to be successful without being aggressive and taking risks.”
Running as a steady hand and basing a campaign on Obama’s sparse resume was a political loser, it was decided.
“The pollsters and the entire senior leadership of campaign believe that experience versus change was not a winning message and formulation, the same way it was no winning formula with Hillary Clinton.”
Beyond the obvious reputation-burnishing—much of it by professional operatives whose financial livelihoods depend on ensuring that they are not blamed for a bad campaign—there is a more substantive dimension. Barring a big McCain comeback, and a turnabout in numerous congressional races where the party is in trouble, the GOP is on the brink of a soul-searching debate about what to do to reclaim power. Much of that debate will hinge on appraisals of what McCain could have done differently.
That is why his criticisms of Bush hit such an exposed nerve Thursday. Was McCain hobbled by party label at a time when the incumbent president is so unpopular? Or did his uneven response to the financial rescue—and endorsement of such non-conservative ideas as a massive government purchase of homeowner mortgages—seal his fate?
Dan Schnur, a McCain communications advisor during his 2000 run and now a political analyst at the University of Southern California, said McCain should step in to halt the defeatism and self-serving leaks—an epidemic of incontinence—on his own team.
“It’s a natural and human reaction when you’re struggling to make up ground, but that doesn’t make it right,” Schnur said. “As long as the campaign is still potentially winnable, these are an unnecessary distraction. This looks like it’s reached a point where the candidate has to step in himself and crack some heads to remind everyone why they came to work for him in the first place.”
Offered a chance to respond to the suggestion that the McCain campaign is awash in defeatism, a McCain official delivered a decidedly measured appraisal: “We have a real chance in Pennsylvania. We are in trouble in Colorado, Nevada and Virginia. We have lost Iowa and New Mexico. We are OK in Missouri, Ohio and Florida. Our voter intensity is good and we can match their buy dollar for dollar starting today till the election. It’s a long shot but it’s worth fighting for.”
Earlier this week, campaign manager Rick Davis complained to reporters in a conference call that reporters refuse to call out Obama for alleged shady fund-raising tactics, but in the process revealed no small amount of envy about the Democratic financial advantage. "Now, I'd love to have that $4 million right now to put into Pennsylvania,” he said. “It'd be a good thing for our campaign. I think it's a game-changer if I can slap all of that right on Philadelphia media market. It's an expensive place. And, yet, Barack Obama gets away with raising illegitimate money and spending it.”
A New York Times Sunday magazine piece chronicling McCain’s campaign featured numerous not-for-attribution McCain staffers participating in what amounted to a campaign autopsy. One aide told writer Robert Draper, “For better or worse our campaign has been fought from tactic to tactic,” and one criticized McCain’s debate performance.
Long-time McCain alter ego Mark Salter gave an interview to Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg criticizing everything from the news media to the vagaries of fate: “Iraq was supposed to be the issue of the campaign. We assumed it was our biggest challenge. Funny how things work.”
Many conservative commentators likewise have been writing of McCain’s campaign in a valedictory tone. Among this group there is an emerging debate—one with the potential to last for a long time about the role of vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
One school—including syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal—called her a drag on the ticket and implicitly rebuked McCain’s judgment in picking her. Another school believes she is the future of the party, a view backed by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard: “Whether they know it or not, Republicans have a huge stake in Palin. If, after the election, they let her slip into political obscurity, they’ll be making a huge mistake.”
In The Week, former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote of McCain’s travails in a way that seemed to take defeat for granted and warned the GOP faces a long road back. “That’s not a failure of campaign tactics. It’s not even a failure of strategy. It’s a failure of the Republican Party and conservative movement to adapt to the times.”
While Frum was focused on the long view of history, many Republicans in Washington are much more in the moment—and much harsher in their denunciation of McCain and his team.
A senior Republican strategist, speaking with authority about the view of the party’s establishment, issued a wide-ranging critique of the McCain high command: “Lashing out at past Republican Congresses, … echoing your opponent's attacks on you instead of attacking your opponent, and spending 150,000 hard dollars on designer clothes when congressional Republicans are struggling for money, and when your senior campaign staff are blaming each other for the loss in The New York Times [Magazine] 10 days before the election, you’re not doing much to energize your supporters.
“The fact is, when you’re the party standard-bearer, you have an obligation to fight to the finish,” this strategist continued. “I think they can still win. But if they don’t think that, they need to look at how Bob Dole finished out his campaign in 1996 and not try to take down as many Republicans with them as they can. Instead of campaigning in Electoral College states, Dole was campaigning in places he knew he didn’t have a chance to beat Clinton, but where he could energize key House and Senate races.”
A House Republican leadership aide in an e-mail was no more complimentary: “The staff has been remarkably undisciplined, too eager to point fingers, unable to craft any coherent long term strategy. The handling of Palin (not her performances, but her rollout and availability) has been nothing short of political malpractice. I understand the candidate might have other opinions and might be dictating some aspects of the campaign to staff – but the lack of discipline and ability to draft and stick to a coherent message is unreal. You have half of the campaign saying Ayers is a major issue, and then the candidate out there saying he doesn’t care about a washed up terrorist. You have McCain one day echoing Milton Friedman and the next day echoing FDR.”
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
Blame game: GOP forms circular firing squad
By: Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen and John F. Harris
October 23, 2008 07:45 PM EST
With despair rising even among many of John McCain’s own advisors, influential Republicans inside and outside his campaign are engaged in an intense round of blame-casting and rear-covering—-much of it virtually conceding that an Election Day rout is likely.
A McCain interview published Thursday in the Washington Times sparked the latest and most nasty round of Washington finger-pointing, with senior GOP hands close to President Bush and top congressional aides denouncing the candidate for what they said was an unfocused message and poorly executed campaign.
McCain told the Times that the administration “let things get completely out of hand” through eight years of bad decisions about Iraq, global warming, and big spending.
The candidate’s strategists in recent days have become increasingly vocal in interviews and conference calls about what they call unfair news media coverage and Barack Obama’s wide financial advantage — both complaints laying down a post-election storyline for why their own efforts proved ineffectual.
These public comments offer a whiff of an increasingly acrid behind-the-scenes GOP meltdown—a blame game played out through not-for-attribution comments to reporters that operatives know will find their way into circulation.
Top Republican officials have let it be known they are distressed about McCain’s organization. Coordination between the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee, always uneven, is now nearly dysfunctional, with little high-level contact and intelligence-sharing between the two.
“There is no communication,” lamented one top Republican. “It drives you crazy.”
At his Northern Virginia headquarters, some McCain aides are already speaking of the campaign in the past tense. Morale, even among some of the heartiest and most loyal staffers, has plummeted. And many past and current McCain advisors are warring with each other over who led the candidate astray.
One well-connected Republican in the private sector was shocked to get calls and resumes in the past few days from what he said were senior McCain aides – a breach of custom for even the worst-off campaigns.
“It’s not an extraordinarily happy place to be right now,” said one senior McCain aide. “I’m not gonna lie. It’s just unfortunate.”
“If you really want to see what ‘going negative’ is in politics, just watch the back-stabbing and blame game that we’re starting to see,” said Mark McKinnon, the ad man who left the campaign after McCain wrapped up the GOP primary. “And there’s one common theme: Everyone who wasn’t part of the campaign could have done better.”
“The cake is baked,” agreed a former McCain strategist. “We’re entering the finger-pointing and positioning-for-history part of the campaign. It’s every man for himself now.”
A circular firing squad is among the most familiar political rituals of a campaign when things aren’t going well. But it is rare for campaign aides to be so openly participating in it well before Election Day.
One current senior campaign official gave voice to this “Law of the Jungle” ethic, defending the campaign against second-guessers who say it was a mistake to throw away his experience message in an attempt to match Obama’s “change” mantra.
“Everybody agreed with the strategy,” said this official. “We were unlikely to be successful without being aggressive and taking risks.”
Running as a steady hand and basing a campaign on Obama’s sparse resume was a political loser, it was decided.
“The pollsters and the entire senior leadership of campaign believe that experience versus change was not a winning message and formulation, the same way it was no winning formula with Hillary Clinton.”
Beyond the obvious reputation-burnishing—much of it by professional operatives whose financial livelihoods depend on ensuring that they are not blamed for a bad campaign—there is a more substantive dimension. Barring a big McCain comeback, and a turnabout in numerous congressional races where the party is in trouble, the GOP is on the brink of a soul-searching debate about what to do to reclaim power. Much of that debate will hinge on appraisals of what McCain could have done differently.
That is why his criticisms of Bush hit such an exposed nerve Thursday. Was McCain hobbled by party label at a time when the incumbent president is so unpopular? Or did his uneven response to the financial rescue—and endorsement of such non-conservative ideas as a massive government purchase of homeowner mortgages—seal his fate?
Dan Schnur, a McCain communications advisor during his 2000 run and now a political analyst at the University of Southern California, said McCain should step in to halt the defeatism and self-serving leaks—an epidemic of incontinence—on his own team.
“It’s a natural and human reaction when you’re struggling to make up ground, but that doesn’t make it right,” Schnur said. “As long as the campaign is still potentially winnable, these are an unnecessary distraction. This looks like it’s reached a point where the candidate has to step in himself and crack some heads to remind everyone why they came to work for him in the first place.”
Offered a chance to respond to the suggestion that the McCain campaign is awash in defeatism, a McCain official delivered a decidedly measured appraisal: “We have a real chance in Pennsylvania. We are in trouble in Colorado, Nevada and Virginia. We have lost Iowa and New Mexico. We are OK in Missouri, Ohio and Florida. Our voter intensity is good and we can match their buy dollar for dollar starting today till the election. It’s a long shot but it’s worth fighting for.”
Earlier this week, campaign manager Rick Davis complained to reporters in a conference call that reporters refuse to call out Obama for alleged shady fund-raising tactics, but in the process revealed no small amount of envy about the Democratic financial advantage. "Now, I'd love to have that $4 million right now to put into Pennsylvania,” he said. “It'd be a good thing for our campaign. I think it's a game-changer if I can slap all of that right on Philadelphia media market. It's an expensive place. And, yet, Barack Obama gets away with raising illegitimate money and spending it.”
A New York Times Sunday magazine piece chronicling McCain’s campaign featured numerous not-for-attribution McCain staffers participating in what amounted to a campaign autopsy. One aide told writer Robert Draper, “For better or worse our campaign has been fought from tactic to tactic,” and one criticized McCain’s debate performance.
Long-time McCain alter ego Mark Salter gave an interview to Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg criticizing everything from the news media to the vagaries of fate: “Iraq was supposed to be the issue of the campaign. We assumed it was our biggest challenge. Funny how things work.”
Many conservative commentators likewise have been writing of McCain’s campaign in a valedictory tone. Among this group there is an emerging debate—one with the potential to last for a long time about the role of vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
One school—including syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal—called her a drag on the ticket and implicitly rebuked McCain’s judgment in picking her. Another school believes she is the future of the party, a view backed by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard: “Whether they know it or not, Republicans have a huge stake in Palin. If, after the election, they let her slip into political obscurity, they’ll be making a huge mistake.”
In The Week, former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote of McCain’s travails in a way that seemed to take defeat for granted and warned the GOP faces a long road back. “That’s not a failure of campaign tactics. It’s not even a failure of strategy. It’s a failure of the Republican Party and conservative movement to adapt to the times.”
While Frum was focused on the long view of history, many Republicans in Washington are much more in the moment—and much harsher in their denunciation of McCain and his team.
A senior Republican strategist, speaking with authority about the view of the party’s establishment, issued a wide-ranging critique of the McCain high command: “Lashing out at past Republican Congresses, … echoing your opponent's attacks on you instead of attacking your opponent, and spending 150,000 hard dollars on designer clothes when congressional Republicans are struggling for money, and when your senior campaign staff are blaming each other for the loss in The New York Times [Magazine] 10 days before the election, you’re not doing much to energize your supporters.
“The fact is, when you’re the party standard-bearer, you have an obligation to fight to the finish,” this strategist continued. “I think they can still win. But if they don’t think that, they need to look at how Bob Dole finished out his campaign in 1996 and not try to take down as many Republicans with them as they can. Instead of campaigning in Electoral College states, Dole was campaigning in places he knew he didn’t have a chance to beat Clinton, but where he could energize key House and Senate races.”
A House Republican leadership aide in an e-mail was no more complimentary: “The staff has been remarkably undisciplined, too eager to point fingers, unable to craft any coherent long term strategy. The handling of Palin (not her performances, but her rollout and availability) has been nothing short of political malpractice. I understand the candidate might have other opinions and might be dictating some aspects of the campaign to staff – but the lack of discipline and ability to draft and stick to a coherent message is unreal. You have half of the campaign saying Ayers is a major issue, and then the candidate out there saying he doesn’t care about a washed up terrorist. You have McCain one day echoing Milton Friedman and the next day echoing FDR.”
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Endorsement Update #2
Obama continues his overwhelming sweep of newspaper endorsements into this week on two significant fronts. Firstly, on sheer numbers, Obama is beating McCain, 115 to 40. By contrast, in 2004, Kerry barely edged Bush in newspaper endorsement by around a dozen papers or less. More significantly, Obama has already received 26 endorsements from papers that endorsed Bush in 2004, including several papers that have never before endorsed a Democrat, or have done so only one or two times in the last century.
Also significant is the fact the Monday's Zogby poll put Obama at the 50% mark for the first time in national polling numbers, with Obama edging McCain 50-44%. While Obama has been over 50% for some time in Gallup and other polls, this is the first time he has taken this significant "winning" edge in a poll that has traditionally leaned towards the Republicans, and which many conservatives still point to as proof that the race is still closer than it seems. It is also important to note, in this same poll, that while McCain was gaining ground last week, he has once again capped off at or below 45%. He simply has not been able to maintain a sustained place in the polls above 45%. Without a significant change in the underlying dynamics of the race, McCain's White House hopes are looking all the more distant.
Also significant is the fact the Monday's Zogby poll put Obama at the 50% mark for the first time in national polling numbers, with Obama edging McCain 50-44%. While Obama has been over 50% for some time in Gallup and other polls, this is the first time he has taken this significant "winning" edge in a poll that has traditionally leaned towards the Republicans, and which many conservatives still point to as proof that the race is still closer than it seems. It is also important to note, in this same poll, that while McCain was gaining ground last week, he has once again capped off at or below 45%. He simply has not been able to maintain a sustained place in the polls above 45%. Without a significant change in the underlying dynamics of the race, McCain's White House hopes are looking all the more distant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
